GCC 13.0.0 Status Report (2022-04-28)

Status == The trunk has branched for the GCC 12 release and is now open again for general development, stage 1. Please consider not disrupting it too much during the RC phase of GCC 12 so it is possible to test important fixes for 12.1 on it. Quality Data Priority #

Re: GCC 12.0.1 Status Report (2022-04-28)

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 09:25:43AM -0600, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote: > On 4/28/2022 8:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > > Status > > == > > > > We have reached zero P1 regressions today and releases/gcc-12 branch has > > been created. GCC 12.1-rc1 will

Re: FW: ompd_get_thread_id in OMPD implementation

On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 12:38:11AM +0200, Ahmed Sayed Mousse wrote: > Sorry for the late reply. > I did check gomp_thread_self but I'm still not sure about what I should do, > maybe because I lack experience/knowledge. > Here is where my thinking is going right now and I hope you tell me if I'm > w

GCC 12.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The first release candidate for GCC 12.1 is available from https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12.1.0-RC-20220429/ ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12.1.0-RC-20220429/ and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit r12-8321-g621650f64fb667. I have so far bootstrapped and

Re: GCC 12.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Sun, May 01, 2022 at 11:02:29AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote: > All of these show new fails (presumably because checking is off): > > XPASS: c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-decompose-pr100400-1-2.c -std=c++98 > (internal compiler error) > FAIL: c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-decompose-pr100400-1-2.c -std

OpenMP patch review and work in progress

Hi! Now that GCC 12 branched, can I ask you for: 1) pings for OpenMP patches that are ready and you'd like to get reviewed for GCC 13 2) what OpenMP 5.0/5.1/5.2 features people are already working on and plan to post patches later during stage1 Thanks Jakub

GCC 12.1.1 Status Report (2022-05-06)

Status == GCC 12.1 has been released, the releases/gcc-12 branch is open again for regression and documentation bugfixing. GCC 12.2 can be expected in 2-3 months from now unless something serious changes the plans. Quality Data Priority # Change from last report ---

Re: [RFC] Adding division/modulo on arbitrary precision integers to libgcc

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 02:09:21PM +, Matthias Gehre via Gcc wrote: > /// \param quo The quotient represented by n words. Must be non-null. > /// \param rem The remainder represented by n words. Must be non-null. > /// \param a The dividend represented by n + 1 words. Must be non-null. > /// \p

Re: OMPD Branch

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 09:47:34AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Hi Mohamed, > > On 19.05.22 03:39, Mohamed Atef via Gcc wrote: > > Should I commit to devel/omp/gcc-11 branch? > > Short answer – no. Yeah, you should create a new devel/omp/ompd branch. We want a public branch in the devel/omp na

Re: OMPD Copyright

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 08:35:43PM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote: > Can OMPD be under our university Copyright? > The project is a university project. When you use DCO, your contribution will be under the copyright of whomever owns the copyright to it (you or your university etc.), but we really don't

Re: problem with Makefile.in generation in lingomp

On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:25:59AM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote: >I downloaded the last version of the repo, but when I try to > autoreconf > in libgomp/ > i get this error "plugin/Makefrag.am:29: error: libgomp_la_LIBADD must be > set with '=' before using '+='" > line 29 in libgomp/plugin/Makefr

Re: problem with Makefile.in generation in lingomp

On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:53:36AM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote: > I use 1.15.1. > This is the link to the line I mentioned. > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libgomp/plugin/Makefrag.am#L29 You shouldn't be running autoreconf, just automake to regenerate Makefile.in, and when I run it,

Re: OMPD: 5.5.8 Display Control Variables

On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 05:56:46PM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote: > To implement this > , > should I add a function in the runtime to dump all the > environment variables. Or should I use variables from helper functions? > To make

Re: OMP_PLACES

On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 10:48:30PM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote: > Hello, > if I want to dump elements of gomp_places_list > in a string > > gomp_affinity_print_place (gomp_places_list[i]); > what does this function do ? > I read its body, it has only one line > (void) p; > should I call it before

