On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 22:45 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot
> > > > replace ChangeLogs. But we can well decide to drop ChangeLog for
> > > > the testsuite.
> > >
> > > Well,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:03 PM Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> I'm having a little difficulty with my workflow, and I'm hoping someone
> can spot the problem.
>
> I have a user branch set up with the contrib/git-add-user-branch.sh
> script. Here are the relevant portions of my .git/config:
>
> [remote "u
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:42 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Status
> ==
>
> GCC 9.2 has been released more than half a year ago and it is time
> for another release from the latest stable branch. Many people have
> backported their fixes to 9 branch recently already, often together
> with backpo
elease 8.4 on Wednesday, March 4th.
>
I'd like to backport:
commit r10-6965-g577350603a657590c4b54a4a966cb49497e2514c
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Mar 2 03:08:57 2020 -0800
lto: Also copy .note.gnu.property section
When generating the separate file with LTO debug sections, we s
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:46 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 03:41:06AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:46 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > The second release candidate for GCC 8.4 is available from
> > >
> > &
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:30 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Status
> ==
>
> GCC 8.4 has been released and the branch is again open for regression
> and documentation fixes. History makes us expect a GCC 8.5 release
> in fall of this year and it will be the last release from the GCC 8
> series.
>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 5:01 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:52:20AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > I saw these new failures on Fedora 31:
> >
> > FAIL: 22_locale/numpunct/members/char/3.cc execution test
> > FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/cha
X86 GCC automated testers are back online. They bootstrap and run
testsuite for master
branch and the current 2 release branches on Linux/x86-64 and Linux/i686:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2020-March/555912.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2020-March/555909.ht
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Zinovy Nis wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
> I'm building libgcc for a "iamcu" target (Pentium-like but with
> soft-fp emulation, the only x86 with SoftFP I know) with
> --enable-target-optspace.
Support for i?86*-*-elfiamcu target has been checked in as of
revision 225199.
>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Zinovy Nis wrote:
>
>> It works properly but I noticed that code the size for many arithmetic
>> functions is much more larger than for soft-fp emulation provided by
>> LLVM's compiler_rt library.
>
> Code size is discuss
To avoid indirect branch to locally defined functions, I am proposing to
add a new relocation, R_X86_64_INDBR_GOTPCREL, to x86-64 psABI:
1. When branching to an external function, foo, toolchain generates
call/jmp *foo@GOTPCREL(%rip)
with R_X86_64_INDBR_GOTPCREL relocation, instead o
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 11:10 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
>> > OK, I think I have this part of the code working on MIPS but
>> > crtl->drap_reg is used in the epilogue as well as the prologue even if
>> > it is not 'live' in between. If I
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 02:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
>> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways.
>
> in-tree/combined-tree builds aren't recommended a
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Alan, gcc maintainers,
>>>
>>> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
>>> of 2.24 as I had in
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Al
Since ira_implicitly_set_insn_hard_regs may be called outside of
ira-lives.c, it can't use the local variable, preferred_alternatives.
This patch adds an alternative_mask argument to
ira_implicitly_set_insn_hard_regs.
OK for master and 5 branch if there are no regressions on Linux/x86-64?
H.J.
--
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> Since ira_implicitly_set_insn_hard_regs may be called outside of
>> ira-lives.c, it can't use the local variable, preferred_alternatives.
>> This patch
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> following post to the GCC list:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg8.html
>
> So far, I've been prototyping static PIE support by having GCC pass
> the following opti
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
>> > following post
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:42:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > > For background on the sta
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 08:56:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:42:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 0
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:30:56AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 08:56:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 21 August 2015 at 11:44, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Absolutely, a non-fast-forward push is anathema for anything other people
might be working on. The
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
>
> BTW while I have your attention: Why are you constantly creating
> (rebasing) and deleting branches? Why not simply use a local git tree
> for this purpose?
I want to share my branches with people who have no access to my
local git r
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> One very frustrating thing for me is "git bisect" doesn't always
>> work. I think cherry-pick is OK, but probably not rebase nor merge.
>>
>> Can we e
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> up to date by "git merge origin/master". I never tried "git bisect"
>> on it since I know that commits on that branch aren't consecutive.
>
> bisect works
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> "git bisect good"/"git bisect bad" land my tree not on trunk when
>> they are used on commits from wide-int branch merge.
>
> Yes, that is bisect working a
The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler. The
requirements are
1. Both interrupt and exception handlers must use the 'IRET' instruction,
instead of the 'RET' instruction, to return from the handlers.
