On 12/09/16 20:41, Igor Shevlyakov wrote:
> It would be beneficial to make the behaviour consistent between
> those 2 cases.
You've got two cases of undefined behaviour. What benefit
is there from making two cases of UB consistent with each other?
It's not worth the effort of changing the compil
On 11 September 2016 at 22:38, Paul Smith wrote:
> I wonder if someone can comment on this situation: I'll do some testing
> but I likely can't test everything.
>
> I'm creating DSO's for GNU/Linux with GCC 4.9.2 right now. I want to
> upgrade to GCC 6.2.0. My code is written in C++. I'm aware o
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:23:18 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > I trimmed the CC list -- I'm looking for advice about debugging a lto1
>> > ICE.
>> >
>> > On Fri, 19 Au
Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and
I've been playing with folding arbitrary range expressions, which I
expect fold() to ahem...fold.
I'm surprised that even seemingly simple trees can't be folded after
they've been built, because AFAICT, fold actually just wor
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:25:30AM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've
> been playing with folding arbitrary range expressions, which I expect fold()
> to ahem...fold.
>
> I'm surprised that even seemingly simple trees can't be f
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've
> been playing with folding arbitrary range expressions, which I expect fold()
> to ahem...fold.
>
> I'm surprised that even seemingly simple trees can't be folded aft
On 09/14/2016 09:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:25:30AM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've
been playing with folding arbitrary range expressions, which I expect fold()
to ahem...fold.
I'm surprised that
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 09:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:25:30AM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've
>>> been playing with folding arbitrary rang
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:46:13AM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 9/14/16 5:35 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > (I hope the wording is strong enough).
> Maybe s/New ports should use LRA/New ports must use LRA/ ?
Yeah maybe. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Cc:ing gcc@...
> >+ New p
On 09/14/2016 09:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've
been playing with folding arbitrary range expressions, which I expect fold()
to ahem...fold.
I'm surprised that even se
On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 10:13 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 11 September 2016 at 22:38, Paul Smith wrote:
> > I wonder if someone can comment on this situation: I'll do some testing
> > but I likely can't test everything.
> >
> > I'm creating DSO's for GNU/Linux with GCC 4.9.2 right now. I wan
On 14 September 2016 at 15:26, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 10:13 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> The real problem is that your library will depend on a newer libstdc++
>> but that's orthogonal to the ABI changes. Statically linking it is one
>> solution, deploying the newer libstdc++
On 2016-09-14 08:35:34 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 12/09/16 20:41, Igor Shevlyakov wrote:
> > It would be beneficial to make the behaviour consistent between
> > those 2 cases.
>
> You've got two cases of undefined behaviour. What benefit
> is there from making two cases of UB consistent with
On 09/14/2016 08:08 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 09/14/2016 09:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and
I've
been playing with folding arbitrary range expressions, which I expect
fol
On September 14, 2016 6:39:14 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 09/14/2016 08:08 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 09/14/2016 09:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez
>wrote:
Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod,
>and
I
On 09/14/2016 03:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On September 14, 2016 6:39:14 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/14/2016 08:08 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
range generator understands, we just thought it would be handy to
leverage the folder during the proof of concept stage.
It's also worth noti
On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
It's what match-and-simplify does as well.
I question the need to build GENERIC here though. M-a-s happily gets you a
simplified expression as sequence of GIMPLE statements. (But does not yet
provide a way to build a simplified GENERIC expressi
17 matches
Mail list logo