Re: mimicking gomp_thead(void) for OMPD-API implementation

On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 11:13:11AM +0200, Ahmed Sayed Mousse via Gcc wrote: >To implement the function ompd_get_thread_handle (…) from > the OMPD API. I need to get the gomp_thread struct using thread context > and address space context and in order to do that I want to apply the >

Re: OPMD Task_Handles

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:01:34PM +0200, Yousssef Magdy wrote: > hello there, > I am currently implementing the ompd lib as a graduation project with > Mohamed Atef, I am Facing some problems such as: > - in ompd_get_scheduling_task_handle >

Re: [RFC] Support for nonzero attribute

On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 04:34:48PM +, Miika via Gcc wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to add support for new attribute: nonzero. > Nonzero attribute works the same way as nonnull but instead of checking for > NULL, it checks for integer or enum with value 0. NULL/nullptr is very special pointe

Re: [C2x] Disallow function attributes after function identifier

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:40:15PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > So, could you please drop that from C2x? No! For one it diverges from C++, but also it means something different at the different locations. [[attr0]] void foo (void), bar (void); appertains to both declarations, while v

GCC 10.3.1 Status Report (2022-06-14)

Status == The GCC 10 branch is in regression and documentation fixing mode. After the release of GCC 9.5 it's time to do another release from the 10 branch - GCC 10.4. I will do a GCC 10.4 release candidate next week, June 21st, followed by the release a week after that if no serious problem

Re: gomp_affinity_format_len

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 06:00:47PM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote: > I cant't get the value of "gomp_affinity_format_let" I used the plugin but > it only gives 0 value. if you noticed in the gompd_get_affinity_format i > used 100 for the length of the affinity format. gomp_affinity_format_len is just a

Re: GSoC Blog Post 0 - GCCprefab build system

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 08:45:04PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc wrote: > PS: we should rm https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=contrib/gcc_build No. gcc_build is used by maintainer-scripts/gcc_release, so by killing it you'd make gcc unreleasable. > It was not updated since th

GCC 10.4 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The first release candidate for GCC 10.4 is available from https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.4.0-RC-20220621/ ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.4.0-RC-20220621/ and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit r10-10862-g3c390f4ad27c3d79fd1817276a6d3217fd9bfb51. I ha

GCC 10.3.1 Status Report (2022-06-21), branch frozen for release

Status == The GCC 10 branch is frozen for the release of GCC 10.4 with a first release candidate published. All changes require release manager approval. Quality Data Priority # Change from last report --- --- P1

Re: _Unwind_Resume() references in libgcc division functions

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 03:13:19PM +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed that several division related routines provided by libgcc such as > __divdi3, __moddi3 and __umoddi3 have references to _Unwind_Resume for the > sparc-rtems target. For example: That is because: ifeq ($(LIB2_

Re: GOMP and gomp

On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 05:49:41AM +0200, Mohamed Atef via Gcc wrote: > What is the difference between functions with GOMP prefixes and the other > with gomp? GOMP_ prefix is used on exported libgomp APIs used by code emitted by the compiler for OpenMP programs, various OpenMP pragmas that need so

GCC 10.4 Released

The GNU Compiler Collection version 10.4 has been released. GCC 10.4 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 10 branch containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 10.3 with more than 209 bugs fixed since the previous release. This release is available from the FTP servers listed

Re: libgompd output test

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 06:45:51AM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote: > for this test case, > > 1.#include > 2.#include > 3.int > 4.main() > 5.{ > 6. omp_set_num_threads (5); > 7. #pragma omp parallel > 8.{ > 9. int th = omp_get_thread_num (); > 10. printf ("i am thread %d\n", th); > 11.

