Ping.
BR,
Terry
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Guo [mailto:terry@arm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:13 PM
> To: 'Gerald Pfeifer'
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Earnshaw; Matthew Gretton-Dann
> Subject: RE: [wwwdocs] Announce new ARM/embedded-4_6-branch branch
>
While looking at 48370, I noticed that this bit of code in
initialize_reference really ought to be in grok_reference_init instead,
since it only applied to top-level references.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
commit 82efe7318e5cd58632043cc92624b0d31d9ad0d4
Author: Jason Merrill
We were failing to print MODIFY_EXPR properly. I'm surprised that
didn't turn up before now.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
commit f8556f7a8d1bbf620edca19bd3d350ad7b82df7c
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Sat Aug 13 03:01:09 2011 -0400
PR c++/50059
* error.c (dump_expr):
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:26, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 06:02 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:32, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>>> I advise either removing the option for CLooG to use bundled ISL, or
>>> making the bundled version the recommended version for GCC.
On 08/13/2011 06:02 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:32, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> I advise either removing the option for CLooG to use bundled ISL, or
>> making the bundled version the recommended version for GCC. Having too
>> many ways to configure things is bad.
>
> I
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:02:40AM -0500, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:32, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
> > I advise either removing the option for CLooG to use bundled ISL, or
> > making the bundled version the recommended version for GCC. Having too
> > many ways to configure
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:32, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I advise either removing the option for CLooG to use bundled ISL, or
> making the bundled version the recommended version for GCC. Having too
> many ways to configure things is bad.
I would prefer using the ISL bundled with CLooG and not ha
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:28:52PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:16:55PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > > > Do you mean there is not only a requirement to build
Hello,
this patch fixes PR 50071 where statement labels in a type definition where
hooked to the parent scoping unit instead of the type scoping unit.
From the standard:
- statement label (3.2.5):
The same statement label shall not be given to more than one statement in its
scope.
- scoping u
Hi Thomas, hi all,
2011/8/7 Thomas Koenig :
> When extending the values of gfc_dep_compare_expr, we will need to go
> through all its uses (making sure we change == -2 to <= -2).
attached is a patch which makes a start with this.
For now, it changes the return value to "-3" for two cases:
1) dif
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> If the patch is OK, I'd like to make corresponding changes to each port's
> .md files. Are they simple enough to count as obvious, or should I get
> persmission for each one?
Preapproved for CRIS and MMIX.
brgds, H-P
Following on from the two patches I've just posted, this one makes
config/i386/*.md use match_test for .md attributes. Tested as
described here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01182.html
OK to install?
Richard
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.md: Use (match_test ...) for attr
Like the recent MEM_ATTRS changes, this patch is supposed to help the
transition to const_ints with modes. However, like those changes,
I think it makes sense on its own.
At the moment, the canonical way of testing a C condition in an
.md attribute is to use:
(ne (symbol_ref "TEST") (const_i
rtx_equal_p uses:
case SYMBOL_REF:
return XSTR (x, 0) == XSTR (y, 0);
to check whether two symbol_refs are equal. This means that genattrtab,
which uses rtx_equal_p, must create unique strings for them.
attr_rtx has code to create unique strings, and I think it originally
handled symb
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson schrieb:
> > A glance at AVR makes me think this should already be handled by
> > the NOTICE_UPDATE_CC machinery. Any analysis why this doesn't
> > happen? With the same test-case (at -Os) I don't see redundant
> > compares for cri
Hans-Peter Nilsson schrieb:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
This is an optimization in machine dependent reorg to
remove redundant comparisons like in
cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
if (cc0 == 0)
goto L1
cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
if (cc0 > 0)
goto L2
The second compar
16 matches
Mail list logo
