Hi,
I find there are many "ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED" macros in the function parameter lists,
but some of the parameters are used in the function bodies in fact. E.g.
@@gcc/final.c
void
output_operand (rtx x, int code ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
{
if (x && GET_CODE (x) == SUBREG)
x = alter_subre
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 7:51 AM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
wrote:
> Is this restriction still valid today? Is there a reason we can't
> introduce new pseudos in a splitter before LRA?
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683
for an example of what can go wrong when a splitter cre
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 16:55, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 14:33, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:26 AM Christophe Lyon via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 12:26, Richard Earnshaw
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 23/09/2020
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 14:33, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:26 AM Christophe Lyon via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 12:26, Richard Earnshaw
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23/09/2020 11:20, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:22:52AM +01
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 17:33, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 9/23/20 2:54 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/22/20 9:15 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 17:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
On 9/23/20 2:54 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/22/20 9:15 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 17:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
Hi Christophe,
While checking recent test results I noticed many posts with results
for various flavors
Hi,
"Defining How to Split Instructions" in gccint states the following:
The preparation-statements are similar to those statements that are
specified for define_expand ... Unlike those in define_expand, however,
these statements must not generate any new pseudo-registers.
I see that there is co
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 02:42:01PM +0200, Dennis Luehring wrote:
> i've read that scoped template specalization is allowed in C++17
>
>
> clang supports it starting with release 7
>
> MSVC supports it with VS2017(i don't know what revision)
>
> Intel does not like it
Because CWG 727 isn't impl
i've read that scoped template specalization is allowed in C++17 - is it
planned for the next gcc release?
otherwise i will switch to an if constexpr solution - but would be still
to have this feature
checked compiler:
gcc trunk (and latest intel) do not support it
clang (starting with release
i've read that scoped template specalization is allowed in C++17
suports it:
-clang starting with release 7
-MSVC starting with VS2017(i don't know what revision)
no support:
-gcc(trunk)
-latest Intel
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1GET6v
--
enum class E{ A, B };
struct Ta{ int x; };
struct
i've read that scoped template specalization is allowed in C++17
clang supports it starting with release 7
MSVC supports it with VS2017(i don't know what revision)
Intel does not like it
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1GET6v
--
enumclass E{ A, B };
struct Ta{ int x; };
struct Tb{ float y;
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:26 AM Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 12:26, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
> >
> > On 23/09/2020 11:20, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > >> So that would give:
> > >>
> > >>
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 12:26, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
> On 23/09/2020 11:20, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> So that would give:
> >>
> >> Results for 8.4.1 20200918 [r8-10517] on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
> >>
> >> and ho
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 13:22, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:25 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 16:36, Richard Biener
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 20
On Sep 23 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:37:52PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Sep 23 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>>
>> > Even that 8.4.1 20200918 is redundant, r8-10517 uniquely and shortly
>> > identifies both the branch and commit.
>>
>> But it requires a
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:37:52PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Sep 23 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Even that 8.4.1 20200918 is redundant, r8-10517 uniquely and shortly
> > identifies both the branch and commit.
>
> But it requires a repository to identify. Often, redundant info
On Sep 23 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> Even that 8.4.1 20200918 is redundant, r8-10517 uniquely and shortly
> identifies both the branch and commit.
But it requires a repository to identify. Often, redundant information
is useful.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG
On 23/09/2020 11:20, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> So that would give:
>>
>> Results for 8.4.1 20200918 [r8-10517] on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
>>
>> and hopefully free up some space at the end for the kind of thing
>> you me
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> So that would give:
>
> Results for 8.4.1 20200918 [r8-10517] on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
>
> and hopefully free up some space at the end for the kind of thing
> you mention.
Even that 8.4.1 20200918 is redundant, r8-10517
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 13:22, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:25 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 16:36, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:37 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020
Christophe Lyon via Gcc writes:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> On 9/22/20 9:15 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 17:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Christophe,
>> >>
>> >> While checking recent test results I noticed many posts with results
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 9/22/20 9:15 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 17:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Christophe,
> >>
> >> While checking recent test results I noticed many posts with results
> >> for various flavors of arm that at hi
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:25 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 16:36, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:37 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 12:56, Richard Biener
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 20
23 matches
Mail list logo