Re: spaceship_replacement cannot see through simplified set of FP conditionals

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 01:40:12PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > With my upcoming patch enabling floating point VRP, > g++.dg/opt/pr94589-2.C is failing: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598788.html > > The problem is that phiopt no longer sees the following snippet, > bec

Re: spaceship_replacement cannot see through simplified set of FP conditionals

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 01:51:00PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Swt! > > Would you like me to XFAIL the test or leave it as a failure? Either is fine. Jakub

Re: Floating-point comparisons in the middle-end

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:04:58AM +0200, FX wrote: > Fortran 2018 introduced intrinsic functions for all the IEEE-754 comparison > operations, compareQuiet* and compareSignaling* I want to introduce those > into the Fortran front-end, and make them emit the right code. But cannot > find the co

Re: Floating-point comparisons in the middle-end

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 11:04:03AM +0200, FX wrote: > Hi Jakub, > > >> 2. All the functions are available as GCC type-generic built-ins (yeah!), > >> except there is no __builtin_ iseqsig > >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77928). Is there a > >> fundamental problem with creating

Re: commit signing

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 01:31:06PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > How does this improve supply chain security if the signing happens > automagically rather than manually at points somebody actually > did extra verification? That is, what's the attack vector this helps with? > > What's the

Re: Question about why GCC produces the wrong-code bug

On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 11:18:56PM +0800, Haoxin Tu via Gcc wrote: > Dear developers, > > May I seek your help with some understanding of why GCC produces the > wrong-code bug? I understand that such a bug can only be reproduced in an > old GCC version, but I still want to know why GCC made mistak

Re: When does GCC need to use the functions decode_ieee_single()/decode_ieee_double() ?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:22:55PM +0800, pengsheng.chen--- via Gcc wrote: > The functions encode_ieee_single()/encode_ieee_double() encode the GCC > internal representation (i.e., REAL_VALUE_TYPE) to the corresponding IEEE > single precision/double precision formats. The constant values in a progr

Re: Handling of main() function for freestanding

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 08:00:15AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 10:17 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc > wrote: > > > > As part of implementing a C++23 proposal [1] to massively increase the > > scope of the freestanding C++ standard library some questions came up > > a

Re: Rust front-end

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 08:42:58AM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > On Tue, 2022-10-04 at 13:29 +0100, Philip Herron wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > As the cut-off for merging is coming up in November, quite a few of > > our patches have not been reviewed yet. > > > > There are a few main is

Re: Need help with match.pd crash

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 06:57:40PM -0400, Michael Collison wrote: > I am trying to improve code generation for coremark to match a recent > improvement that was made in LLVM. > > I added the following transformation to match.pd which attempts to replace a > branch with straight line code: > > /*

Re: Handling of main() function for freestanding

On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 09:51:31AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > There are some tests that fail if we do that. For whatever reason, > > they're checking the current semantics. > > > * gcc.dg/c11-noreturn-4.c: Add -fno-builtin-main to options. > > * gcc.dg/inline-10.c: Likewise. > > IMO

Re: Handling of main() function for freestanding

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 07:03:24PM +0200, Arsen Arsenović wrote: > @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ > /* Check for "noreturn" warning in main. */ > /* { dg-do compile } */ > -/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wmissing-noreturn -ffreestanding" } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wmissing-noreturn" } */ > extern void exit (int) _

[RFC] c++, libstdc++: Default make check vs. tests for newest C++ standard

Hi! The screw-up on my side with libstdc++ testing (tested normally rather than in C++23 mode) makes me wonder if we couldn't tweak the default testing. Dunno what libstdc++ testing normally does (just C++17?), make check-g++ tests by default { 98, 14, 17, 20 } (and I regularly use GXX_TESTSUITE_S

GCC 10.4.1 Status Report (2022-10-19)

Status == The GCC 10 branch is in regression and documentation fixing mode. Apparently I haven't sent a status report after 10.4 got released, so sending one now. GCC 10.5 is still many months away, maybe spring next year. Quality Data Priority # Change from last re

Re: Announcement: Porting the Docs to Sphinx - 9. November 2022

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:43:06PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Martin Liška wrote: > > > > Also, but not strictly part of the release issue: > > > > > > (d) Builds with missing or old Sphinx should work regardless of whether > > > such files are in the source directory - bu

Re: C89isms in the test suite

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:40:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > What should we do about these when they are not relevant to what's being > tested? For example, gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/mzero6.c > has this: > > int main () > { > if (__builtin_copysign (1.0, func (

Re: C89isms in the test suite

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > So we would patch the tests? Depends on how large the patch is, but I'd say so. > I guess we can make sure we use “int main > (void)” etc. at the same time. Why? Isn't int main () {} in C2X the same thing as int main (void) {} ?

