gcc-6-20180815 is now available

Snapshot gcc-6-20180815 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20180815/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6

Re: Help with fixinclude fix for PR86599

The change should not unintentionally affect existing tests. The new test should be exactly the text that "make check" produces, not what you think it should look like and not like another, neighboring test. If the test doesn't look as you expect, you need to examine your test text. You also can

Re: Help with fixinclude fix for PR86599

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 03:52:33PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > You must manually insert the additional test lines into the appropriate > file in fixincludes/tests/base and then retest. > > Please see step (6) in fixincludes/README Ok, thanks. fixincludes/tests/res/stdlib.h has: #if defined(

Re: Help with fixinclude fix for PR86599

You must manually insert the additional test lines into the appropriate file in fixincludes/tests/base and then retest. Please see step (6) in fixincludes/README Thanks, David On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:46 PM Albert Chin wrote: > Hi. I've come up with a fixincl fix for PR86599 but "make chec

Help with fixinclude fix for PR86599

Hi. I've come up with a fixincl fix for PR86599 but "make check" in the fixincludes directory does not work and I do not know why. I know just enough fixincl-fu to produce a patch for this issue. I am trying to convert a chunk of code in stdlib on HP-UX 11.31/PA: # ifndef _LONG_DOUBLE #define

Re: Trying to convert to LRA, running into an ICE (infinite reload loop)

> On Aug 15, 2018, at 1:01 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 08/14/2018 01:32 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >> I'm trying to convert the pdp11 target to use LRA. >> >> A lot of it "just works". But one of the test suite files fails in a way >> that I can't figure out at all. I'm hoping for some help or

Re: Why did Intel change his static branch prediction mechanism over these years?

On 08/15/2018 01:16 PM, 2016 quekong wrote: Hi, Florian. There is a movement to replace table-driven stack unwinding with a conditional branch after most function calls... I am sorry I don't understand its meaning, forgive my poor knowledge of dynamic prediction, I am reading relative mater

Re: [GSOC] LTO dump tool project - feedback

Hi. After last update of the branch, there's a feedback that will be needed before we can adept to have it merged into trunk: 1) there's patch for lto-dump proper install: diff --git a/gcc/lto/Make-lang.in b/gcc/lto/Make-lang.in index e474f85ebc6..e9d2659025c 100644 --- a/gcc/lto/Make-lang.in ++

Re: Why did Intel change his static branch prediction mechanism over these years?

Hi, Florian. >>>There is a movement to replace table-driven stack unwinding with a >>>conditional branch after most function calls... I am sorry I don't understand its meaning, forgive my poor knowledge of dynamic prediction, I am reading relative materials these days, could you explain a little

Re: Why did Intel change his static branch prediction mechanism over these years?

On 08/14/2018 03:36 PM, 2016 quekong wrote: And Intel seems don't want to talk about it any more, because the latest material I found within Intel Document was written about ten years ago. Since branch prediction is nowadays a security feature, I doubt you will see detailed public documentati

Getting Wales Moving 2019

GETTING WALES MOVING DELIVERING ON THE WELL-BEING OF WALES 27TH FEBRUARY 2019 HILTON HOTEL - CARDIFF Following on from the hugely successful inaugural Getting Wales Moving Conference - Delivering on the Well-being for Future Generations Act, we are delighted to announce the second conference in