Re: Memory alignment for arrays in GCC for ARM

On 02/11/2024 00:55, Oren Zvi via Gcc wrote: > Hi, > > Was wondering about a curious thing that the compiler does. > For the code > > static void createX() > { > static char ; > static uint8_t y; > > printf("%c %c\r\n", y, ); > } > > I am getting the following lines in the m

Re: Automatic URLs in forgejo? (was Re: Sourceware forge experiment)

On 24/10/2024 16:29, David Malcolm wrote: > On Mon, 2024-10-21 at 03:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> As an experiment Sourceware is now running an forgejo v9 instance at >> https://forge.sourceware.org >> >> Everybody with an @sourceware.org, @cygwin.com or @gcc.gnu.org >> address >> can register

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

On 27/09/2024 10:03, David Brown via Gcc wrote: > On 27/09/2024 10:13, Dennis Luehring via Gcc wrote: >> Am 27.09.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: >>> On Fri, 27 Sept 2024, 08:39 Dennis Luehring, wrote: >>> >>> > Am 27.09.2024 um 09:34 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: >>> > >>> > >>> > > They might

Re: On pull request workflows for the GNU toolchain

On 19/09/2024 16:51, Joseph Myers via Gcc wrote: 1. Introduction This message expands on my remarks at the Cauldron (especially the patch review and maintenance BoF, and the Sourceware infrastructure BoF) regarding desired features for a system providing pull request functionality (patch submiss

Re: [PATCH v1] Remove 'restrict' from 'nptr' in strtol(3)-like functions

On 05/07/2024 17:11, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 16:54, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc > wrote: >> At least, I hope there's consensus that while current GCC doesn't warn >> about this, ideally it should, which means it should warn for valid uses >> of strtol(3), which means

Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: require a BZ account field

On 25/06/2024 20:08, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc wrote: > Hi, > > Richard Biener writes: > >> [snip] >>> I was also proposing (and would like to re-air that here) enforcing >>> that the committer field of each commit is a (valid) @gcc.gnu.org >>> email. This can be configured repo-locally via: >>>

Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: require a BZ account field

On 27/06/2024 13:29, Sam James via Gcc wrote: > "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes: > >> On 24/06/2024 22:34, Sam James via Gcc wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> This comes up in #gcc on IRC every so often, so finally >>> writing an RFC. >>&g

Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: require a BZ account field

On 24/06/2024 23:34, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc wrote: > Hi, > > Sam James via Gcc writes: > >> Hi! >> >> This comes up in #gcc on IRC every so often, so finally >> writing an RFC. >> >> What? >> --- >> >> I propose that MAINTAINERS be modified to be of the form, >> adding an extra field for their

Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: require a BZ account field

On 24/06/2024 22:34, Sam James via Gcc wrote: > Hi! > > This comes up in #gcc on IRC every so often, so finally > writing an RFC. > > What? > --- > > I propose that MAINTAINERS be modified to be of the form, > adding an extra field for their GCC/sourceware account: >a

Re: gcc git locked out for hours second day in a row

On 12/06/2024 14:23, Mikael Morin via Gcc wrote: > Le 12/06/2024 à 14:58, Jonathan Wakely a écrit : >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 13:57, Mikael Morin via Gcc wrote: >>> >>> Le 12/06/2024 à 13:48, Jakub Jelinek a écrit : Hi! Yesterday the gcc git repository was locked for 3 hours lo

Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans

On 23/04/2024 09:56, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:51:00PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:24 PM Tom Tromey wrote: >>> Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried >>> Jason> unsuccessfully. >>> >>> We tried it and gdb and

Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans

On 23/04/2024 04:24, Tom Tromey wrote: > Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried > Jason> unsuccessfully. > > We tried it and gdb and then abandoned it. We tried to integrate it > into the traditional gdb development style, having it send email to > gdb-patches. I found

Re: Patches submission policy change

On 03/04/2024 14:23, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 14:59, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >> Another possible issue which may be better now than in years past >> is that the versions of autoconf/automake required often had to be >> installed by hand. I think newlib has gotten bett

