The current header depends on glibc version checks to determine whether
execinfo.h exists which breaks uClibc. Instead, add an explicit configure
check for it.
2015-08-29 Mike Frysinger
* configure.ac: Call AC_CHECK_HEADERS([execinfo.h]).
* configure: Regenerated.
* in
OK, thanks!
Jason
On 08/28/2015 10:18 PM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> I found that in read_buf where raw_read is called, no checks for errors were
> being made, raw_read returns the number of bytes read or an error code. In
> the
> test case, an error occurs and we proceeded to use the resulting error code as
> if it
On 08/28/2015 11:59 PM, FX wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
>
> The patch is OK, but I’m a bit puzzled about what the testcase does.
>
> It tests that we can OPEN a directory, but not READ from it? I didn’t know
> that was expected (to be able to OPEN a directory), and I find it somewhat
> puzzling. Can you
Hi Pedro,
2015-08-15 0:24 GMT+02:00 Paolo Bonzini :
> There are plenty of targets that do not require -fPIC because they always
> generate position independent code, but none of them feels the need to
> complain with the user about an unnecessary but perfectly valid option,
> on each and every .c-
On 2015.08.29 at 09:08 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/29/2015 06:14 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > + if (integer_nonzerop (IF_COND (t)) && !RECUR (THEN_CLAUSE (t), any))
> > + return false;
> > + if (integer_zerop (IF_COND (t)) && !RECUR (ELSE_CLAUSE (t), any))
> > +
2015-08-29 6:45 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 08/27/2015 05:21 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> 2015-08-27 4:57 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
>>>
>>> Why does fold_simple fold so many patterns? I thought we wanted
>>> something
>>> that would just fold conversions and negations of constant values.
>>
>>
>>
2015-08-18 22:23 GMT+02:00 Ray Donnelly :
> I'm not familiar with setting up GCC testcases yet so I expect to have
> to do that at least. To aid discussion, the commit message contains a
> testcase.
No problem. Patch looks fine to me.
Thanks,
Kai
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Ray.
Committed the two attached patches doing some minor cleanup in libgfortran:
- removed unused “min” macro in io/unix.c
- remove some unused configure checks (functions we check for but don’t use
the result)
Regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15, then committed separately.
FX
z1.diff
Descrip
On 08/29/2015 06:14 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
+ if (integer_nonzerop (IF_COND (t)) && !RECUR (THEN_CLAUSE (t), any))
+ return false;
+ if (integer_zerop (IF_COND (t)) && !RECUR (ELSE_CLAUSE (t), any))
+ return false;
Actually, I think we can remove the IF_
It is about bug63510: current input_location isn't precise for reporting
warning. The correct location is gimple location of current statement.
ChangeLog:
2015-08-29 Chen Gang
* fold-const.c (fold_overflow_warning): Call warning_at instead
of call warning.
* tree-ssa-
On 2015.08.29 at 12:14 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> index 1eacb8be9a44..29a7f1f22169 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> @@ -4276,10 +4276,10 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool
> want_rval, bool strict,
> case IF_STMT:
>if (!RECUR (IF_CO
On 2015.08.28 at 22:23 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/28/2015 08:00 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > As PR67371 shows gcc currently rejects all throw statements in
> > constant-expressions, even when they are never executed.
> >
> > Fix by simply allowing THROW_EXPR in potential_constant_exp
The attached patch simplifies code in various gcc/fortran/trans* routines
related to malloc and free:
- we don’t need to check if types match before calling fold_convert():
fold_convert() does it itself
- in some cases where the argument is used only once, we don’t need to call
gfc_evaluate
On 26/08/15 09:44, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 22-07-15 20:15, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 13/07/15 13:02, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes PR46193.
It handles min and max reductions of pointer type in parloops.
Bootstrapped and reg-te
Hi Jerry,
The patch is OK, but I’m a bit puzzled about what the testcase does.
It tests that we can OPEN a directory, but not READ from it? I didn’t know that
was expected (to be able to OPEN a directory), and I find it somewhat puzzling.
Can you shed light on that?
Thanks,
FX
16 matches
Mail list logo
