>
> Hi,
> Could you tell me what it means for 'test for excess errors'?
> I run make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='dg.exp' on my machine, and got
> many failed tests for these errors on my porting gcc.
That usually means there are some internal compiler errors while
compiling the testcase, look at gcc.
On Dec 28, 2005, at 4:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I still support a reverting of the weakref patch as it was put way too
late
for 4.1 (stage 3 is not a good idea for a new feature).
Depends on if you consider it a new feature or a bug fix.
It was a new feature to work around a bug which is o
going to back port my fix, if
someone else
wants to do it, it is up to them.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Dec 29, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Dec 29, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
As far as I can tell the -fobjc-exceptions flag is supposed to work
with the GNU runtime as of GCC 4.0. However, invoke.texi still
states that "Currently, this option is only availab
On Dec 30, 2005, at 1:53 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Gcc build executable linking against dynamic libraries by default.
"-static" will link against all static libraries. For run-time
portability, we may want to link against static gcc libraries, like
libstdc++.a, libgfortran.a, libgcj.a, , but agai
On Dec 30, 2005, at 1:58 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Are you saying "gcc -static" doesn't work with libobjc and libgcj?
Yes, they have never really worked. You need to cause to import all of
the .a file instead of just letting the linker link in the parts that
it says it needs.
-- Pinski
|| AGGREGATE_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (lhsop))
|| TREE_CODE (rhsop) == CALL_EXPR)
Or I am missing that a constraint that can happen?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I've been experimenting with devirtualizing method calls, and
sometimes a construct like this can pay dividends:
Another possibility is to have the inliner convert virtual calls into
something like the above. Maybe the real solution to all of
>
>
> I hit an ICE inside an optimizer pass because the code had a glaring syntax
> error that we diagnosed correctly, but since we kept going, the
> transformation didn't find the CFG in the assumed state, causing the ICE.
We do stop the optimization passes from running in general.
/* Gate: e
On Jan 9, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Monday 09 January 2006 14:42, Andrew Pinski wrote:
the only passes which do run are cfg creation, expand, and maybe a
couple other simple ones.
I know that. It's expand the one bothering me. Are we issuing errors
that
late i
On Jan 12, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Jon BLOOMFIELD wrote:
Can somebody tell me whether there is a known bug in g++ 4.0.1 wrt
scoping
of members of a template base class. The following contrived test case
generates a compiler error on 4.0.1, complaining that 'a' is not in the
scope scope of D::f()
.
On Jan 13, 2006, at 8:18 PM, Alfred M.. Szmidt wrote:
Thanks, will do so later today.
But this seems very awkward for people who only send a patch ones in a
blue moon; and not much good info on that either, the manual just says
`report bugs to the bugtracker'; more or less.
Please read the w
n the stack. Otherwise the offsets are not sufficiently
> rounded, even if the stack register is aligned on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT on
> function entry.
Huh? Where is this requirement documented because I don't see it at all
in tm.texi? Also what is Ada using BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT for, that just seems
wrong.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Jan 16, 2006, at 3:00 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
This patch works for me.
But not the real problem. The real problem is the use of "gcc_assert
(FALSE);"
which just can be turned into gcc_unreachable as mentioned in my other
email.
-- Pinski
On Jan 17, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
If not would it be a good idea to disable mudflap by default on mips?
Tried native? If that also doesn't work I'd be up for disabling.
I was under the impression that libmudflap was disabled by default
almost everywhere. Unless libmudflap
The testsuite is way broken and does not run all the tests:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00878.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00876.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00886.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00898.htm
On Jan 17, 2006, at 8:45 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
The testsuite is way broken and does not run all the tests:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00878.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00876.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00886.html
http
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:16 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
mkdir.o socket.o raise-gcc.o \
-Wl,-flat_namespace \
-lm
ld: Undefined symbols:
__Unwind_Resume
__Unwind_ForcedUnwind
__Unwind_GetDataRelBase
__Unwind_GetIP
__Unwind_GetLanguageSpecificData
__Unwind_GetRegionStart
__Unwind_GetTe
On Jan 18, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Chris Douty wrote:
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:16 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
OK, I can reproduce the failure.
