On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:44:25PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > This isn't in the changelog.
>
> Yes it is.
I need new glasses.
> > > +/* Macro to say whether we can optimize vector extracts. */
> > > +#define VEC_EXTRACT_OPTIMIZE_P (TARGET_DIRECT_MOVE
> > > \
> > >
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 05:57:34PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Segher, is the rs6000.c part ok?
Yes, that looks fine, thanks! Will you handle the backports as well?
Segher
Hi,
I'd like to ping this patch to GCC-6 branch.
Regards,
Kuba Sejdak
2016-07-22 8:27 GMT+02:00 Kuba Sejdak :
> This patch is already in trunk. It adds no new features, just new arm-phoenix*
> OS target to libgcc.
> I have SVN write access, so only approval is needed. Is it OK for gcc-6
> branc
Hi,
I'd like to ping this patch to GCC-6 branch.
Regards,
Kuba Sejdak
2016-07-22 8:27 GMT+02:00 Kuba Sejdak :
> This patch is already in trunk. It adds no new features, just new arm-phoenix*
> OS target to gcc config.
> I have SVN write access, so only approval is needed. Is it OK for gcc-6
> b
Hi,
I'd like to ping this patch to GCC-6 branch.
Regards,
Kuba Sejdak
2016-07-22 8:27 GMT+02:00 Kuba Sejdak :
> This patch is already in trunk. It adds no new features, just new OS target.
> I have SVN write access, so only approval is needed. Is it OK for gcc-6
> branch?
>
> 2016-07-22 Jakub
Thomas found a bug in the fortran routine parser where errors involving
invalid combinations of gang, worker, vector and seq clauses were
getting suppressed. This patch does two things:
1) It moves the error handling into gfc_match_oacc_routine. So now
gfc_oacc_routine_dims returns OACC_FUN
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> This patch improves the forward jump threader's ability to thread
> GIMPLE_SWITCHes by making the VRP simplification callback attempt to
> determine which case label will be taken.
>
> For example, if the index operand of a switch has a valu
This patch improves the forward jump threader's ability to thread
GIMPLE_SWITCHes by making the VRP simplification callback attempt to
determine which case label will be taken.
For example, if the index operand of a switch has a value range ~[5,6]
along some edge and the switch statement has no "c
On 28 July 2016 at 19:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 28 July 2016 at 15:58, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> > On Mo, Jul 25 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
>> >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 27/04/16 00:14, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, kugan
wrote:
As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should be
[-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as happens now.
This patch fixes this. I bootstrapped
On 28 July 2016 at 20:39, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 28/07/16 14:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> Um I had configured with --with-tune=cortex-a9. Is that incorrect for
>> armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf ?
>
> Why on earth would you want to generate code for ARMv8 and then tune for
> best perform
On 28 July 2016 at 20:14, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
>> appear UNSUPPORTED.
>> That's because this config appears to define
>> __ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__ however idiv appears not to be present.
>>
>> For instance __aeabi_div is called to perform
>> division for the following test-case:
>> int f(int
I intend to commit this patch in the next day or two
unless someone objects.
2016-07-28 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/70006
* io.c (gfc_resolve_dt): Use correct locus.
* resolve.c (resolve_branch): Ditto.
2016-07-28 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/70006
* g
Committed as obvious.
2016-07-28 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/71067
* decl.c (match_data_constant): On error, set 'result' to NULL.
2016-07-28 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/71067
* gfortran.dg/pr71067_1.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/pr71067_2.f90: Ditto.
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> It is however not possible to remove the special handling by name
> altogether, because the glibc does not add the return_twice function
> attribute on _setjmp, __sigsetjmp and getcontext until today; a glibc
> BZ is filed at: https://sourceware.org/bug
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Index: libgcc/config/rs6000/_divkc3.c
> ===
> --- libgcc/config/rs6000/_divkc3.c(revision 0)
> +++ libgcc/config/rs6000/_divkc3.c(working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
> +typedef float KFt
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> These slightly complicate the description you give above as we now want
> two behaviours. Where the 16-bit floating point extensions are available,
> we want to use the native operations (FLT_EVAL_METHOD == 16). Where they
> are not available we want
Tested on Linux-x64.
2016-07-29 Ville Voutilainen
Implement C++17 variable templates for type traits.
* include/std/chrono (treat_as_floating_point_v): New.
* include/std/ratio: (ratio_equal_v, ratio_not_equal_v)
(ratio_less_v, ratio_less_equal_v, ratio_greater_v)
(ratio_gr
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I prepare a patch which is based on yours. New test is also included.
> Bootstrapping and regression testing did not show any new failures.
> Is it OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks.
