On 02/03/15 05:23, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
+/* Given a bit-wise operation performed in mode P1 on operands
+ in some narrower type P2 that feeds an outer masking operation.
+ See if the mask turns off all the bits outside P2, and if so
+ perform the all the
On 02/06/15 17:42, Diego Novillo wrote:
It's been a long time since I did any significant work on GCC,
and it is unlikely that I'll be doing much for the foreseeable
future.
While I still have some understanding of the modules I used to
maintain, I don't think it is reasonable to have me making
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find attached the patch that handles the operations on
> SYMBOL_SMALL_TPREL appropriately.
> It fixes gcc.dg/tls/opt-11.c regression on ilp32.
>
> Please review the patch and let us know if its okay?
> Regression tested o
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:51:43PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> While trying to build the GCC 5 with GCC 5, I ran into an ICE when
>>> building libcpp at -O0. The problem is the C++
On 02/05/2015 11:34 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
On 2/5/2015 9:13 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
In addition to fixing markup and capitalization, I've moved things
around a little bit to improve the flow, and rephrased a few things
that I thought were awkward or confusing. I propose to commit this i
H.J.,
This one bootstrap and appears to give clean c++ test suite
results so far on x86_64-apple-darwin14. I am stopping the regression
testing to try the updated patch you sent later.
Jack
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 10:1
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 07:56:06AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 10:11:01AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > H.J,,
> > Unfortunately, the answer is yes. This patch still introduces
> > regressions in the g++ test suite.l These are all some form of...
> >
>
> It looks like Darw
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 10:11:01AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
> H.J,,
> Unfortunately, the answer is yes. This patch still introduces
> regressions in the g++ test suite.l These are all some form of...
>
It looks like Darwin depends on the old behavior of
default_binds_local_p_1. Please try
H.J.,
In case it clarifies things at all, the falling testcase...
% /sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20150206/gcc/testsuite/g++.
H.J,,
Unfortunately, the answer is yes. This patch still introduces
regressions in the g++ test suite.l These are all some form of...
Executing on host:
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/testsu
Dear Jerry,
This is OK for trunk. Maybe it is best to leave it for a week or two
before committing to the branches?
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On 7 February 2015 at 03:08, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> With the attached patch I create a special version of fbuf_flush that is
> only called with list di
On February 7, 2015 11:55:23 AM CET, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>> I think for using option processing langhooks it would require
>massive Ada
>> FE surgery, the thing is that right now all the option processing is
>> performed, then at some later point the TU is parsed, then depending
>on what
>> is s
Dear Mikael,
Even if
>> use m, only: A => X
>> use m, only: A => X
is valid, it does not make sense to use it and it is probably a typo.
Should not gfortran emit a warning, at least with -Wall?
Cheers,
Dominique
Dear All,
This is a slight development of the patch posted on the PR itself.
class.c(finalize_component) is not able to deal correctly with
non-allocatable, derived type array components that have allocatable
components. Rather than generating loops in finalize_component, the
condition is detect
Dear Mikael,
It looks good to me for trunk and the branches.
Thanks for the patch
Paul
On 6 February 2015 at 21:31, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we currently reject programs of the form
>>
>> module m
>> integer :: s
>> end module m
>> subroutine s
>> use m, only: x => s, x => s
>>
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 03:28:38AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
> H.J.,
> The new patch bootstraps okay on x86_64-apple-darwin14 but I
Does it cause any regressions on x86_64-apple-darwin14?
> discovered that you need a small adjustment in the deja-gnu
> statements...
>
> --- /Users/howarth/
> I think for using option processing langhooks it would require massive Ada
> FE surgery, the thing is that right now all the option processing is
> performed, then at some later point the TU is parsed, then depending on what
> is seen in there the options are tweaked and finally everything is han
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 11:28:54AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On February 6, 2015 9:26:29 PM CET, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >As mentioned in the PR, the problem here is that the Ada FE needs to
> >modify
> >global_options after toplevel.c (process_options), but as for LTO we
> >now use
On February 7, 2015 7:50:38 AM CET, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 02/06/15 19:32, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> After a lot of investigation, I believe that I have learned why stabs
>> debugging on AIX disabled use of continuations. GDB, IBM DBX and IBM
>> XLDB are able to work with stab string continuations pr
On February 6, 2015 9:26:29 PM CET, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>As mentioned in the PR, the problem here is that the Ada FE needs to
>modify
>global_options after toplevel.c (process_options), but as for LTO we
>now use
>optimization_{default,current}_node for options of functions without
>specif
On Wed, 2015-02-04 11:14:16 +, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Please can I apply the patch below to fix some RL78 gcc testsuite
> failures ?
[...]
> The second fix is to the RL78 specific dead-code elimination pass
> which was failing to note the REGs inside a MEM are used when that MEM
> is
H.J.,
The new patch bootstraps okay on x86_64-apple-darwin14 but I
discovered that you need a small adjustment in the deja-gnu
statements...
--- /Users/howarth/gcc-5-20150206/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c
2015-02-06 21:45:04.0 -0500
+++
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc
Hi Jakub,
I haven't done a backport to a release branch before. Could you tell me
who needs to approve this change, it only affects MIPS?
Thanks,
Matthew
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Fortune
> Sent: 26 January 2015 16:30
> To: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org)
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