Darwin specialists, what are we missing here?
Well it would be helpful if the reporter reran the link
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:41:39AM -0600, Perry Smith wrote:
> > In the course of doing my work last week to get exception handling
> > working in my device driver, I learned that the exception processing
> > code calls malloc during the exception. This seems weak to me. It
> > seems l
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:10 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:44 AM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 10:38, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:34 AM Jonathan Wakely
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:22,
tree is more
> important.
One thing which you could do is kinda of what glibc did when they
merged glibc and glibc-ports.
Really it would useful if you get GM2 into the base sources of gcc
instead for GCC 11 :).
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> regards,
> Gaius
m:
>
> https://forms.gle/4Tocg6JnTwqyJbwq8
One comment, the there is no xxl for tshirt sizes
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> If unable to use this form, please visit the Wiki page above for
> alternative instructions on how to register.
>
> The Cauldron is organized by a
It doesn't explain the !
> though, and not wildcards even.
>
> (dir.c in git.git, if you like spelunking).
Note I was not able to get it to work with "git version 1.8.3.1"
(which is included with CentOS 7) but it worked with "git version
2.17.1".
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
>
> Segher
can_atomic_load_p (mode))
return boolean_true_node;
else
return boolean_false_node;
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
> I'd like to change clang to eagerly evaluate __atomic_is_lock_free to 0 for
> apparently oversized types.
> This helps some platforms to avoid a dependency on libatomic.
&
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:35 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
> >
> > GCC never evaluates __atomic_is_lock_free to 0.
> > (gcc/builtins.c:fold_builtin_atomic_always_lock_free)
>
> Huh?
Oh it is this, you quoted the wr
s implementation is that the RTL level
optimizers are not always up to removing the byteswaps.
GCSE is very weak on the RTL level compared to PRE on the gimple level.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> The bulk of the implementation is in the FEs (sanity checks, propagation, etc)
> and the RTL expander
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to propose merging the scalar-storage-order branch that I have been
>> maintaining for a couple of years into mainline. Orig
ame (use DECL_NAME instead of
> DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME)?
I don't think this would be useful really because if you have a
function say logl where you have two options of long double, you want
to support both you would name one logl and the other logl128 and then
using DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME
utput_Constants *)&style]._vptr.Output_Constants =
> &MEM[(void *)&_ZTV16Output_Constants + 16B];
> style.D.4064._vptr.Output_Constants = &MEM[(void *)&_ZTV11Output_Enum
> + 16B];
> style._indentation = "";
>
> Why is this different? Why is __c
lements != size)
return NULL;
void *ptr = malloc (ns);
asm ("":"+r"(ptr));
memset (ptr, 0, ns);
Notice I put in a check for overflow in there.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Thanks,
>
>Daniel.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 11:02 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> FYI, this posting has a bit more detail on the actual implementation...
>>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-November/092438.html
>
>
> That surely helps - thanks.
Basically NVIDI
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 10:55 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>>
>>
>> - There is no standard that says it must do this.
>
> True. But these after all are extensions and extensions have been
> notoriously under-documented through the years.
>
>> - I'm only aware
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On S/390 the test case gcc.dg/loop-9.c currently fails:
>
> void f (double *a)
> {
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> a[i] = 18.4242;
> }
>
> It seems to expect that moving 18.4242 to a register is moved out
> of the loo
ion
> but Clang uses the point of definition. g is a dependent name here, and the
> standard says "template definition context" should be used; but I am not
> very sure about the wording. I suspect this to be a GCC bug, but not sure,
> so asking here first.
There is also argume
Hi,
PR 68948 shows a case which has been broken for a long time and very
hard to see. So I am recommending that we introduce an assert inside
the gimplifier if we process an error_mark_node and there was no
errors or sorrys from the front-end; I will send a patch if there is a
general feeling th
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:11 PM, AKASHI Takahiro
wrote:
> Will,
>
>
> On 01/09/2016 12:53 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 02:36:32PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2016 11:56 PM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 07/01/16 14:22, Will Deacon wrote:
>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> -fstack-usage does not work when there are VLAs or alloca's. So there
>> is no way to figure that part out without analysis of the actual
>> assembly code.
