There seems to be plenty of slots available on the 2nd track to
schedule additional BOFs. So I'd gather if there is interest
in discussing
A) Unit testing (GIMPLE FE, RTL FE, the existing unit-testing),
basically how people feel about moving forward here and how
this would affect the cu
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:19:54AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> There seems to be plenty of slots available on the 2nd track to
> schedule additional BOFs. So I'd gather if there is interest
> in discussing
>
> A) Unit testing (GIMPLE FE, RTL FE, the existing unit-testing),
> basically
Hi,
There appears to be a redundant second assignmeent bb_copy = NULL in
free_copy_original_tables(). I suppose it should be
bb_original = NULL instead ?
I found this mentioned on a blog "Bugs found in gcc with help of PVS studio":
http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0425/#ID0EHCCK
Thanks,
Prathamesh
diff
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> There appears to be a redundant second assignmeent bb_copy = NULL in
> free_copy_original_tables(). I suppose it should be
> bb_original = NULL instead ?
> I found this mentioned on a blog "Bugs found in gcc with help of PVS studio":
> http://
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 11:19 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> There seems to be plenty of slots available on the 2nd track to
> schedule additional BOFs. So I'd gather if there is interest
> in discussing
>
> A) Unit testing (GIMPLE FE, RTL FE, the existing unit-testing),
> basically how people
Hi Joseph,
I've just stumbled over this function in gcc/c-family/c-common.c,
which might need adjustment for __float128:
/* Return true iff ALIGN is an integral constant that is a fundamental
alignment, as defined by [basic.align] in the c++-11
specifications.
That is:
[A
On 2 September 2016 at 15:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> There appears to be a redundant second assignmeent bb_copy = NULL in
>> free_copy_original_tables(). I suppose it should be
>> bb_original = NULL instead ?
>> I found this mentioned on
On 2 September 2016 at 14:49, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> There seems to be plenty of slots available on the 2nd track to
> schedule additional BOFs. So I'd gather if there is interest
> in discussing
>
> A) Unit testing (GIMPLE FE, RTL FE, the existing unit-testing),
> basically how people fe
Hi Martin (and all other list members).
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:04:10 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 04:56 AM, Jens Bauer wrote:
>>>__attribute__ ((not_readable)) int write_only;
>>>int *preadwrite = &write_only;
>>
>> Would it not be possible to bring a warning in such cases ?