Re: GCC 13: OpenMP offloading to Intel MIC has been removed (was: Remove support for Intel MIC offloading)

On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 11:05:13AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On 2022-10-20T13:34:41+0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > we'll need to update the offloading wiki > > I'll look into that. I assume we just remove any "Intel MIC&qu

Re: GCC 13.0.0 Status Report (2022-11-14), Stage 3 in effect now

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:02:53AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > > Is it allowed to merge libsanitizer from LLVM in stage 3? If not I'd > > like to cherry pick some commits from LLVM [to fix some stupid errors > > I've made in LoongArch libasan :(]. > > I'm sorry but I was really busy with the por

Re: GCC 13.0.0 Status Report (2022-11-14), Stage 3 in effect now

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 01:49:36PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > On 11/15/22 11:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:02:53AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> Is it allowed to merge libsanitizer from LLVM in stage 3? If not I'd > >>> like to cherry pick some commits from LLVM [to

Re: OMPD patch

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:21:25PM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote: > Sorry for sending this mail lately. As you know my team, and I are > responsible for adding OMPD support to libgomp, but the project is still > unfinished I added a big part you can find it on devel/omp/ompd/ branch and > here in my

Re: C89isms in the test suite

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 09:19:26AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Sam James: > > > Would you be able to backport 6be2672e4ee41c566a9e072088a263bab5f7 > > and 885b6660c17fb91980b5682514ef54668e544b02 to the active <13 > > branches? > > Jakub, okay to backport these two (to 12, 11, 10 I presu

Re: Please, really, make `-masm=intel` the default for x86

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 02:39:41PM +0800, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote: > I am a Windows developer and I have been writing x86 and amd64 assembly for > more than ten years. One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I need > to write I piece of inline assembly then I have to do it twice: one in AT&T

Re: Missing optimization: mempcpy(3) vs memcpy(3)

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:44:04PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > > I don't see any problem with the code snippets you provided. > > Well, then the optimization may be the other way around (although I question > why it is implemented that way, and not the other way around, but I'm not a

Re: Missing optimization: mempcpy(3) vs memcpy(3)

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:48:35PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 at 14:09, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > On 12/12/22 14:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > I think that is the case, plus the question if one can use a non-standard > > > function to implement a standard function (a

Re: Missing optimization: mempcpy(3) vs memcpy(3)

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 04:56:27PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > "Names beginning with ‘str’, ‘mem’, or ‘wcs’ followed by a lowercase letter > are reserved for additional string and array functions. See String and Array > Utilities." It is not that simple. mem*, str* and wcs* are just potentia

Re: [wwwdocs] C++03 missing on https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 05:53:19PM +0100, U.Mutlu wrote: > On this page all ISO C++ standards versions of gcc/g++ are listed, except > C++03: > https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html > > This looks much like an error/omission b/c g++ has the options -std=c++03 > and -std=gnu++03 C++03 isn'

Re: GOMP: OMP 5.1: simd construct for non-pointer random access iterators

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 09:31:50PM +0100, Grosse-Bley, Paul Leonard wrote: > > Hi together, > > I just ran into the issue that `#pragma omp simd` does not work on C++ > iterator loops (godbolt). > >From going through the specifications I understand that this restriction was > >part of 4.5 and 5

Re: struct sockaddr_storage

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:03:00PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On 1/23/23 08:40, Stefan Puiu wrote: > > > > > According to strict aliasing rules, if you declare a variable of type > > > > > 'struct > > > > > sockaddr_storage', that's what you get, and trying to access

