On 05/09/2015 05:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Hmm, I wonder if we want to bootstrap with explicit -std=gnu04, our host
compiler requirement. Otherwise we'll silently sneak in C++11 features when
that becomes the default?
I think just for stage 1.
Jason
Am 09.05.2015 um 13:59 schrieb Mikael Morin:
> You also need to remove/free the trailing subreferences.
That's right, I did that. Although I will probably never understand
why lbound(a) should be different from lbound(a%r)...
>> + /* We have to get rid of the shape, if thre is
More patches:
The first makes changing the default just a matter of changing two lines
(in the compiler and testsuite).
The second patch is a minor tidy of c.opt.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 8c9891a3828dc6a4c91998b2437ef9fbf8659163
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri
On 05/09/2015 01:27 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
This also enables the following bogus warning:
~ % g++ -Wall -std=c++11 test.cpp
test.cpp:3:26: warning: ‘>>’ operator is treated as two right angle brackets in
C++11 [-Wc++11-compat]
Fixed thus:
commit 1c492cd18b2869305cc3ee16f84b6464f98
On 05/08/2015 11:34 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
The second patch fixes all but one of the testsuite failures that turned
up with a compiler that defaults to C++11.
And here's the fix for a C++14 compiler:
commit 42dc3f6f9af19c12d4201af8b6ef2e28bb08e944
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Sat May 9 12
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 03:36:01PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> Could you clarify the reasoning for why libgcc is using this hack with
> a reference to an 'obsolete' symbol version rather than just
> visibility?
Obviously for ABI compatibility reasons. Older programs could be relying on
the symbol
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 10:41:41AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > * H.J. Lu [2015-04-17 05:36:30 -0700]:
> >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:48:48AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> >> > I don't
* H.J. Lu [2015-05-09 10:41:41 -0700]:
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> >
> > The symbol versioning hack for __cpu_model and __cpu_indicator_init
> > makes them invisible to the musl dynamic linker so their relocation
> > fails with 'symbol not found' error.
> > (affects a
On 2015.05.08 at 23:30 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> One C++11 compatibility issue that turns up a lot in the GCC sources is
> that in C++98,
>
> #define BAR "bar"
> const char *p = "foo"BAR;
>
> is well-formed, giving p the value "foobar". But in C++11 this is a
> user-defined literal with th
Like C++ const and volatile, in D mangled symbols can exist modifiers
that represent the const, immutable, inout and shared-ness of the
'this' parameter.
This information should be written out in the demangled symbol to show
that each variant has a unique identity.
---
libiberty/ChangeLog:
2015-
D templates can have string literals encoded inside them, which can
also include tabs, newlines, and other whitespace characters. For
example:
return getHost!q{
auto he = gethostbyname(toStringz(param));
}(name);
In this case, rather than decoding and writing out every character
directly, w
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * H.J. Lu [2015-04-17 05:36:30 -0700]:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:48:48AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> > I don't like it. Nonshared libgcc is libgcc.a, period. No sense in
>> >>
Hi,
here is a tentative patch to implement a new attribute nonzero,
which is similar to nonnull, but is not a function attribute
but a type attribute.
One reason is that nonnull is awkward to use. For this reason,
clang allows the use of nonnull in function parameters, but this
is incompatible w
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
>> We noticed that one of our benchmarks sped-up by ~1% when we eliminated
>> PLT stubs for some of the hot external library functions like memcmp,
>> pow. The win was from better icache an
* H.J. Lu [2015-04-17 05:36:30 -0700]:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:48:48AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> > I don't like it. Nonshared libgcc is libgcc.a, period. No sense in
> >> > creating yet another library for that.
> >> > So, IMHO bey
On 05/09/2015 02:53 AM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
...
I have tested it independently of everything else,
and would like permission to commit it to mainline.
...
This caused https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2015-05/msg00748.html
Dominique
Fixed with the following patch.
Committed as obvious
Le 01/05/2015 20:25, Paul Richard Thomas a écrit :
> Dear All,
>
> By the time I went to commit, something had changed and the patch
> caused a regression. I presume that the version that I had of Andre's
> patch was not the same as the one committed. I'll cast an eye over it
> this weekend and se
Evgeniya Maenkova writes:
>
> So, in my opinion it’s ok to generate additional phi node for debug
> case. But I’m not a compiler expert and maybe there is some
> requirement that debug and non-debug versions should differ only by
> debug statements, I don’t know.
gcc has such a requirement.
Othe
Hello,
Le 09/05/2015 00:11, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
> Index: frontend-passes.c
> ===
> --- frontend-passes.c (Revision 222864)
> +++ frontend-passes.c (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -2611,14 +2611,40 @@ scalarized_expr (gfc_expr *e_in, gfc_expr
> Ah, I see what you mean. I'll address this and repost.
Thanks. Did the first version pass the GDB testsuite? I thought we had a
testcase exercising the pointer to Taft amendment type case in it.
--
Eric Botcazou
> My question exactly. Perhaps that was my confusion. Why is this using
> ->global_decl?
Because that's equivalent to ->type_decl (iter, false) in DWARF.
> For example, the C front-end uses rest_of_type_compilation (see
> finish_struct() in c/c-decl.c) which calls ->type_decl(), or it calls
> -
On May 9, 2015 6:30:49 AM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill wrote:
>One C++11 compatibility issue that turns up a lot in the GCC sources is
>
>that in C++98,
>
>#define BAR "bar"
>const char *p = "foo"BAR;
>
>is well-formed, giving p the value "foobar". But in C++11 this is a
>user-defined literal with t
> ...
> I have tested it independently of everything else,
> and would like permission to commit it to mainline.
> ...
This caused https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2015-05/msg00748.html
Dominique
DJ Delorie writes:
>> ; This pattern is identical to the truncsipsi2 pattern except
>> ; that it uses a SUBREG instead of a TRUNC. It is needed in
>> ; order to prevent reload from converting (set:SI (SUBREG:PSI (SI)))
>> ; into (SET:PSI (PSI)).
>>
>> I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean (w
24 matches
Mail list logo