Re: Help needed with maintainer-mode

On 06/03/2024 15:04, Andrew Carlotti via Gcc wrote: > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 12:00, Mark Wielaard wrote: >>> >>> Hi Christophe, >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:22:33AM +0100, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: I've not

Re: Help needed with maintainer-mode

On 05/03/2024 14:26, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 04/03/2024 20:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 19:27, Vladimir Mezentsev >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/4/24 09:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >>>>

Re: Help needed with maintainer-mode

On 04/03/2024 20:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 19:27, Vladimir Mezentsev > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/4/24 09:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >>> Tools like git (and svn before it) don't try to maintain time-stamps on >>

Re: Help needed with maintainer-mode

On 04/03/2024 16:42, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 16:41, Richard Earnshaw > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 04/03/2024 15:36, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> > On 04/03/2024 14:46, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: >> >> On Mon,

Re: Help needed with maintainer-mode

On 04/03/2024 15:36, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 04/03/2024 14:46, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 12:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:44, Christophe Lyon via Gcc >>> wrote: >>>>

Re: Help needed with maintainer-mode

On 04/03/2024 14:46, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 12:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:44, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:36, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! On 2024-03-04T00:30:05+,

Re: Help needed with maintainer-mode

On 29/02/2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: > Hi! > > Sorry for cross-posting, but I'm not sure the rules/guidelines are the > same in gcc vs binutils/gdb. > > TL;DR: are there some guidelines about how to use/enable maintainer-mode? > > In the context of the Linaro CI, I've been looking

Re: Discussion about arm/aarch64 testcase failures seen with patch for PR111673

ped and regtested on powerpc) that makes changes in > LRA to save volatile registers before a call instead of after the write to the > volatile. With this patch, both the above tests pass. > > Since the patch for PR111673 has been approved by Vladimir, I plan to > commit the patch

Re: Discussion about arm/aarch64 testcase failures seen with patch for PR111673

. Please let me know what you think. Regards, Surya On 24/11/23 4:18 pm, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 24/11/2023 08:09, Surya Kumari Jangala via Gcc wrote: Hi Richard, Ping. Please let me know if the test failure that I mentioned in the mail below can be handled by changing the expected gener

Re: Discussion about arm testcase failures seen with patch for PR111673

On 24/11/2023 08:09, Surya Kumari Jangala via Gcc wrote: Hi Richard, Ping. Please let me know if the test failure that I mentioned in the mail below can be handled by changing the expected generated code. I am not conversant with arm, and hence would appreciate your help. Regards, Surya On

Re: gcc 13.2 is missing warnings?

On 19/10/2023 12:39, Eric Sokolowsky via Gcc wrote: I am using gcc 13.2 on Fedora 38. Consider the following program. #include int main(int argc, char **argv) { printf("Enter a number: "); int num = 0; scanf("%d", &num); switch (num) { case 1: int a =

Re: Register allocation cost question

On 11/10/2023 09:58, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > On 11/10/2023 07:54, Chung-Lin Tang wrote: >> >> >> On 2023/10/10 11:11 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm trying to add a new register set to the GCN port, but I've hit a >>> problem I don't understand. >>> >>> There are 256 new registers (

Re: Documenting common C/C++ options

On 10/10/2023 11:46, Richard Earnshaw (lists) via Gcc wrote: > On 10/10/2023 10:47, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: >> Currently, -fsigned-char and -funsigned-char are only documented as C >> language options, although they work for C++ as well (and Objective-C >> and Objective

Re: Documenting common C/C++ options

On 10/10/2023 10:47, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > Currently, -fsigned-char and -funsigned-char are only documented as C > language options, although they work for C++ as well (and Objective-C > and Objective-C++, I assume, but I have not tested this). There does > not seem to be a place for thi

Re: Cauldron schedule: diagnostics and security features talks

On 08/09/2023 19:18, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > Hello, > > I want to begin by apologizing because I know from first hand experience that > scheduling can be an immensely painful job. > > The Cauldron 2023 schedule[1] looks packed and I noticed that Qing and > David's talks on security features

Re: Question on aarch64 prologue code.