>
> No, -fstack-usage always works, i.e. its output can always be relied upon;
> wh
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
>> I see a number of places in tree-vect-generic.c that add a
>> VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR if useless_type_convertsion_p is false. That should
>> work, except when I try this, I see that the VIEW_CON
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Thorsten Otto wrote:
>>> This frobbing of a pointer return value in %d0 only happens in the
>>> outgoing case already now, because in the non-outgoing case,
>>> m68k_function_value is (unverified claim) only
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:23 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
include/plugin-api.h defines an ABI between linker and compiler,
which can be used to implement linker plug-in by any compilers.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Bill Seurer wrote:
> Is there some way using deja-gnu to have a single test case run multiple
> times using different sets of compiler options? I didn't see anything in
> the documentation and didn't see any examples when I searched the existing
> test cases (thoug
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Bill Seurer wrote:
> On 04/01/16 10:48, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Bill Seurer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there some way using deja-gnu to have a single test case run multiple
>>> times usi
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Zan Lynx wrote:
> I would like someone to look at this and tell me this is an already
> fixed bug. Or that recent GCC patches may have fixed it. :-)
>
> Or it would also be great to get some advice on building a reproducer
> without needing to include many megabyte
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Zhangjian (Bamvor)
wrote:
> Hi, Yury
>
>
> On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote:
>>
>> There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario.
>> float_bessel
>> float_exp_log
>> float_iperb
>> float_power
>> float_trigo
>> pipeio_1
>> pipeio_3
>> pipeio_5
>> pipei
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Zhangjian (Bamvor)
> wrote:
>> Hi, Yury
>>
>>
>> On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote:
>>>
>>> There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario.
&g
h a bug report only account too).
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> dw
>
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Many GCC tests for constexpr rely on static_assert to verify things
> work correctly. While testing some changes of my own, I was surprised
> to find the static_asserts pass even though my changes did not (see
> below). It took me a while to
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Brett Neumeier wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:01 AM, lh_mouse wrote:
>> Should I file a bug report then?
>> We need some Linux testers, though not many people on Linux relocate
>> compilers.
>
> For what it's worth -- I encountered the same problem on a GNU/Li
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:43 PM, David Wohlferd
wrote:
> Perhaps this post should be directed toward port maintainers?
>
> Since several global maintainers have now suggested it, I have created a
> patch that deprecates basic asm when used in a function (attached). It
> excludes (ie does not de
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 22/06/16 10:02, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> On 06/21/2016 06:53 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
>>> Me too. I wonder if there's anything else we can do to make basic asm
>>> in a function a bit less of a time bomb.
>>
>>
>> GCC could p
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 22 June 2016 at 19:05, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>>> On 22/06/16 10:02, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> GCC could parse the asse
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> I have attached a "quick and dirty" prototype patch (var-partition-1.diff),
> that attempts to partition variables to reduce number of
> external references and to increase usage of section-anchors
> to CSE address computation of
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 4 July 2016 at 13:51, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I have attached a "quick and dirty" prototype patch (var-partit
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> The build step that invokes "ranlib libbackend.a" (which immediately
> follows the invocation of "ar rc libbackend.a ...") takes over 7 seconds
> on my machine and causes the entire 450MB archive to be rewritten. By
> instead making the buil
. For such a support routine like vsinf I would expect it also needs
> a reduced clobber set to ensure that the caller's live SIMD registers don't
> need saving/restoring, such registers would normally be caller-saved. If the
> routine were to clobber all SIMD registers anywa
limited to 500k (if I read dejagnu code correctly).
Or can/should we split up float-cast-overflow-1.c instead?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/20/2016 02:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:48:09PM +0530, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
I see this for some of the larger C frontend tests with lots of expected
errors/warnings as well.