> ChangeLog:
> 2016-07-28 Yuri Rumyantsev
>
> PR t
On 07/28/2016 02:55 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> It turns out that the acc routine parallelism isn't being recorded in
>> fortran .mod files. This is a problem because then the ME can't validate
>> if a routine has compatible parallelism with the call site.
>
> Nothing a
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Martin Liška wrote:
> Well, I can imaging a guard which will test whether
> "$objdir/../../params.options" file exits, and if so, then the tests are
> executed? Is it acceptable approach?
The correct way to test for build-tree testing is [info exists
TESTING_IN_BUILD_TREE]
I plan to commit the following patch in the next day or
two if no one objects. It falls into the trivially
correct category.
2016-07-28 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/71730
* decl.c (match_data_constant): Set 'result' to NULL in error case.
(char_len_param_value): Check r
On 07/28/2016 02:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/28/2016 02:12 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 23:41 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 27 July 2016 at 15:30, David Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps it could live for now in c-format.c, since it is the only
place using it?
Martin Sebo
This is a set of small patches for issues in the testsuite that I
noticed while working on a big change (coming soon).
Self-explanatory:
Fix invalid dg-do directives in libstdc++ tests
* testsuite/22_locale/conversions/string/1.cc: Remove unintended
dg-do compile directive.
Hi,
On 07/27/16 23:31, Jeff Law wrote:
> So you're stumbling into another really interesting area.
>
Absolutely, I am just too curious what's going on here ;-)
> I can hazard a guess that the reason we create the paradoxical SUBREG
> rather than a zero or sign extension is because various optim
On 27/07/16 17:53 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/07/16 00:41 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
Changelog as it was before, tested on Linux-x64.
I haven't fixed all section references of string tests, and I haven't
added section references
to string_view tests, because they didn't have any. I
On 22/07/16 16:06 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The move constructors for strings and RB trees were not move
constructing the allocator.
PR libstdc++/71964
* include/bits/basic_string.h [_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI]
(basic_string::_Alloc_hider(pointer, _Alloc&&)): Add construc
On 07/28/2016 02:12 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 23:41 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 27 July 2016 at 15:30, David Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps it could live for now in c-format.c, since it is the only
place using it?
Martin Sebor [CC-ed] wants to use it from the middle-end
From: Adhemerval Zanella
This patch adds the split-stack support on aarch64 (PR #67877). As for
other ports this patch should be used along with glibc and gold support.
The support is done similar to other architectures: a __private_ss field is
added on TCB in glibc, a target-specific __moresta
On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 23:41 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 27 July 2016 at 15:30, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > Perhaps it could live for now in c-format.c, since it is the only
> > > place using it?
> >
> > Martin Sebor [CC-ed] wants to use it from the middle-end:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:57:53AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 05:16:28PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > * config/rs6000/vsx.md (UNSPEC_VSX_VSLO): New unspecs.
> > (UNSPEC_VSX_EXTRACT): Likewise.
>
> "New unspec".
Thanks.
> > (VEC_EXTRACT_OPTIMIZE_P
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:10:23AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 01:43 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > The switch fallthrough has been widely considered a design defect in C, a
> > misfeature or, to use Marshall Cline's definition, evil. The overwhelming
> > majority of the time you don't wa
Coming back to this...
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:00:43PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > This patch is accompanied by more than 2000 lines of new tests to get the
> > warning covered though I'm sure folks will come up with other test cases
> > that I hadn't considered (hi Martin S. ;).
> >
> > Th
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:15:54PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Yeah, that is true. I'm not sure if the warning can reasonably be expected
> > to
> > handle all such cases and really see through loops like that, most likely
> > not.
> > It's really just a heuristics.
> > Fortunately I didn't see a
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:17:35PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/27/2016 10:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > This is what the new warning pointed out. I think all these are bugs.
> >
> > This patch has been tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu,
> > aarch64-linux-gnu,
> > and x86_64-redhat-lin
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:05:25AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >
> > This is what the new warning pointed out. I think all these are bugs.
> >
> > --- gcc/libgo/runtime/heapdump.c
> > +++ gcc/libgo/runtime/heapdump.c
> > @@ -766,6 +766,7 @@ dum
Hi,
On 28/07/2016 16:28, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ah sorry, I missed the *type* bit. The below passes testing on x86_64-linux.
I don't think we need to check the type again after cxx_constant_value?!?
No, we don't. The patch is OK.
While fi
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:43:22AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Marek" == Marek Polacek writes:
>
> Marek> gcc/java/
> Marek>* jcf-dump.c (print_constant): Add break.
>
> This bit is ok.