On 06/09/2023 15:03, Iain Sandoe wrote: > Hi Richard, > >> On 6 Sep 2023, at 13:43, Richard Sandiford via Gcc wrote: >> >> Iain Sandoe writes: > >>> On the Darwin aarch64 port, we have a number of cleanup test fails (pretty >>> much corresponding to the [still open] >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bu

Re: There Might a Bug in the Compiler: When Calling Weak Defined Function

On 07/08/2023 16:51, Şahin Duran via Gcc wrote: Dear GCC Developers, I think I've just discovered a bug/ undefined situation in the compiler. When I try to call a weakly defined function, compiler successfully generates the code of calling procedure. However, this calling procedure is nothing bu

Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2023

t the organisers: we will fit you in if we can, but priority will go to those who have already submitted something. Richard. On 25/07/2023 18:01, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc wrote: It is now just under 2 months until the GNU Tools Cauldron. Registration is still open, but we would really appreciate

Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2023

It is now just under 2 months until the GNU Tools Cauldron. Registration is still open, but we would really appreciate it if you could register as soon as possible so that we have a clear idea of the numbers. Richard. On 05/06/2023 14:59, Richard Earnshaw wrote: We are pleased to invite you

Re: wishlist: support for shorter pointers

On 03/07/2023 17:42, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote: Hi Ian, W dniu 3.07.2023 o 17:07, Ian Lance Taylor pisze: On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:21 PM Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote: [] I was thinking about that, and it doesn't look as requiring that deep rewrites. ABI spec, that  could accomodat

Re: gcc tricore porting

On 03/07/2023 15:34, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Mon, Jul 3, 2023, 4:33 AM Claudio Eterno wrote: Hi Joel, I'll give an answer ASAP on the newlib and libgloss... I supposed your question were about the licences question on newlib, instead you were really asking what changed on the repo libs... I

Re: wishlist: support for shorter pointers

On 28/06/2023 17:07, Martin Uecker wrote: Am Mittwoch, dem 28.06.2023 um 16:44 +0100 schrieb Richard Earnshaw (lists): On 28/06/2023 15:51, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote: Hi Martin, W dniu 28.06.2023 o 15:00, Martin Uecker pisze: Sounds like named address spaces to me: https://gcc.gnu.org

Re: wishlist: support for shorter pointers

On 28/06/2023 15:51, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote: Hi Martin, W dniu 28.06.2023 o 15:00, Martin Uecker pisze: Sounds like named address spaces to me: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Named-Address-Spaces.html Only to same extend, and only in x86 case. The goal of the wish-item I've describ

GNU Tools Cauldron 2023

We are pleased to invite you all to the next GNU Tools Cauldron, taking place in Cambridge, UK, on September 22-24, 2023. As for the previous instances, we have setup a wiki page for details: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2023 Like last year, we are having to charge for attendance. W

Re: Wrong cost computation / conclusion ins insn combine?

On 23/05/2023 19:41, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: For some time now I am staring at the following test case and what combine does with it: typedef struct {     unsigned b0 : 1;     unsigned b1 : 1;     unsigned b2 : 1;     unsigned b3 : 1;     unsigned b4 : 1;     unsigned b5 : 1;     unsigned

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On 12/05/2023 13:30, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:33:01AM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: One fairly big GCC-internal task is to clear up the C test suite so that it passes with the new compiler defaults. I already have an offer of help for that, so I think we can complet

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On 10/05/2023 03:38, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote: From: Arsen Arsenović Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Jakub Jelinek , jwakely@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 22:21:03 +0200 The concern is using the good will of the GNU Toolchain brand as the tip of the spear or battering ram to m

Re: Forward GCC '-v' command-line option to binutils assembler, linker (was: [PING] nvptx: forward '-v' command-line option to assembler, linker)

On 22/09/2022 12:32, Nick Clifton via Gcc wrote: Hi Thomas, +/* Linker supports '-v' option.  */ +#define LINK_SPEC "%{v}" ..., Tom rightfully asked: [...] I wonder, normally we don't pass -v to ld, and need -Wl,-v for that. So, on my quest for making things uniform/simple, I now wond

Re: Wanted: original ConceptGCC downloads / branch, concepts-lite branch

On 17/08/2022 12:42, Aaron Gray via Gcc wrote: Hi, I am looking for the original ConceptGCC source code, the https://www.generic-programming.org/software/ConceptGCC/download.html has all broken links and the SVN is gone. Is this available on GCC git or SVN ? Also I am wondering if the origi

Re: Setting up editors for the GNU/GCC coding style?