Re: libquadmath, glibc, and the Q format flag

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 11:56:42AM +0100, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > I recently discovered that libquadmath registers custom printf callbacks > on load. As far as I can tell, this is done so that the Q format flag > can be used to print floating point numbers, using format strings such > as "

Re: libquadmath, glibc, and the Q format flag

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 12:29:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > >> This impacts most (all?) Fortran code on GNU/Linux because libgfortran > >> depends on libquadmath. > > > > Not anymore. > > If GCC is configured against new enough glibc (with _Float128 support) > > libgfortran.so.5 is no

Re: POWER __builtin_add_overflow/__builtin_mul_overflow with u64

Hi! CCing Segher and David on this. rs6000 indeed doesn't implement {,u}{add,sub,mul}v4_optab for any mode and thus leaves it to the generic code. On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 04:48:42AM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > I'm looking at the generated code for these builtins on POWER: > > add 4,3,4

Re: [GSoC] gccrs Unicode support

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:00:19AM +, Philip Herron via Gcc wrote: > Excellent work on getting up to speed on the rust front-end. From my > perspective I am interested to see what the wider GCC community thinks > about using https://www.gnu.org/software/libunistring/ library within GCC > instea

Re: [GSoC] gccrs Unicode support

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 01:58:57PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 10:28 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > I'm now also putting Mark Wielaard in CC; he once also started discussing > > this topic, "thinking of importing a couple of gnulib modules to help > > with UTF-8 processin

Re: [GSoC] gccrs Unicode support

On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 05:59:34PM +0900, Raiki Tamura wrote: > 2023年3月18日(土) 17:47 Jonathan Wakely : > > > On Sat, 18 Mar 2023, 08:32 Raiki Tamura via Gcc, wrote: > > > >> Thank you everyone for your advice. > >> Some kinds of names are restricted to unicode alphabetic/numeric in Rust. > >> > >

GCC 13.0.1 Status Report (2023-04-17)

Status == We have reached zero P1 regressions today and releases/gcc-13 branch has been created. GCC 13.1-rc1 will be built likely tomorrow. The branch is now frozen for blocking regressions and documentation fixes only, all changes to the branch require a RM approval now. If no show stopper

GCC 14.0.0 Status Report (2023-04-17)

Status == The trunk has branched for the GCC 13 release and is now open again for general development, stage 1. Please consider not disrupting it too much during the RC phase of GCC 13 so it is possible to test important fixes for 13.1 on it. Quality Data Priority #

GCC 13.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The first release candidate for GCC 13.1 is available from https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13.1.0-RC-20230419/ ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13.1.0-RC-20230419/ and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit r13-7224-g865d712a9a20ee. I have so far bootstrapped and

Second GCC 13.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The second release candidate for GCC 13.1 is available from https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13.1.0-RC2-20230419/ ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13.1.0-RC2-20230419/ and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit r13-7226-g68997d4323cdcb. The https://gcc.gnu.org/PR10

Re: GCC 13.1 compile error when using CXXFLAGS=-std=c++20

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:09:19AM +0200, Helmut Zeisel via Gcc wrote: > I compiled GCC 13.1.0 with GCC 12 and had the environment variable CXXFLAGS > set to -std=c++20 > This gives the error (both linux and cygin) > > gcc-13.1.0/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/bitmap_allocator.cc:51:23: error: ISO C++17

Re: Aw: Re: GCC 13.1 compile error when using CXXFLAGS=-std=c++20

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:35:23AM +0200, Helmut Zeisel wrote: > >Von: "Jakub Jelinek" > >An: "Helmut Zeisel" > >Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > >Betreff: Re: GCC 13.1 compile error when using CXXFLAGS=-std=c++20 > >On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:09:19AM +0200, Helmut Zeisel via Gcc wrote: > >> I compiled GCC

Re: GCC 12.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 10:31:21AM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote: > My patch for 106890 caused 109666, so I'd like to revert the 106890 patch > (r12-9441-g94569d91bd4c60) for 12.3. Ok. Guess we should do RC2 either tonight or tomorrow then, there are I think 2 other commits that could get som