Thanks Tom. I think I'll just commit this hunk separately to not post
already approved bits ag
When we're trying to implicitly declare a function, we first search the scope
looking for whether the function identifier is already bound to a declaration.
But as the following test shows, we might find something else other than a
FUNCTION_DECL like we're expecting, which would mean that an ICE en
On 28/07/16 14:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Um I had configured with --with-tune=cortex-a9. Is that incorrect for
> armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf ?
Why on earth would you want to generate code for ARMv8 and then tune for
best performance on a core that can only run ARMv7?
R.
Dear All,
Given the origins of the patch, it has been committed as 'obvious' to
trunk. It both bootstraps and regtests OK.
I will apply to the 5- and 6-branches.
Cheers
Paul
> --- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
> Author: pault
> Date: Thu Jul 28 14:47:02 2016
> New Revision: 238822
>
> URL
> appear UNSUPPORTED.
> That's because this config appears to define
> __ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__ however idiv appears not to be present.
>
> For instance __aeabi_div is called to perform
> division for the following test-case:
> int f(int x, int y)
> {
> int r = x / y;
> return r;
> }
>
> Compil
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed the *type* bit. The below passes testing on x86_64-linux.
> I don't think we need to check the type again after cxx_constant_value?!?
No, we don't. The patch is OK.
> While finally spending a decent amount of time on thi
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I prepare a patch which is based on yours. New test is also included.
> Bootstrapping and regression testing did not show any new failures.
> Is it OK for trunk?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks.
> ChangeLog:
> 2016-07-28 Yuri
Richard,
I prepare a patch which is based on yours. New test is also included.
Bootstrapping and regression testing did not show any new failures.
Is it OK for trunk?
Thanks.
ChangeLog:
2016-07-28 Yuri Rumyantsev
PR tree-optimization/71734
* tree-ssa-loop-im.c (ref_indep_loop_p_1): Pass value
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 28 July 2016 at 15:58, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Mo, Jul 25 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
> >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000..
Hi,
The following patch adds test-cases for divmod transform.
I separated the SImode tests into separate file from DImode tests
because certain arm configs (cortex-15) have hardware div insn for
SImode but not for DImode,
and for that config we want SImode tests to be disabled but not DImode tests.
On 27 July 2016 at 18:56, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On 23 May 2016 at 14:28, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch overrides expand_divmod_libfunc for ARM port and adds test-cases.
>>> I separated the SImode test
On 8 June 2016 at 19:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Jim Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > Joseph - do you know sth about why there's not a full set of divmod
>> > libfuncs in libgcc?
>>
>> Because udivmoddi4 isn't a libfunc, it is a h
Many attributes that accept integer constant as a parameter call
default_conversion for such constants to perform the usual arithmetic
conversions. The call to default_conversion is always guarded so as
to prevent a NULL_TREE, an IDENTIFIER_NODE, or a FUNCTION_DECL from
getting into this function.
Since r157233, build_compound_literal will return error_mark_node for
erroneous initializers of compound literals. This caused an ICE in
c_parser_postfix_expression_after_paren_type because the code dealing
with evaluating variably modified types wasn't prepared for expr.value
being error_mark_nod
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch adds support for constraint flags in loop structure. Different
>>> to existing boolean flags which are set b
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch adds support for constraint flags in loop structure. Different
>> to existing boolean flags which are set by niter analyzer, constraint flag
>> is mainly set by cons
On 28 July 2016 at 15:58, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mo, Jul 25 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..dedb895
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Matthew Wahab
wrote:
> On 17/05/16 15:44, Matthew Wahab wrote:
>> The ARMv8.2-A architecture introduces an optional FP16 extension adding
>> half-precision floating point data processing instructions to the
>> existing scalar (floating point) support. A future versi
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Matthew Wahab
wrote:
> On 17/05/16 15:42, Matthew Wahab wrote:
>> This patch adds the builtins data for the ACLE intrinsics introduced to
>> support the NEON instructions of the ARMv8.2-A FP16 extension.
>
> Updated to fix the vsqrte/vrsqrte spelling mistake and cor
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Matthew Wahab
wrote:
> On 17/05/16 15:41, Matthew Wahab wrote:
>> The ACLE intrinsics introduced to support the ARMv8.2 FP16 extensions
>> require that intrinsics for scalar floating pointer (VFP) instructions
>> are available under different conditions from those f
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Matthew Wahab
wrote:
> The ACLE intrinsics introduced to support the ARMv8.2 FP16 extensions
> require that intrinsics for scalar (VFP) instructions are available
> under different conditions from those for the NEON intrinsics. To
> support this, changes to the bui
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Wahab
wrote:
> On 18/05/16 01:58, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 May 2016, Matthew Wahab wrote:
>>
>>> As with the VFP FP16 arithmetic instructions, operations on __fp16
>>> values are done by conversion to single-precision. Any new optimization
>>> suppo
On Tuesday 26 July 2016 06:00 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
On 26.07.2016 12:20, Pitchumani Sivanupandi wrote:
avr-gcc expected to find the device specs in the search paths
specified. But
it doesn't work as expected when device specs in different place than
the
installed location.