On 28/07/2022 22:43, Iannetta Paul wrote: About configuring recent editors to follow the GNU coding style, I don't really know but it should always be possible to register a hook that will run `indent` when the file is saved. I don't think that's a good idea. It will result in quite a lot

Re: .eh_frame augmentation character for MTE stack tagging

On 04/06/2022 00:52, Florian Mayer via Gcc wrote: Hey! We are in the process of implementing MTE (Memory Tagging Extension) stack tagging in LLVM. To support stack tagging in combination with exceptions, we need to make sure that the unwinder will untag stack frames, to avoid leaving behind s

Re: gnatlink vs. -mthumb -march=armv7-a+simd -mfloat-abi=hard

On 28/04/2022 09:16, Sebastian Huber wrote: /opt/rtems/7/lib/gcc/arm-rtems7/12.0.1/thumb/armv7-a+simd/hard/adainclude/s-secsta.ads:288:9: sorry, unimplemented: Thumb-1 'hard-float' VFP ABI Does that source file somehow attempt to change the architecture on that line? This looks like someth

Re: Urgent GCC ABI backend maintainer ping re zero width bitfield passing (PR102024)

On 25/03/2022 14:47, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 02:26:56PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote: Just to confirm that this is our final position. The 'int:0 field should be ignored for the purposes of determining the parameter passing as it has no effect on the layo

Re: Urgent GCC ABI backend maintainer ping re zero width bitfield passing (PR102024)

On 22/03/2022 16:28, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc wrote: On 21/03/2022 16:28, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping port maintainers about https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102024 As I wrote, the int : 0 bitfields are present early in the TYPE_FIELDS during structure layout and intentio

Re: Urgent GCC ABI backend maintainer ping re zero width bitfield passing (PR102024)

On 22/03/2022 16:51, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 04:28:08PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote: Unless I've missed something subtle here, the layout of struct S { float a; int : 0; float b;}; is going to identical to struct T { float a; float b;}; on pretty

Re: Urgent GCC ABI backend maintainer ping re zero width bitfield passing (PR102024)

On 21/03/2022 16:28, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping port maintainers about https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102024 As I wrote, the int : 0 bitfields are present early in the TYPE_FIELDS during structure layout and intentionally affect the layout. We had some code to remove those from

Re: what is the difference with and without crc extension support

On 03/03/2022 13:41, Dongjiu Geng via Gcc wrote: Hi, My program does not use CRC instructions，but I find the compiled binary has much difference between using "-march=armv8-a+crc" and using "-march=armv8-a". Even stranger, when I use "-march=armv8-a+crc", I find my compiled binary can not r

Re: ARM Cortex-R5F Support

On 01/03/2022 16:23, Kinsey Moore wrote: Hi, I'm looking at working on Cortex-R5F support for RTEMS, but it seems as if latest GCC supports the Cortex-R5. This R5 has implicit FPU support which would make it really R5F. The ARM reference page on this core (https://developer.arm.com/Process

Re: Benchmark recommendations needed

Dhrystone is (and probably always was) a bogus benchmark. It's a well-known truism that MIPS stands for Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed, and dhrystone scores are equally meaningless. Dhrystone fell out of common usage over 20 years ago. It's not GCC that is being peculiar, it's just

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Mass rename of C++ .c files to .cc suffix is going to happen on Jan 17 evening UTC TZ

On 17/01/2022 21:41, Martin Liška wrote: On 1/13/22 12:01, Martin Liška wrote: Hello. Based on the discussion with release managers, the change is going to happen after stage4 begins. Martin Hi. The renaming patches have been just installed and I've built a few target compilers so far

Re: Help with an ABI peculiarity

On 10/01/2022 08:38, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: * Jeff Law via Gcc: Most targets these days use registers for parameter passing and obviously we can run out of registers on all of them.  The key property is the size/alignment of the argument differs depending on if it's pass in a register

Re: Labelling of regressions in Bugzilla

On 15/12/2021 11:39, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: On IRC we've been discussing some changes to Bugzilla that would give a bit more structure to how we label and process regressions. Currently we add something like "[9/10/11/12 Regression]" to the start of the summary, and then edit that whe

Re: How to describe ‘earlyclobber’ explicitly for specific source operand ?

