Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007.
Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all.
Yuri
I couldn't find anything on the matter, but what happens if -march is
repeated more than once? I would assume the usual behavior that the
last flag "wins".
On a haswell host, the following:
gcc -march=native -march=opteron
or
gcc -march=opteron -march=native
both emit code which is illegal fo
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 05:48 PM, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but please note, that this page describes differences between two
>> particular revisions. For current trunk (and release) GCC and LLVM versions
>> the situation might be different.
>>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
> On 11/07/16 19:28, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 07/11/2016 10:08 AM, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/07/16 18:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:31:31AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>
> CC'ing Jakub, Mar
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:20:55AM +0100, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>> There are people who would tolerate FPs if the tool indeed helps to
>> find vulnerabilities. Especially if there is easy way to suppress
>> checks in set o
Cc John.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
> On 12/07/16 12:20, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Maxim Ostapenko
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/07/16 19:28, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07/1
Hi all,
I've recently revisited an ancient patch from Paolo
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00551.html) which uses
asserts as optimization hints. I've rewritten the patch to be more
stable under expressions with side-effects and did some basic
investigation of it's efficacy.
Optimi
Hi all,
I've recently revisited an ancient patch from Paolo
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00551.html) which uses
asserts as optimization hints. I've rewritten the patch to be more
stable under expressions with side-effects and did some basic
investigation of it's efficacy.
Optimi
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've recently revisited an ancient patch from Paolo
>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00551.html) which uses
>&g
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-11-23 16:03:44 +0000, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>> Definitely, aggressively abusing assertions like this should be a
>> per-project decision. E.g. I've seen code which parallels assertions
>> with error ch
sential only for loop marked with pragma simd. For all changes
stress testing was done using spec2000 and spec2006, i.e. all loops
are considered as marked with pragma simd and it did not show any
failures.
Thanks.
Yuri.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> TL;DR:
> I have an issue where if I have a .so linked with -static-lib* making
> all STL symbols private, and if I throw an exception out of that .so to
> be caught by the caller, then I get a SIGABRT from a gcc_assert() down
> in the guts of th
Hi all,
It seems that info at
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm#How_to_Get_Involved.3F is
out-dated: Laurent's mail is not responsive and one's supposed to use
application form at https://cfarm.tetaneutral.net/users/new/ (which
provides all the necessary guidance).
Could someone update the wik
Hi all,
What do I need to do to close an old bug which does not repro with
modern GCC and reporter does not care anymore (e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40528)? Also, is there
some general policy about closing old bugs?
-Y
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 5 July 2017 at 10:13, Oleg Endo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 02:02 +0200, Geza Herman wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's what happens: in callInitA(), an Object put onto the stack (which
>>> has a const member variable, initialized to 0)
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Michael Clark wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Curious about this codegen:
>
> - https://godbolt.org/g/5XxP5S
>
> Why does gcc branch on _Bool, but emits a conditional move for an integer?
> can it emit cmovne instead of branching? also curious where one would change
> this to l
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Klaus Kruse Pedersen (Klaus)
wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 08:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 07/12/2017 05:07 AM, Klaus Kruse Pedersen (Klaus) wrote:
>> > I have seen reproducible builds being discussed here, but what is
>> > the
>> > position on inter c-
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Klaus Kruse Pedersen (Klaus)
wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 08:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 07/12/2017 05:07 AM, Klaus Kruse Pedersen (Klaus) wrote:
>> > I have seen reproducible builds being discussed here, but what is
>> > the
>> > position on inter c-
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> FWIW I've done a quick analysis of recent gcc source code using
> https://github.com/yugr/sortcheck and found lots of comparison
> functions which can return 0 for different objects.
>
> All these may cause arrays to be s
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>> I've also detect transitiveness violation compare_assert_loc
>> (tree-vrp.c), will send fix once tests are done.
>
> There are more issues still, see the
Hi Mikhail,
On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
> Hi. Yes, bug maintenance is appreciated. See this message and replies
> to it: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-04/msg00258.html .
Replies in your link suggest to leave a final comment in bugs with
explanatory suggestion to clos
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/17/2017 02:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mikhail,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Mikhail Maltsev
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi. Yes, bug maintenance is appreciated. See this messag
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/17/2017 02:25 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/17/2017 02:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 7/18/17, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 07/17/2017 02:25 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Martin Sebor wrote
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
>> 2) It would be nice to see some sort of out of memory error, rather than
>> just an ICE.
>
> There's nothing we can do: the kernel killed us. We can't emit any
> message before we die. (killed) tell
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Aug 09 2017, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
>>>> 2) It would be nice to see some sort of out of memory er
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Vincent Lefevre
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any news about the ASAN compatibility with glibc 2.27 on x86?
> Will this be fixed soon? This is important as this is a blocker.
>
> FYI, I had reported:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84761
Asan runtime librar
22 ) | ( minor )) ;
}
Shouldn't we modify a precondition in main:
if (sizeof (int) < 4)
exit (0);
to be
if (sizeof (int) != 4)
exit (0);
or better
if( sizeof(int)*CHAR_BIT != 32 )
exit(0)
?