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 05:16:19PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > > > Am 09.05.2023 um 14:16 schrieb Florian Weimer via Gcc : > > > > TL;DR: This message is about turning implicit-int, > > implicit-function-declaration, and possibly int-conversion into errors > > for GCC 14. > > I su

Re: End of subscription

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:44:08PM +0530, Ruchit Raushan via Gcc wrote: > Don't want to receive further emails. Each mail on the mailing list tells that in the headers: List-Unsubscribe: ,

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 10:04:06PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote: > > From: Jonathan Wakely > > Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 18:15:59 +0100 > > Cc: Arsen Arsenović , gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > > > On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 17:56, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > > > No one has yet explained why a warning about th

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 02:30:07PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Jonathan Wakely > > Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 09:04:12 +0100 > > Cc: Florian Weimer , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" > > , > > Jakub Jelinek , Arsen Arsenović > > > > void foo(int); > > void bar() { foo("42"); } > > > > Why should t

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 05:14:43PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 14:41:27 +0200 > > Cc: jwakely@gmail.com, fwei...@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, > > ar...@aarsen.me > > From: Gabriel Ravier > > > > >>> Because GCC is capable of compiling it. > > >> That is not a good

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:10:37AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > What practices might the GCC community recommend to a project > > > wanting to discover the issues uncovered and slowly address them? I > > > > -Werror=implicit-int > > -Werror=implicit-function-declaration > > -Werror=int-convers

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 06:30:40PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 16:22:26 +0200 > > From: Jakub Jelinek > > Cc: Gabriel Ravier , jwakely@gmail.com, > > fwei...@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, ar...@aarsen.me > > > > > > Are you seriously saying that no accepts-in

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:14 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:10:37AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > > > What practices might the GCC community recommend to a project > > > > > wanting to discover the iss

Re: std::format not listed on the C++ Standards support page

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:38:02AM -0600, C. Heide via Gcc wrote: > Hello, just a note that support for std::format (P0645R10) does > not seem to be listed anywhere on the current C++ Standards > Support page (https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html). > > I was trying to figure out if it was

Re: std::format not listed on the C++ Standards support page

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 06:45:55PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:38:02AM -0600, C. Heide via Gcc wrote: > > Hello, just a note that support for std::format (P0645R10) does > > not seem to be listed anywhere on the current C++ Standards > >

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:53:28AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote: > > From: Arsen Arsenović > > Cc: luang...@yahoo.com, jwakely@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 21:25:53 +0200 > > > > >> This seems like a good route to me - it facilitates both veterans > > >> maintai

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

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 complete this work in a reasonable time > > fram

GCC 11.3.1 Status Report (2023-05-15)

Status == The gcc-11 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes. It's time to do the annual release from the branch, GCC 12.4. I'd like to make the first release candidate on Monday, May 22nd, and a release one week later if all goes well. Please look through bugzilla and see whic

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:39:26PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > > On Tue, 16 May 2023, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > (FWIW: no, this should not be an error, a warning is fine, and I actually > > > think the current state of it not being in Wall is the right thing as > > > well) > > (this

GCC 11.4 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The first release candidate for GCC 11.4 is available from https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.4.0-RC-20230522/ ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.4.0-RC-20230522/ and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit r11-10806-gfcf62b96ec9ae3. I have so far bootstrapped and

Re: Will GCC eventually support SSE2 or SSE4.1?

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:59:03AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote: > 3) SSE4.1 is supported since Core2, but -march=core2 fails to enable it. >That's bad, REALITY CHECK, please! You're wrong. SSE4.1 first appeared in the 45nm versions of Core2, the 65nm versions didn't have it. The supported CPU

Re: Will GCC eventually support SSE2 or SSE4.1?

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 02:19:54PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote: > > I find it very SURPRISING that you're only just learning the basics of > > how to use gcc NOW, after YELLING about all the OUCH. > > I'm NOT surprised that you don't grok it! > > gcc -msse4.1 -m32 -march=core2 ... > > Which -m*

Re: Will GCC eventually support SSE2 or SSE4.1?