Example-1:
av
Hi,
On 18/07/2016 20:16, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
On 30/06/2016 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think we should check the type before calling cxx_constant_value.
Ok, I got the point. I'm not sure however how far we want to go with this
and wh
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Wahab
wrote:
> On 19/05/16 15:54, Matthew Wahab wrote:
>> On 18/05/16 16:20, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 May 2016, Matthew Wahab wrote:
>>>
>>> In short: instructions for direct HFmode arithmetic should be described
>>> with patterns with the standard
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>>
>>
>> It seems that in your pop_value_range you assume you only pop one
>> range per BB - while that's likely true at the moment it will be a
>> limitation
>> in the future. You want to pop ranges until you
Thanks.. I wonder if you could add the testcase in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71961#c11
to the testsuite, as it catches the underlying issue.
Regards,
Joost VandeVondele
Hi all,
This patch reverts the change for PR 71902 since it causes 178.gagel
miscompile in spec2000 as reported in PR 71961 which was observed in
x86_64, aarch64, powerpc64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71961
As a consequence, I will reopen PR 71902:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
> I have committed a patch to update libgo to the 1.7rc3 release
> candidate. This is very close to the upcoming 1.7 release. As usual
> with libgo updates, the patch is too large to include in this e-mail
> message. I've appended the changes to the gccgo-specific directories.
A new testsuite f
On Mo, Jul 25 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..dedb895
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-op
Version 4 of the patch. Activated the patterns als for -mesa, as
discussed internally. Bootstrapped and regression testes on s390
and s390x biarch.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* config/s390/s390.md ("*andc_split", "*andc_split2"): New splitters
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:50:56PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This testcase was breaking because we were using uninitialized memory
> coming from c_expr in c_parser_switch_statement. There, in case we hadn't
> seen '(' after switch, we called c_finish_case with uninitialized CE.
> Fixed thus.
>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 05:16:28PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> * config/rs6000/vsx.md (UNSPEC_VSX_VSLO): New unspecs.
> (UNSPEC_VSX_EXTRACT): Likewise.
"New unspec".
> (VEC_EXTRACT_OPTIMIZE_P): New macro to say whether we can optmize
> vec_extract on 64-bit ISA 2.07 s
Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> It turns out that the acc routine parallelism isn't being recorded in
> fortran .mod files. This is a problem because then the ME can't validate
> if a routine has compatible parallelism with the call site.
Nothing against saving such information in .mod files. However,
Hello!
> I have committed a patch to update libgo to the 1.7rc3 release
> candidate. This is very close to the upcoming 1.7 release. As usual
> with libgo updates, the patch is too large to include in this e-mail
> message. I've appended the changes to the gccgo-specific directories.
There is
On 07/27/2016 11:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/27/2016 02:27 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> As mentioned in the PR gcov-profile/68025, there's a request not to
>> instrument
>> some functions (e.g. a in linux kernel). Thus, I come with a new attribute
>> no_profile_instrument_function
>> w
Hi Karl,
see below for comment:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:19:42 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
> Patch is self-explanatory. OK?
>
> 2016-07-26 Steven G. Kargl
>
> PR fortran/71859
> * check.c(numeric_check): Prevent ICE. Issue error for
> invalid subroutine as an actual argument when
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
It seems that in your pop_value_range you assume you only pop one
range per BB - while that's likely true at the moment it will be a limitation
in the future. You want to pop ranges until you hit the NULL marker
in after_dom_children and unconditionally push
Hi,
When analyzing PR 71873 (ICE in push_reload), I found that that code
in push_reload that recursively calls push_reload for subreg
expressions doesn't correctly set subreg_in_class for a few cases.
Specifically, reload_inner_reg_of_subreg returns true if SUBREG_REG(x)
is CONSTANT_P o
[resent with hopefully correct libstdc++ mailing list address this time]
Here is my attempt to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68297. The resulting patch
is a little bit long because I had to split and cxxabi.h
include files. The former had to be split due to circular dependency
Here is my attempt to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68297. The resulting patch
is a little bit long because I had to split and cxxabi.h
include files. The former had to be split due to circular dependency
that formed after including in exception_ptr.h and the later
is because o
78 matches
Mail list logo