On 22/11/2021 06:40, Jojo R via Gcc wrote: — Jojo 在 2021年11月20日 +0800 AM6:11，Peter Bergner ，写道： On 11/19/21 1:28 AM, Jojo R via Gcc wrote: We know gcc supply earlyclobber function to avoid register overlap, but it can not describe explicitly for specific source operand, is it right ? You

Re: Can gcc.dg/torture/pr67828.c be an infinite loop?

On 24/09/2021 10:29, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote: On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 1:05 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote: Hi folks. My upcoming threading improvements turn the test below into an infinite runtime loop: int a, b; short c; int main () { int j, d = 1; for (; c >= 0; c++)

Re: [FYI] bugzilla cleanup

On 16/09/2021 16:44, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: On 9/14/21 2:10 AM, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote: Hi all,    I am doing some bugzilla cleanup.  This includes disabling some components and some versions for new bugs. So far I have disabled versions before GCC 4 because we have not had a report

Re: ARM32 configury changes, with no FPU as a default

On 17/09/2021 11:23, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: * Matthias Klose: Starting with GCC 8, the configury allows to encode extra features into the architecture string. Debian and Ubuntu's armhf (hard float) architecture is configured with --with-arch=armv7-a --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 and now s

Re: [RFC] Adding a new attribute to function param to mark it as constant

On 06/08/2021 01:06, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: On 8/4/21 3:46 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 03/08/2021 18:44, Martin Sebor wrote: On 8/3/21 4:11 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote: On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 13:49, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:06 AM Prathamesh

Re: [RFC] Adding a new attribute to function param to mark it as constant

On 04/08/2021 18:59, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 07:08:08PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Segher Boessenkool: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>>> On 04/08/2021 14:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

Re: [RFC] Adding a new attribute to function param to mark it as constant

On 04/08/2021 14:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 02:00:42PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: We don't want to have to resort to macros. Not least because at some point we want to replace the content of arm_neon.h with a single #pragma directive to remove all the pa

Re: [RFC] Adding a new attribute to function param to mark it as constant

On 04/08/2021 13:46, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 05:20:58PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 15:49, Segher Boessenkool >> wrote: >>> Both __builtin_constant_p and __is_constexpr will not work in your use >>> case (since a function argument is not a

Re: [RFC] Adding a new attribute to function param to mark it as constant

On 03/08/2021 18:44, Martin Sebor wrote: On 8/3/21 4:11 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote: On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 13:49, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:06 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 23:29, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Fri, Jul 23, 20

Re: [PATCH] Port GCC documentation to Sphinx

On 30/06/2021 05:47, Martin Liška wrote: On 6/29/21 12:50 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 29/06/2021 11:09, Martin Liška wrote: On 6/28/21 5:33 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: Are formatted manuals (HTML, PDF, man, info) corresponding to this patch version also available for review? I've

Re: [PATCH] Port GCC documentation to Sphinx

On 29/06/2021 11:09, Martin Liška wrote: On 6/28/21 5:33 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: Are formatted manuals (HTML, PDF, man, info) corresponding to this patch version also available for review? I've just uploaded them here: https://splichal.eu/gccsphinx-final/ Martin In the HTML version of t

Re: git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog

On 17/06/2021 18:21, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 05:12:52PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc wrote: >> >>> It seems a bit dangerous to me to rely on just extracting PR numbers from >>> tests. What if t

Re: git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog

On 17/06/2021 01:40, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote: On 6/16/21 8:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 6/16/21 5:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 5:46 PM Martin Sebor > wrote:     On 6/16/21 2:49 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 6/15/21 11:42 PM, Jason Me

Re: Build failure in fixincludes on x86_64

On 26/05/2021 13:22, Uros Bizjak via Gcc wrote: The build currently fails to build for me on x86_64 in fixincludes: /home/uros/gcc-build/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/uros/gcc-build/./gcc/ -B/usr/local/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/local/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem /usr/local/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Re: "musttail" statement attribute for GCC?

