Snapshot gcc-5-20150728 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20150728/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5
On 21/04/15 06:27, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/20/2015 01:09 AM, Shiva Chen wrote:
Hi, Jeff
Thanks for your advice.
can_replace_by.patch is the new patch to handle both cases.
pr43920-2.c.244r.jump2.ori is the original jump2 rtl dump
pr43920-2.c.244r.jump2.patch_can_replace_by is the jump2 rtl du
On 07/28/2015 04:40 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> The block skips the test for ((unsigned int) xx << 1 == 0 && yy == -1),
> should we skip it if they're both zero as well?
Yes. It's undefined behaviour. If we don't want to invoke nasal
daemons we shouldn't do this.
Andrew.
On 07/28/2015 08:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On July 28, 2015 4:37:15 PM GMT+02:00, "Uday P. Khedker"
wrote:
Richard Biener wrote on Tuesday 28 July 2015 01:12 PM:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Uday Khedker
wrote:
We have added a new field (bool ptr_arith in struct tree_base) to
the
Hi,
What are the expectations for the 0/0 division?
Test execute.exp=arith-rand.c generates two integers, both being 0 and one of
the testing blocks is:
{ signed int xx = x, yy = y, r1, r2;
if ((unsigned int) xx << 1 == 0 && yy == -1)
continue;
r1 = xx / yy;
On July 28, 2015 4:37:15 PM GMT+02:00, "Uday P. Khedker"
wrote:
>
>
>Richard Biener wrote on Tuesday 28 July 2015 01:12 PM:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Uday Khedker
>wrote:
>>> We have added a new field (bool ptr_arith in struct tree_base) to
>the tree
>>> node. We are assigning values t
Richard Biener wrote on Tuesday 28 July 2015 01:12 PM:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
We have added a new field (bool ptr_arith in struct tree_base) to the tree
node. We are assigning values to this field in a gimple pass in non-LTO mode
and would like to access them in
On 27/07/15 21:16 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hello
There are at the moment several failures in the libstdc++ testsuite
when run in debug mode (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG). This is so because debug
assertions are not const expressions. Several debug assertions have been
removed because of this issue.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Abe wrote:
> First: my apologies for the delay in this reply.
Likewise ;)
>
> [Richard wrote:]
>>
>> Well, but we do have a pretty strong if-converter on RTL
>
>> which has access to target specific information.
>
> Yes, I have had a quick look at it. It looks
Hi,
other bits. Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
//
2015-07-28 Paolo Carlini
* call.c (build_op_delete_call, convert_like_real, build_over_call):
Use Use DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION and "%qD" in inform and pedwarn instead
of "%q+D".
* constexp
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
>
> We have added a new field (bool ptr_arith in struct tree_base) to the tree
> node. We are assigning values to this field in a gimple pass in non-LTO mode
> and would like to access them in LTO mode in our ipa passes. It appears that
> all fi
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
>
>
> Jakub Jelinek wrote on Monday 27 July 2015 03:50 PM:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 03:35:45PM +0530, Uday Khedker wrote:
>>>
>>> We are interested in extracting the type of a tree node that appears
>>> within
>>> MEM_REF.
>>>
>>> Given
12 matches
Mail list logo