>>
>>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/20/2016 02:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:48:09PM +0530, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
>>>>>
>>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/20/2016 03:09 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at
9,
> 8,
> 7,
> 6,
> };
>
> /* find the element closest to elem */
> int main()
> {
> unsigned int elem = 0;
> unsigned int i = 0;
>
> while ((elem < numbers[i]) && (i < ARRAY_SIZE(numbers)))
>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Vikram Mulukutla
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The program listed below seems to invoke optimization behavior that produces
>> different results pre 4.8 and 4.8+ versions of gcc. Usi
er_set__Sysinit_begin;
const volatile rtems_sysinit_item *end = _Linker_set__Sysinit_end;
MAKEGCCNOTKNOWTHEADDRESS(cur);
MAKEGCCNOTKNOWTHEADDRESS(end);
You can think of better names if you want but this is the best way really.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> The nice thing with the "type
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote:
> parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double
> ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const':
> parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error: ISO C++ forbids comparison between
> pointer and integer [-fpermissive]
>AssertThrow ((s.c_str()!='\
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Ellcey, Steve wrote:
> I have built the latest glibc sources with a ToT GCC and am trying to run the
> glibc testsuite now. I ran into a couple of
> new warnings that I fixed (locally) and am now looking at
> nptl/tst-thread_local1.cc which dies with:
>
> tst-t
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 10:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On November 11, 2016 6:34:37 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed that variables of signed integer types that are constrained
>>> to a specific subrange of values of the t
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Andrew Senkevich
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> new Intel instructions AVX512_4FMAPS and AVX512_4VNNIW introduce use
> of register groups.
>
> To support register groups feature in inline asm needed some extension
> with new constraints.
>
> Current proposal is the following syn
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Ethin Probst wrote:
> I'm trying to run the GCC configure script with:
> [configure input]
> ~/gcc/configure --disable-nls --enable-gold=yes --enable-libquadmath
> --enable-libquadmath-support --enable-libada --enable-libssp
> --enable-libcxx --enable-liboffloadmic=
r3]@ zero_extendqisi2
> sxtbr3, r3
> cmpr3, #0
> cmpner1, r3
> bgt.L5
> ldrr0, [r0]
Does the patch series at located at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01407.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01405.html
Fix thi
ab.c but I don't see
any which have more than 30 depth of parenthesis. The max level of {}
is 4 in that file too.
So this sounds like a bug in clang. Please report it to them.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>>
>> So, I tried to increase the number of nesting level as indicated
>>
s feature which you can use:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Processor-pipeline-description.html#index-data-bypass-3773
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> At first glance it seems that it will will break a few things.
> 1) The definition of dependencies cannot come from the simple ordering
>> bootstrap issue (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315).
>
> Since my PR has been closed twice by Andrew Pinski (“it’s clang’s fault, bouh
> ouh”), I’d ask the maintainers to step in. Can we please provide a GCC that
> works for the default darwin setup? Or at least dr
(One thing I wish wouldn't be included in -ffast-math is
> -fcx-limited-range; the naive complex division algorithm can easily
> lead to comically poor results.)
Which is kinda interesting because the Google folks have been trying
to turn on -fcx-limited-range for C++ a few times now.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> --
> Janne Blomqvist
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello,
>following table compares optimization levels as -O0, -Os, -O1-3 and
> -Ofast. Columns in the table include all ELF sections bigger than 5% for a
> binary. Apart from that I took -O2 as a base option and I tried to disable
> every
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a basic question about optimization selection in GCC. There used to
> be some code in GCC (passes.c?) that would set various optimize pass flags
> depending on if the 'optimize' flag was > 0, > 1, or > 2; later I think
> there may have
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Marat Zakirov wrote:
> Hi Vladimir!
>
> I think you are as the main IRA contributor would be appropriate person to
> answer question bellow. Please confirm or refute my statement about
> unsplittable register ranges in GCC IRA.
>
>
> On 07/30/2014 05:38 PM, Marat
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tomsy Paul wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am designing a new language. I hope I can customize the front end of
> gcc to suit my language. I am comfortable with lex & yacc. I went
> through the source code of gcc but could not locate any lex or yacc
> source file.