2. All re
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
> hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler. The
> requirements are
>
> 1. Both interrupt and exception handlers must use the 'IRET'
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Fortune
wrote:
> H.J. Lu writes:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
>> > hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Matthew Fortune
wrote:
> H.J. Lu writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Fortune
>> wrote:
>> > H.J. Lu writes:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> > The interrupt and ex
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> To implement interrupt and exception handlers for x86 processors, a
>> compiler should support:
>>
>> 1. void * __builtin_ia32_interrupt_data (void)
>
> I got a feedback on the name of this builtin function. Since
&
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> To implement interrupt and exception handlers for x86 processors, a
>>> compiler should support:
>>>
>>> 1. void * __builtin_ia32_interrupt_data (void
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52 AM, John Criswell wrote:
> On 9/21/15 12:27 PM, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To i
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:23 PM, John Criswell wrote:
> On 9/21/15 4:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52 AM, John Criswell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/21/15 12:27 PM, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Se
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu via cfe-dev"
>> To: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 11:27:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: Suppor
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu"
>> To: "Hal Finkel"
>> Cc: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57:36 PM
>> Subject:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu"
>> To: "Hal Finkel"
>> Cc: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 7:17:20 PM
>> Subject:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:41 AM, David Chisnall
wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2015, at 21:45, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> The main purpose of x86 interrupt attribute is to allow programmers
>> to write x86 interrupt/exception handlers in C WITHOUT assembly
>> stubs to avoid
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:44 AM, David Chisnall
wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:39, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> The center piece of my proposal is not to change how parameters
>> are passed in compiler. As for user experience, the feedbacks on
>> my proposal from
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> HJ, I think Hal is right. Providing the data via arguments is vastly superior
> to providing it via builtins. I had actually been thinking the same thing
> myself.
>
> It should be easy to check that the function has the correct sig
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Helen Tang wrote:
> I built a gcc toolchain on Ubuntu and cygwin on Windows. The results
> from objdump are different. Is this normal? Is there a way to make
> them the same?
It shouldn't happen on the same input file. If it does, please open
a bug report.
--
H
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 15.10.2015 17:57, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>>
>>> PR gold/19119
>>> * options.h (General_options): Remove "obsolete" from -m.
>>
>>
>> I'm a little reluctant to remove "obsolete" from the description --
>> maybe "deprecated
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 25.10.2015 18:40, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15.10.2015 17:57, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
Hi,
The x86-64 psABI has been updated to revision 248. Main changes are
1. Support Intel MPX.
2. Add a chapter for linker optimization.
3. Add 2 new relocations, R_X86_64_GOTPCRELX and R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX.
MPX supported has been checked into GCC 5 and ld in binutils 2.25.
Linker optimization
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The x86-64 psABI has been updated to revision 248. Main changes are
>
> 1. Support Intel MPX.
> 2. Add a chapter for linker optimization.
> 3. Add 2 new relocations, R_X86_64_GOTPCRELX and R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX.
When implementing interrupt attribute for x86 interrupt handlers, we
have a difficult time to access interrupt data passed down by x86
processors. On x86, interrupt handlers are only called by processors
which push interrupt data onto stack at the address where the normal
return address is. Inter
Hi,
Here is the Intel386 psABI version 1.1 draft:
https://github.com/hjl-tools/x86-psABI/wiki/intel386-psABI-20151120.pdf
Main changes are
1. Add AVX-512 support.
2. Add linker optimization to combine GOTPLT and GOT slots.
3. Add R_386_GOT32X relocation and linker optimization.
4. Add FS/GS Bas
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the Intel386 psABI version 1.1 draft:
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/x86-psABI/wiki/intel386-psABI-20151120.pdf
>
> Main changes are
>
> 1. Add AVX-512 support.
> 2. Add linker optimization to com
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Wink Saville wrote:
> What is the status of the x86 interrupt attribute patch?
>
> One of the last references I see is here and an attempt to update the
> middle-end here.
>
> -- Wink
You can try hjl/interrupt/stage1 branch in git repo, which is queued for
GCC 7.
anch about once a week.
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Wink Saville wrote:
>> > What is the status of the x86 interrupt attribute patch?
>> >
>> > One of the last references I see is here and an at
include/plugin-api.h defines an ABI between linker and compiler,
which can be used to implement linker plug-in by any compilers.
I'd like to add GCC Runtime Library Exception to include/plugin-api.h
so that the linker plug-in can have non-GPL licenses.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Wink Saville wrote:
> I using hjl/interrupt/gcc-5-branch and my program is crashing when I
> issue an INT xx. The problem appears to me to be that using
> __attribute__ ((interrupt)) causes the a IRET to be emitted when an
> IRETQ should be emitted. Below is my tri
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Wink Saville wrote:
>> I using hjl/interrupt/gcc-5-branch and my program is crashing when I
>> issue an INT xx. The problem appears to me to be that using
>> __attribute__ ((interrupt)) ca
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Wink Saville wrote:
> Thanks. How are you testing?
>
>
* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wall -g" } */
void
__attribute__((interrupt))
fn (void *frame)
{
}
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "add(l|q)\[\\t \]*\\$\[0-9\]*,\[\\t
\]*%\[re\]?sp" } } */
/
o that the linker plug-in can have non-GPL licenses.