On 26/04/2021 14:49, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote: Alexander Monakov wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Josh Haberman via Gcc wrote: On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:10 PM Iain Sandoe wrote: I did try to use it this ^ for GCC coroutines (where such a guarantee is pretty important) However, the issue t

Re: why aarch64 doesn't support V4QI.

On 15/12/2020 14:26, 172060...@hdu.edu.cn wrote: > Hi, > > I have some problems in gcc development about aarch64. I saw it doesn't > support > V4QI machine mode in aarch64-modes.def, but it has V4QI in arm-modes.def. > > I want to know why it doesn't? > > I am looking forward your replies. Tha

Re: [RFC] Increase libstdc++ line length to 100(?) columns

On 29/11/2020 17:38, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Allan Sandfeld Jensen: > >> If you _do_ change it. I would suggest changing it to 120, which is next >> common step for a lot of C++ projects. > > 120 can be problematic for a full HD screen in portrait mode. Nine > pixels per character is not a lo

Re: Disassemble the .lib file compiled with gcc-arm-8.3-2019.03-x86_64-arm-eabi compilation tool chain, and found that malloc is optimized to calloc.

On 30/10/2020 08:53, YaRu Wei(魏亚茹) wrote: > Dear gcc: > I find that disassemble the .lib file compiled with > gcc-arm-8.3-2019.03-x86_64-arm-eabi compilation tool chain, and found that > malloc is optimized to calloc. I want to know under what circumstances malloc > will be optimized to calloc?

Re: duplicate arm test results?

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

Re: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipelines

On 14/09/2020 03:53, Qian, Jianhua wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Richard Earnshaw >> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 9:30 PM >> To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华 ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org >> Subject: Re: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipelines &

Re: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipelines

On 07/09/2020 07:08, Qian, Jianhua wrote: > Hi > > I'm adding a new machine model. I have a problem when writing the > "define_insn_reservation" for instruction scheduling. > How to write the "define_insn_reservation" for one instruction that there are > different latencies and pipelines accordi

Re: [arm] GCC validation: preferred way of running the testsuite?

On 26/05/2020 18:04, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: > On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 13:28, Richard Earnshaw > wrote: >> >> On 11/05/2020 17:43, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> As you may know, I've been running validations

Re: New mklog script

On 26/05/2020 14:09, Martin Liška wrote: > On 5/26/20 1:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote: >>> On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>>> I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with >>

Re: [IMPORTANT] ChangeLog related changes

On 26/05/2020 12:19, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:42:41PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> Am 26.05.20 um 11:04 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Gcc: >>> Am 26.05.20 um 00:48 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc: >>> I've turned the strict mode of Martin Liška's hook changes, >>>

Re: New mklog script

On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote: > On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with >> 'gcc-'?  This seems to go against that. > > You are right, but this one is so handy ;) > What nam

Re: New mklog script

On 25/05/2020 20:41, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 5:23 AM Martin Liška wrote: >> >> On 5/22/20 11:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:03 PM Jason Merrill wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:39 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 5

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

On 22/05/2020 05:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:21PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote: >> Hi, this unfortunately breaks gccgo development. Significant parts of >> the gccgo sources are simply copied from other repositories. Those >> other repositories do not use Cha

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts (git cherry-pick)

On 20/05/2020 10:27, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> Hm, one question: I find the r11-1234 type commit to be much more >> readable, in ChangeLog files and everywhere else. >> >> Would it be possible to have that format instead of >> "

Re: New mklog script

On 19/05/2020 15:51, Michael Matz wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, 19 May 2020, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> The common problems I remember is that e.g. when changing a function comment >>> above some function, it is attributed to the previous function rather than >>> following, labels in function confus

Re: [arm] GCC validation: preferred way of running the testsuite?