>
> I pref
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Geert Bosch wrote:
>> Can we use the switch to 5.0, a supposedly stable C++11 ABI etc,
>> also as an excuse to finally configure for --with-sse2 by default
>> for 32-bit x86? Maybe then we can finally retire PR 323 and
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> handle_section_attribute contains many levels of nested conditionals and
> branching code flow paths, with the error cases sometimes in the else
> case and sometimes in the if case. Simplify the code flow into a series
> of potential failure
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> I again disabled account creation on GCC Bugzilla due to spammers being
>> still very active. 117 user accounts have been created since yesterday.
>
>
> Please immediately disable account creation on Bugzilla until an
> effective solution to p
ving of debugging
information yet in dwarf2/3/4, I think there is plans for it but I
can't remember if it made it into dwarf5 or not.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Why is that so hard? Where are the GCC experts on this list. Where are
> the people that actually care about the reputation
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
No e+ is exponent marker.
Thanks,
Andrew
> #include
> #include
>
> int
> main(void)
> {
> uint16_t i;
> i = 0x3ff0+63; printf("%x\n", i);
> i = 0x3ff1+63; printf("%x\n", i);
> i = 0x3ff2+63; printf("%x\n", i);
r (one that is a valid
floating constant token), whether or
not E is a macro name.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> --
> steve
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 06:49:54PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Steve Kargl
>> wrote:
>>
>>
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 07:57:45PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Steve Kargl
>> wrote:
>> > + is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-constant according
>> > to 6.6.4.
token or an integer
constant token so it is rejected.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Ed
>
s an equal sign.
It is a regex, so I use . instead of the equal sign.
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/config/aarch64/t-aarch64-linux;h=d6a678ed1705f6f821b2ebfca3d59359ded24631;hb=HEAD
for an example:
MULTILIB_OSDIRNAMES += mabi.ilp32=../libilp32
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Steve Ellcey
> sell...@mips.com
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 10:39 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Toon Moene wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/01/2014 08:00 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
-gcc folks.
Why not use clang then?
It offers many
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a -ffast-math (missing?) optimization question. I noticed on MIPS
> that if I compiled:
>
> #include
> extern x;
> void foo() { x = sin(log(x)); }
>
> GCC will extend 'x' to double precision, call the double pr
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 11:27 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
>> > Is there a reason why GCC couldn't (under -ffast-math) call the single
>> > precision routines for the first case?
>>
>> There is no re
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
>> commit the patch in 24 hours unless I hear objections.
>
> I made the change. Please report any fallout to
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
>>> commit the patc
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Charles Baylis
wrote:
> Hi
>
> ( tl;dr: How do I handle intrinsic or builtin functions where there
> are restrictions on the arguments which can't be represented in a C
> function prototype? Do other ports have this problem, how do they
> solve it? Language extens
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Charles Baylis
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> ( tl;dr: How do I handle intrinsic or builtin functions where there
>> are restrictions on the arguments which can't be represent
hi (__a, __b, __c);
>
>
> The diagnostic issued points to the line in arm_neon.h, but we expect this
> to point to the line in cr.c. I suspect we need something closer to the
> front-end?
You need to change arm_neon.h to use the __artificial__ attribute as I
mentioned before. Also please move away from "static inline" since
they cannot be used from templates in C++98/03.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Thanks,
> Tejas.
>
>> missing :-)
>> Thanks.
>
>
> Any comments?
Yes you can use -mcmodel=large to this effect I think.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
due the
patch having extra code in it already which handles creating cond_expr
for conditional moves already.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Evandro Menezes wrote:
> That's what I assumed. However, can reload spill GPRs into FPRs as LRA
> does? For even after specifying -mno-lra, I still see excessive slots in
> FPRs.
Not fully. What is happening most likely is IRA is deciding to use
some FPRs for so
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> > I was trying to hook up tree-ssa-phiopt to match-and-simplify using
>> > either
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote
simply convert
> a param or field type. Some examples:
>
> Functions passed a gsi
> ==
> Sometimes functions are passed a gsi, where it can be known that the gsi
> currently references a stmt of known kind (although that isn't
> necessarily obvious from
601 - 700 of 1821 matches
Mail list logo
