Per Richard Biener's encouragement to go after low-hanging fruit in
cleaning up test results for non-primary/secondary ports, I've checked
in this patch which fixes several FAILs in the g++ testsuite for nios2.
Chung-Lin already wrote the patch for our local tree some time ago and
I've just re
When I was looking at something else I noticed a description like
"The @option{-foo} does blah"
instead of either
"@option{-foo} does blah"
(-foo is a name and doesn't need an article)
or
"The @option{-foo} option does blah"
(-foo is an adjective modifying "the option")
I made a
On 20-03-15 12:38, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 19-03-15 12:05, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 18-03-15 18:22, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes PR65460.
The patch marks offloaded functions as parallelized, which means the parloops
pass no longer attempts to modify that function.
Updated patch to
Dear Tobias,
On 21 Mar 2015, at 14:28, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Dominique Dhumieres
> wrote:
a couple of minor nits that Dominique and I spotted while discussing this :
> -@item @emph{NOTE} A simple implementation could be a simple @code{__asm__
maybe
"A simple im
While I was working on something else, I noticed that the list of Cilk
Plus built-in functions was missing @code markup. I've checked in this
quick patch to fix that.
-Sandra
2015-03-21 Sandra Loosemore
gcc/
* doc/extend.texi (Cilk Plus Builtins): Add markup.
Index: gcc/doc/extend.texi
Hi Martin,
I've applied your latest patch to top of trunk and looked at the code gen on
powerpc-darwin9 (and a cross from x86-64-darwin12 => powerpc64-linux-gnu).
On 15 Mar 2015, at 23:39, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/14/2015 08:34 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:54:5
Ilya, thanks for getting the -fcheck-pointer-bounds and related
documentation checked in a while back. I've committed this further
patch to clean it up a little bit -- some grammar and markup
corrections, plus I added some more index entries and cross-references.
As I've discussed previously
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have a test in the gnat.dg testsuite (stack_usage1.adb) which checks that
> the allocation of big temporaries created in non-overlapping blocks on the
> stack is optimal, i.e. that they share a stack slot. It is run at -O0 and
> p
This test fails on targets that don't have complex.h. The standard c99_runtime
check doesn't
work in the libgomp testsuite, so I explicitly disabled the test on
hppa*-*-hpux*.
Tested on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 and hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. Committed to trunk.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang
On 03/21/2015 07:11 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
--- snip ---
I would very much like to say that this is OK for trunk but we are
hard up against the end of stage 4 and so it should really wait for
backporting to 5.2.
IMHO, since gfortran is not release critical, we should consider, in the
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> Dear Tobias,
>
> Revision r221550 break bootstrap on platforms with recent makeinfo (mine is
> 5.2):
> see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2015-03/. The error is
>
> ../../work/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi:3850: @code missing close
Dear Andre,
I have applied the three preliminary patches but have not yet applied
the attached one for PR55901. As advertised the composite patch
bootstraps and regtests on FC21,x86_64.
I went through gfc_trans_allocate and cleaned up the formatting and
some of the text in the comments. You did a
Dear Tobias,
Revision r221550 break bootstrap on platforms with recent makeinfo (mine is
5.2):
see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2015-03/. The error is
../../work/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi:3850: @code missing close brace
../../work/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi:3851: misplaced }
../../work/g
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 01:47:10AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 01:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> >What effect does the patch have on compile time on say x86_64 or ppc64?
> I bootstrapped x86_64 trunk then timed compiling 640 .i/.ii files with -O2.
> That was repeated 10 times (to get
On 03/16/2015 01:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What effect does the patch have on compile time on say x86_64 or ppc64?
I bootstrapped x86_64 trunk then timed compiling 640 .i/.ii files with
-O2. That was repeated 10 times (to get a sense of variability). Each
run took a little over 40 minutes
15 matches
Mail list logo