On 11/05/2020 17:43, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote: > Hi, > > > As you may know, I've been running validations of GCC trunk in many > configurations for Arm and Aarch64. > > > I was recently trying to make some cleanup in the new Bfloat16, MVE, CDE, and > ACLE tests because in several configura

Re: ChangeLog files - server and client scripts

On 13/05/2020 12:05, Martin Liška wrote: > Hi. > > I'm sending the gcc-changelog relates scripts which should be added to > contrib > folder. The patch contains: > - git_check_commit.py - checking script that verifies git message format > - git_update_version.py - a replacement of > maintainer-scr

Re: Automatically generated ChangeLog files - PHASE 1

On 12/05/2020 10:05, Martin Liška wrote: > Hi. > > Thanks to Jakub, we finally set up an experimental environment: > gcc.gnu.org/home/gccadmin/gcc-reposurgeon-8.git > > The repository now contains a new pre-commit hook that validates > the git commit format ([1]) and provides a reasonable error m

Re: blacklisted after announce on GNU cauldron ?

On 23/04/2020 11:09, Olivier Hainque wrote: > Hello, > > Since April 14 or so, I am not receiving any more messages > from the gcc or gcc-patches mailing lists. > > This turns out to coincide with the date I sent to multiple > lists the message announcing the unfortunate cancellation of > the 202

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On 16/03/2020 13:45, Martin Liška wrote: Hello. I noticed some emails reaching gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org use the following quoting: ``` case UNGT_EXPR: case UNGE_EXPR: case UNEQ_EXPR: +    case MEM_REF:    /* Binary operations evaluating both arguments (increment and  =0

Re: List-Id header being stripped

On 09/03/2020 10:30, Florian Weimer wrote: * Richard Bradfield: It appears that since the migration (or whatever happened on the list over the weekend), the List-Id header is also being stripped from outbound mail. The last GCC mail I have where the header is intact was from Friday 6th. There

Re: GCC 9.3 Status Report (2020-03-05)

On 05/03/2020 20:22, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Status == The GCC 9 branch is now frozen for blocking regressions and documentation fixes only, all changes to the branch require a RM approval now. Quality Data Priority # Change from last report ---

Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

On 02/03/2020 14:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 14:31, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 3/2/20 8:01 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 27/02/2020 13:37, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 2/3/20 6:41 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 22/01/2020 17:45, Richard Earnshaw (lists

Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

On 27/02/2020 13:37, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 2/3/20 6:41 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 22/01/2020 17:45, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: [updated based on v2 discussions] This patch proposes some new (additional) rules for email subject lines when contributing to GCC.  The goal is

Re: Git ChangeLog policy for GCC Testsuite inquiry

On 07/02/2020 15:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:56:08PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 07/02/2020 13:48, Segher Boessenkool wrote: Should we require some simple markup in the commit message before the changelogs? Maybe CL gcc/ * blablalba etc. CL

Re: Git ChangeLog policy for GCC Testsuite inquiry

On 07/02/2020 13:48, Segher Boessenkool wrote: Hi! On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:19:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: Yeah, don't look at me then :-) I *like* having most of those steps, most of this should only be done by people who are

Re: Git question: Rebasing a user branch

On 04/02/2020 23:26, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 2/4/20 5:09 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> On Feb 04 2020, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> >>> Hm.  If I'm understanding you correctly, this still attempts to create a >>> new branch: >>> >>> wschmidt@marlin:~/newgcc/gcc/config/rs6000$ git push --dry-run >>> users

Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

On 03/02/2020 17:48, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: The idea is that the [...] part is NOT part of the commit, only part of the email. I understand that, but the subject line of this thread says "e-mail subject lines", so I thoug

Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

On 03/02/2020 17:31, Michael Matz wrote: Hello, On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: Where does your '50 chars' limit come from? It's not in the glibc text, and it's not in the linux kernel text either. AFAICT this is your invention and you seem t

Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

On 03/02/2020 15:13, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 03/02/2020 14:10, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:57 AM Alexander Monakov wrote: On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: Upper case is what glibc has, though it appears that it's a rule that is

Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

On 03/02/2020 14:10, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:57 AM Alexander Monakov wrote: On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: Upper case is what glibc has, though it appears that it's a rule that is not strictly followed. If we change it, then it becomes an

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >