On 10/12/2015 11:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> -#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
>>> +#if CHECKING_P
>>
>> I fail to see the point of this change.
> I'm guessing (and Mikhail, please correct me if I'm wrong), but I think he's
> trying to get away from ENABLE_CHECKING and instead use a macro which is
> always de
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 09:49:45PM +0200, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> I was moved by a report on clf of memory leaks in move_alloc to
> investigate the cause. This turned out to be trivial but led to the
> above PRs, which themselves were trivial. The result is the attached
> patch. I am aware
> Hello.
>
> I've been working on HSA branch, where we have a cloning pass running with all
> optimization levels. The patch makes computation of
> cgraph_node::local.versionability
> independent on IPA CP and uses the flag to verify that a function can be
> cloned.
>
> The patch can bootstrap
Dear All,
I was moved by a report on clf of memory leaks in move_alloc to
investigate the cause. This turned out to be trivial but led to the
above PRs, which themselves were trivial. The result is the attached
patch. I am aware that I have not investigated the further
ramifications that I can ima
On 10/06/2015 04:46 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Hi, sorry for the slow response. Please feel free to ping once a week.
>
> On 08/27/2015 02:27 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
>> + if (TREE_THIS_VOLATILE (t) && (!DECL_P (t) || want_rval))
>
> Why the !DECL_P check? Pulling the value out of a volatile
> >And AFAIK nobody answered the question: what do we gain by making this
> >change?
> >So far I have only seen breakages, suspicious fixes and code
> >duplication...
>
> Honza wants the structural equality predicate (operand_equal_p) complete
> (optimistically) for GIMPLE.
There are two indepen
2015-10-17 Clemens Ladisch
* doc/extend.texi (MSP430 Variable Attributes): Correct memory
type for persistent data.
---
gcc/doc/extend.texi |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
@@ -5889,7 +5889,7 @@ Any va
In some cases (e.g. coverage testing) it is useful to emit code for static
functions even if they are never used, which currently is not possible at -O1
and above. The following patch introduces a flag for this, which basically
triggers the same code that keeps those functions alive at -O0. Than
On October 17, 2015 11:26:43 AM GMT+02:00, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>> Well, it would (I think) ICE on assigning a packed variant to a
>non-packed
>> variant of a strict that happens to get a non-BLKmode when not
>packed.
>
>Is "it" GIMPLE here? My sentence was not very clear, I meant that I
>don't
> Well, it would (I think) ICE on assigning a packed variant to a non-packed
> variant of a strict that happens to get a non-BLKmode when not packed.
Is "it" GIMPLE here? My sentence was not very clear, I meant that I don't see
why GIMPLE would have to care about whether there is a VCE or not in
> F90 is over 26 years old. There has been 3 major revisions that
> have superceded F90 (F95, F03, and F08). All of those revisions
> include the text that you pointed out to me. Why is it surprising
> that a compiler conforms to the standard?
>
> "Simplify, simplify, simplify." Henry David
11 matches
Mail list logo