Best regards,
Yuri
> Yes, it's possible that 64-bit ints are not supported by the testsuite.
> Changes to fix that are welcome.
I am not a gcc developer. Could someone verify and commit this patch
for testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/980526-2.c?
Best regards,
Yuri
980526-2.patch
Description: Binary data
> Done. But if you have more cases, please report them.
Not yet. Thx!
--
Best regards,
Yuri
> Therefore, the most effective way to address the issue of running redundant
> optimization passes in the context is probably to put it in the wider
> context
> of the work to allow external plugins to influence the pass sequence that is
> being applied, and to control this with machine learning.
Hi!
I totally agree with Basille. Actually pretty similar thing was
implemented by Liang Peng (ICT) as GCC GSoC'09 project -
http://ctuning.org/wiki/index.php/CTools:ICI:Projects:GSOC09:Function_cloning_and_program_instrumentation
So, probably you should take a look at the code in the
instrument
Compiling openssl-0.9.8b with gcc-4.2 snapshots, I found gcc 4.2
fortifies its check for function pointer conversion and generates
abort for PEM_read_X509_AUX() and similar wrappers.
There was an old discussion about casting pointer to function
issue - "Why does casting a function generate a run-t
So that ICE still exist for objective-c and is just hidden with
warn/trap workaround
for c/c++:
double foo(double arg)
{
return arg;
}
int bar(int d)
{
d = ((int (*) (int)) foo)(d);
return d *d;
}
If you compile the above example in objective-c mode (gcc -O3 -x
objective-c),
current mainl
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jul 4, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Yuri Pudgorodsky wrote:
>
>> Can someone make the decision to reopen PR optimization/12085?
>
> And I posted a patch to do the same in Objective-C mode as C mode :).
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg01013.
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:36 AM, Yuri Pudgorodsky wrote:
>
>> 1) with direct cast: (int (*)(int)) foo
>> - warn/trap since 3.x
>> 2) with cast through void fptr: (int (*)(int)) (int(*)()) foo
>> - warn/trap since 4.2 current
>
> I don&#x
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Furthermore, I've read people suggesting that we are gratuitously
> broking code. That is misleading. The code was invoking undefined
> behaviour and, before, we did not make any explicit guarantee about
> the semantics.
> It is one thing to argue for changing gear; but
>
> I believe I understand your general objection. I don't feel strongly
> about the current behaviour, except that if it has to change then it
> must be a documented extension.
>
> I don't think we can meaningfully order the space of "undefined
> behaviour" and single out some as are "more un
> I apologize for presenting something which appears to be a strawman
> argument. That would never be my intent. Let me restate: I don't
> think gcc should ever insert a trap call for undefined code. We
> should only insert a trap call for code which will provably trap.
>
> We're currently brea
unction
> pointer, and therefore does not inline it.
>
> The Objective C frontend does ICE on the test case which Yuri pointed
> out, but that ICE is independent of the code in c-typeck.c. As far as
> I can tell in two minutes, that's a type error in the Objective C
> fro
>
> What happens when a target comes along and passes different pointers
> types
> differently. Like say a floating point pointer in the FP register and an
> pointer to an integer in the general purpose register, wouldn't that also
> break the code in question? Yes this is in theory but still sa
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Jul 4, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
And I posted a patch to do the same in Objective-C mode as C mode :).
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg01013.html
Is the reason that Objective-C was excl
> We can say something like:
>
> "In GNU C, you may cast a function pointer of one type to a function
> pointer of another type. If you use a function pointer to call a
> function, and the dynamic type of the function pointed to by the
> function pointer is not the same as indicated by the static
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Yuri Pudgorodsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | The result of calling function pointer casted to sufficiently different
> | type is
> | a real example an undefined behavior.
>
> As I said earlier, it is fruitless to try to imp
> asm volatile + memory clobber should be the last resort barrier, if you skip
> this out of the compiler or change its semantics (pinned by the current
> documentation) at will, it's not unlikely you break existing code in favour
> or saving some poor instructions.
Problem is that there is no cur
Hi,
It looks like somewhere between gcc-5.3.0 and gcc-6.2.1 --as-needed
became the default:
https://gist.github.com/x-yuri/1b4c19891be50b2b8801689de1487009
In other words it looks like on Alpine Linux 3.4 -lintl always adds
libintl, on >= 3.5 only if some of its symbols are really needed.
nce 5.x/6.x.
Am I missing something?
> The GNU linker can be configured to default to --as-needed or not, and
> different distros use different defaults.
Can you tell me briefly how it's configured? Is there a config?
Regards,
Yuri
where it's used.
> >
> > And also it looks like gcc started to pass --as-needed to the linker
> > since 5.x/6.x.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > > The GNU linker can be configured to default to --as-needed or not, and
> > > different distros use different defaults.
> >
> > Can you tell me briefly how it's configured? Is there a config?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yuri
48 matches
Mail list logo