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 03:07:59PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > These points are obvious. > > NOT obvious is but that -m -march= does not clear any > > not supported in , i.e the last one does NOT win here. > > The last -march option selects the base set of instructions. The -mISA > options

Re: Another epic optimiser failure

On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 11:04:11PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote: > OUCH: popcnt writes the WHOLE result register, there is ABSOLUTELY > no need to clear it beforehand nor to clear the higher 24 bits > afterwards! Except that there is. See https://gcc.gnu.org/PR62011 for details.

GCC 11.4 Released

The GNU Compiler Collection version 11.4 has been released. GCC 11.4 is the first bug-fix release from the GCC 11 branch containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 11.3 with more than 110 bugs fixed since the previous release. This release is available from the WWW servers

Re: GCC 11.4 documentation 404's

On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 02:50:06PM +, Felix LeClair via Gcc wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Quick note that it seems like the freshly updated docs for GCC 11.4 seem to > be hitting a 404 error when attempting to access them. > > Links that 404 for me: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-11.

Re: C/C++ extension for SIMD proposal

On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 07:51:10PM +0200, Jakub Juszczakiewicz via Gcc wrote: > Hi all, > >     I don't know is here right place for sharing ideas, but I don't have > idea, where I can send it. > I have simple idea. When I turned on OpenMP, for parallelly execute simple > for it's enough when I ad

Re: Different ASM for ReLU function between GCC11 and GCC12

On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 09:10:53PM +0200, André Günther via Gcc wrote: > I noticed that a simple function like > auto relu( float x ) { > return x > 0.f ? x : 0.f; > } > compiles to different ASM using GCC11 (or lower) and GCC12 (or higher). On > -O3 -mavx2 the former compiles above function to

Re: Different ASM for ReLU function between GCC11 and GCC12

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:15:37AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 9:45 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 09:10:53PM +0200, André Günther via Gcc wrote: > > > I noticed that a simple function like > > > auto rel

Re: Different ASM for ReLU function between GCC11 and GCC12

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 03:03:19PM +, Michael Matz via Gcc wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > > > ce1 pass results in emit_conditional_move with > > (gt (reg/v:SF 83 [ x ]) (reg:SF 84)), (reg/v:SF 83 [ x ]), (reg:SF 84) > > o

Re: Hundreds of gcc.dg/guality failures on both 14 and 13.1 branches

On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 10:58:40PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jul 15 2023, FX Coudert via Gcc wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am finding it very hard to reliably compare test results and regressions > > with the very large number of gcc.dg/guality test failures that are > > apparentl

Re: Ju-Zhe Zhong and Robin Dapp as RISC-V reviewers

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 09:25:44AM +0800, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote: > Thanks Jeff. > I will wait after Robin updated his MAINTAINERS (since I don't known what > information I need put in). Add riscv port Juzhe Zhong line to the Reviewers section of MAINTAINERS file (alphabetically be

GCC 13.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The first release candidate for GCC 13.2 is available from https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13.2.0-RC-20230720/ ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13.2.0-RC-20230720/ and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit r13-7597-g9aac37ab8a7b91. I have so far bootstrapped and

GCC 13.1.1 Status Report (2023-07-20)

Status == The GCC 13 branch is frozen for the release of GCC 13.2 with a first release candidate published. All changes require release manager approval. Quality Data Priority # Change from last report --- --- P10

GCC 13.2.1 Status Report (2023-07-27)

Status == GCC 13.2 has been released, the releases/gcc-13 branch is open again for regression and documentation bugfixing. GCC 13.3 can be expected in spring next year unless something serious changes the plans. Quality Data Priority # Change from last report --

Re: GCC support for extensions from later standards

On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 08:03:05PM -0700, Nikolas Klauser wrote: > Thanks for the answers! > > There are a few really interesting extensions that I would like to use: > > - inline variables > - variable templates > - `if constexpr` > - fold expressions > - conditional explicit > - static operator

<    1   2   3   4   >