On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:39:05PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 10:24 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'd like to ping a couple of patches: > > > > PR target/91913 - arm movsi + cmpsi -> movsi_compare0 peephole2 ICE fix > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00010.html > Letting the ARM guys deal with this.
Yes, that is resolved now (Richard E. committed his patch and I've committed the testcase). > > PR preprocessor/92319 - partially implement P1042R1: __VA_OPT__ wording > > clarifications > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg02104.html > Jason for this one. Of course; I just chose to send a ping for all my pending patches and add to To: all relevant maintainers. > > PR target/93069 - avx512* rejects-valid fix (rejected by assembler) > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01606.html > This is in my queue :-) Ok. > > PR tree-optimization/92868 - compute_objsize/gimple_call_alloc_size > > /maybe_warn_overflow fixes > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01164.html > Martin's patch should have addressed all the issues and should include > your tests (tweaked, but supposed to be equivalent). No, this is something different, this isn't what has been covered by the testcases, but something found by code inspection, mainly inconsistencies in the APIs, e.g. the ranges represented as sizetype most of the time, but with one exception where it could be some other type (wider or narrower), or sometimes the range being incorrect (if there is possible overflow and we punt, we didn't change the ranges effectively to VARYING, but just capped the maximum), or INTEGER_CSTs compared by pointer equality rather than operand_equal_p. Jakub
