Re: [PATCH v3] gcc/config/tilegx/tilegx.c (tilegx_function_profiler): Save r10 to stack before call mcount

On 10/21/2016 6:24 PM, Chen Gang wrote: On 10/20/16 06:42, Jeff Law wrote: On 6/4/16 21:25, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote: From: Chen Gang r10 may also be as parameter stack pointer for the nested function, so need save it before call mcount. Also clean up code:

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/78033 -- This was a REAL pain

> Le 22 oct. 2016 à 16:42, Steve Kargl a > écrit : > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:22:47PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> See comments in pr78033. What are the plans to handle pr54730? >> > > Not sure what you mean. I certainly will not remove >

[testsuite] UnXFAIL gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c on SPARC

Tested on SPARC/Solaris, applied on the mainline. 2016-10-22 Eric Botcazou * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c: Remove XFAIL on SPARC. -- Eric BotcazouIndex: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c === ---

Re: [PATCH] Also fold bmi/bmi2/tbm bextr/bextri/bzhi/pext/pdep builtins

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:46:30PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: This patch on top of the just posted patch

Re: [v3 PATCH] Cross-port the latest resolution of LWG2756 and some bug-fixes to experimental::optional.

On 22 October 2016 at 19:34, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Cross-port the latest resolution of LWG2756 and some > bug-fixes to experimental::optional. > PR libstc++/77288 > PR libstdc++/77727 And yes, I'll fix that first PR reference before committing

[v3 PATCH] Cross-port the latest resolution of LWG2756 and some bug-fixes to experimental::optional.

Tested on Linux-x64. Ok for trunk and the gcc-6 branch? 2016-10-22 Ville Voutilainen Cross-port the latest resolution of LWG2756 and some bug-fixes to experimental::optional. PR libstc++/77288 PR libstdc++/77727 * include/experimental/optional

backport fix for c/71115 to branches?

Bug 71115 - [5/6 Regression] Missing warning: excess elements in struct initializer, was fixed on trunk but the bug is still open since the patch hasn't been backported to the affected branches. Is it okay to go ahead and backport it to 6.x and 5.x? The original patch was posted here:

Re: [PATCH] Also fold bmi/bmi2/tbm bextr/bextri/bzhi/pext/pdep builtins

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:46:30PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > >> This patch on top of the just posted patch adds folding for a couple more >

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/78033 -- This was a REAL pain

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:22:47PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > See comments in pr78033. What are the plans to handle pr54730? > Not sure what you mean. I certainly will not remove Mikael's checkpointing in the array constructor code, leaving array_constructor_43.f90 broken. -- Steve

Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR{43366, 57117, 61337, 61376}, v1] Assign to polymorphic objects.

Hi Paul, thanks for the review. Committed as r241439. The first nit has gone to the patch for pr78053 as agreed upon. The second nit: > + class(r), allocatable :: foo ! Need this declared of copy_R is not > generated. has magically disappeared. I assume that it was necessary on an

[patch, fortran] Fix PR 78021

Hello world, this rather self-explanatory patch fixes a problem where two function invocations with 'c' and 'c' as arguments were considered equal. Regression-tested. OK for trunk and 6 and 5 branches? Regards Thomas 2016-10-22 Thomas Koenig PR

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/78033 -- This was a REAL pain

See comments in pr78033. What are the plans to handle pr54730? Dominique

Re: [PATCH] Three patches for std::experimental::filesystem

On 21/10/16 18:01 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: LWG2720 implement filesystem::perms::symlink_nofollow * include/experimental/bits/fs_fwd.h (perms::resolve_symlinks): Replace with symlink_nofollow (LWG 2720). * src/filesystem/ops.cc (permissions(const path&, perms,

Re: [PATCH] Also fold bmi/bmi2/tbm bextr/bextri/bzhi/pext/pdep builtins

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> This patch on top of the just posted patch adds folding for a couple more >> builtins (though, hundreds or thousands of other md builtins remain

Re: [rs6000] Add support for signed overflow arithmetic

Hi Eric, Thanks for the patch. Unfortunately there is a big problem with it :-( On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:03:33AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > this implements support for signed overflow arithmetic on PowerPC. It's an > implementation for Power ISA v2.0x, i.e. it doesn't take account the

Re: Use version namespace in normal mode

On 21/10/16 21:21 +0200, François Dumont wrote: Hi I configured libstdc++ to use gnu-version-namespace and there are a number of failures, see below. But none of them related to this patch so is it ok to commit ? Yes, OK to commit - it doesn't make the test results any worse than they

Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR{43366, 57117, 61337, 61376}, v1] Assign to polymorphic objects.

Dear Andre, For the bulk of the patch, I have no comments. However, for the testcase alloc_comp_class_5.f03, please eliminate the commented out lines and the TODO, as discussed on #gfortran. Add them to the testcase for for PR78053, as we agreed. In realloc_on_assign_27.f08, you have the

Re: relax rule for flexible array members in 6.x (78039 - fails to compile glibc tests)

> However, it was pointed out to me that apparently there is a policy > or convention of not backporting to release branches bug fixes that > cause GCC to reject code that was previously accepted, even if the > code is invalid. It's more of a judgment call I'd say, if the accept-invalid leads to

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR69834 - Collision in derived type hashes

I also see FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_type_9.f03 -O (test for errors, line 16) FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_type_9.f03 -O (test for excess errors) The errors emitted by the test have changed from /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_type_9.f03:16:11: class is (t) ! { dg-error

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR69834 - Collision in derived type hashes

Hi Dominique, Thanks for the heads up! I was going to review Andre's patch this morning, so I will clean my tree, apply it, confirm that it is regression free and then will generate a compatible version of my patch for PR69834. I strongly suspect that the core of the patch is OK and that it is

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/78033 -- This was a REAL pain

Hi Steve, Thanks for persevering with this. The patch looks good to me. If it has regtested OK, please feel free to commit. Cheers Paul On 22 October 2016 at 02:22, Steve Kargl wrote: > All, > > The attached patch fixes PR fortran/78033. This was a REAL

Re: [PATCH] Extend -Wint-in-bool-context to warn for multiplications

On 10/22/16 04:17, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 10/21/2016 04:37 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: >> The quoting in the diagnostic should be %<&&%>, not '&&'. > > Presumably same for '*' (i.e., %<*%>). > > But I would actually suggest a somewhat more formal phrasing than > "better use xxx here" such as