Snapshot gcc-5-20170919 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20170919/
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 Tue, 2017-09-19 at 11:13 +1000, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00929.html
> I tried the testases you have in the patch with type promotion. Looks
> like forwprop is reversing the promotion there. I haven't looked in
> detail yet but -fno-tree-for
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 01:40:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I think this would be very useful. Some of the regressions in type
> > promotion comes from parameters/return values. ABI in some cases
> > guarantees that they are properly extended but during type promotion
> > we promote (or ext
On 09/18/2017 06:19 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would like to see the GCC project to document that if the address of a
member is taken, this does not constitute an access to the object as a
whole.
That is, in the following code:
#include
struct S {
_Atomic int a;
int b;
};
int
load_a (st
On 09/19/2017 05:40 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> We might also need some way of having gimple statements that can
>> convert (or promote to the type without extensions) just to keep the
>> gimple type system happy.
>
> Yes, one of the "issues" is GIMPLE doesn't have subregs (I think that's
> a go
On 09/19/2017 12:50 AM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 01:35, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/18/2017 01:06 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
Hi,
This was discussed a few time ago in this email thread :
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-02/msg00235.html
As per the discussion, the attached pa
On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 15:36 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 03:32 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 07:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 09/18/2017 10:07 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 14:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I would like
On 09/19/2017 03:32 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 07:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/18/2017 10:07 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 14:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would like to see the GCC project to document that if the address of a
member is taken
On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 07:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/18/2017 10:07 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 14:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> I would like to see the GCC project to document that if the address of a
> >> member is taken, this does not constitute an acces
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 16 September 2017 at 06:12, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On September 15, 2017 6:56:04 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>On 09/15/2017 10:19 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 09:18:23AM -060
10 matches
Mail list logo