>
> This is OK with me.
>
> -cary
Here is a patch. OK for trunk?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
From 3f8f62505774116d5de233ca36f60e3f8a840516 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "H.J. Lu"
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:02:03 -0800
Subject: [PATCH
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 implemen
Empty struct value is passed differently in C and C++ on Intel386 and x86-64.
Different compilers use different calling conventions on the same platform:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
The same compiler behaves different on different platforms:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>> I am proposing to update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs to specify
>> how to pass/return empty struct:
>>
>> 1. "collection". A collection is a structure, union or C++ class.
>> 2. "empty collection". An empty collecti
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * H. J. Lu:
>>
>>> I am proposing to update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs to specify
>>> how to pass/return empty struct:
>>>
>>> 1
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>>> Any syntactical array argument (at the C level) is should be passed as
>>> a pointer. The language appears to change that.
>>
>> I didn't use aggregate so that array is excluded here.
>>
>>> For 2., static members and non-
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>>> I tested GCC 5.3.1 and Clang 3.5.0.
>>>
>>> GCC Clang
>>> s0 non-emptynon-empty
>>> s1 non-emptyempty
>>> s2 non-emptyempty
>>> s3 emptyempty
>>> s4 emptyempty
>>> s5 no
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * H. J. Lu:
>>
>>>> I tested GCC 5.3.1 and Clang 3.5.0.
>>>>
>>>> GCC Clang
>>>> s0 non-emptynon-empty
&g
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> The standard-layout POD is well defined:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B11#Modification_to
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 15:42, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 16:05, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> My understanding is
>>
>> A type that is standard-layout means that it orders and packs its
>> members in a way that is compatible with C.
>>
>> What is
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> A type is a standard-layout type, or it isn't.
>>
>> How about "An empty record is standard-layout Plain Old Data (POD)
>> type and ..."?
>
> That's redundant, all POD types are standard-layout types.
>
Apparently, not all standard-layout
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 8 February 2016 at 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> A type is a stand
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 18:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>> On 8 February 2016 at 17:58
Hi,
I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
I will propose some new e
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
>>
>> I will start t
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * H.J. Lu [2016-02-08 11:24:53 -0800]:
>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>
>> https:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * H. J. Lu:
>>>
I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
modification and extension of generic System V Application Binar
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 19:23, Richard Smith wrote:
>> "POD for the purpose of layout" is defined in the Itanium C++ ABI here:
>>
>> http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#definitions
>
> Thanks. So there's no problem using "POD f
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>> > On 8 February 2016 at 19:23, Richard Smith wrote:
>> >> "POD for the purpo
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 8
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> Do we really need an 'empty type' special case?
>
> The x86_64 psABI already seems clear that empty types with size <= 16
> are not passed at all. Following the algorithm in section 3.2.3, each
> eightbyte is classified as NO_CLASS, and thus i
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith
&
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> Do we really need an 'empty type' special case?
>>>
>>> The x86_64 psABI already seems
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> >> I was referring to program properties:
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
>> >
>> > This looks mo
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith
&
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 22:40, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> "empty type". An empty type is either an array of empty types or a
>> class type where every member is of empty type.
>
> Note that the term "empty type
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 11:53, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Since this isn't Plain Old Data (POD) for the purposes of layout, it
>> isn't covered by my proposal for psABI. I leave this to C++ ABI.
>
> You never
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
wrote:
> H.J,
>
> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists. This
> new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
> put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml
>
> The Intro o
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 13:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> "POD for the purpose of layout" is defined in the Itanium C++ ABI here:
>>
>> http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#definitions
>
> Sorry,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 15:00, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I intentionally exclude C++ specific features in my propose.
>
> Yet you use a definition from the Itanium C++ ABI which itself depends
> on multiple definitions in a par
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 11 February 2016 at 12:40, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
>> > You never define "POD for the purposes of layout", and I can only
>> > interpret it as being equivalent to "standard-layout".
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions on new wording, something like
>>
>> 1. "class type". A class type is a structure, union or C++ class.
>> 2. "empty type
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
wrote:
> On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> H.J,
>>>
>>> I think we are fragmenting with too many stand
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 16:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> struct A {
>> static void foo (void) ();
>> static int xxx;
>> };
>
> What about it? It's an empty struct. (And it declares a function and
>
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2016, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>
>>> wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
>>> to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
>>> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:39 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Matthijs van Duin
> wrote:
>> On 11 February 2016 at 16:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> struct A {
>>> static void foo (void) ();
>>> static int xxx;
>>> };
>>
>&
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:39 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Matthijs van Duin
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 11 February
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Richard Smith
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 12,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Richard Sm
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Richard Sm
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Richard Sm
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Here is the new definition:
>>
>> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
>> are of class, structure, union, or array t
1 - 100 of 1206 matches
Mail list logo
