On 11/11/2017 05:33 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
CC gcc list. According to Alexei:
This is a known issue with gcc 7 on mips that is "optimizing"
normal 64-bit multiply into 128-bit variant.
Nothing to fix on the kernel side.
I filed a bug report. This is now
https
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/13/2017 01:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> Huh, that bites. Im surprised we don't just make those places produce a
>>> cast, or just introduce an explicit cast of the (void *)0 during the
>>> expression building process.
>>
>> I'm quite
On 11/13/2017 01:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Huh, that bites. Im surprised we don't just make those places produce a
>> cast, or just introduce an explicit cast of the (void *)0 during the
>> expression building process.
>
> I'm quite sure we could relax the above now given we have gimple_ca
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> So I have two questions here.
>> A) Is this special kind union type only generated by fortran FE for
>> equivalence+common?
>
> It's not special in that it isn't marked in any way. For all pu
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> So I have two questions here.
> A) Is this special kind union type only generated by fortran FE for
> equivalence+common?
It's not special in that it isn't marked in any way. For all purposes
it's a normal union type with surprising field(offset)s. I
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 09:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Andrew MacLeod
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Before I open a PR, I want to confirm my beliefs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it not true that both operations of a gimple operation su
