On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> These testcases test that we generate the expected code for all of the
> rl*i* instructions, that is, rotate-and-mask and rotate-and-mask-insert
> for immediate rotation counts. All the testcases do rotate, shift left,
> as well as shif
These testcases test that we generate the expected code for all of the
rl*i* instructions, that is, rotate-and-mask and rotate-and-mask-insert
for immediate rotation counts. All the testcases do rotate, shift left,
as well as shift right; if that results in an instruction that does not
exist the t
Thank you very much for your review!
On 11/25/2016 05:51 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 11/22/2016 10:19 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt b/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt
index 9eef558..f556978 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt
@@ -528
On 11/22/2016 10:19 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt b/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt
index 9eef558..f556978 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt
@@ -528,6 +528,11 @@ Enum(calling_abi) String(sysv) Value(SYSV_ABI)
EnumValue
Enum(calling
On 11/23/2016 06:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
gcc_assert works only in some instances (e.g., in c-ada-spec.c:191)
but not in others because some actually do make the alloca(0) call
at runtime: at a minimum, lto.c:3285, reg-stack.c:2008, and
tree-ssa-threadedge.c:344 assert during bootstrap.
You mi
On 11/24/2016 12:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
After reviewing a few more of the XALLOCAVEC calls in the affected
files I suspect that those to alloca(0) pointed out by the warning
may be just a subset that GCC happens to see thanks to constant
propagation. If that's so then changing this subset t
2016-11-25 15:47 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko :
> Hi,
>
> The patch below addresses PR68270. could you please take a look?
>
> 2016-11-25 Alexander Ivchenko
>
>* c-family/c.opt (flag_chkp_flexible_struct_trailing_arrays):
>Add new option.
>* tree-chkp.c (chkp_parse_array_
Hi,
committed the following as obvious:
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 242883)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2016-11-25 Janne Blomqvist
+
+ * intrinsic.texi: Fix ptrdiff_t typo in ISO_C_BIND
* src_libgo_runtime_netpoll.goc.diff: Fix restricted word bug.
Rename variable errno to errno1.
* src_libgo_go_os_os_test.go.diff: Allow EFBIG return code to big
seeks.
* src_libgo_go_syscall_syscall_gnu_test.go: New file:
Define Type and Whence as 32bit in syscall.Flock_t
* src_libgo_testsuite
* src_libgo_go_net_sendfile_gnu.go.diff: New file
* src_libgo_go_net_sock_gnu.go.diff: New file
* src_libgo_go_net_sockopt_gnu.go.diff: New file
* src_libgo_go_net_sockoptip_gnu.go.diff: New file
* src_libgo_go_syscall_libcall_gnu_386.go.diff: New file
* src_libgo_go_syscall_libcall_gnu.go.diff: Ne
Hi,
Attached are patches to enable gccgo to build properly on Debian
GNU/Hurd on gcc-6 (6-6.2.1-5).
The first three patches are Debian-specific:
* debian_rules.defs.diff: Enables build of gccgo for GNU/Hurd
Define patches for the generated series file:
* debian_rules.patch.diff: Enables split-
* src_libgo_configure.ac.diff: Define GOOS=gnu and LIBGO_IS_GNU
* src_libgo_Makefile.am.diff: Add support for GNU/Hurd.
* src_libgo_Makefile.in.diff: Update accordingly with autreconf2.64
* src_libgo_mksysinfo.sh.diff: Define SYS_IOCTL to 0 if not defined,
Fix: #define EWOULDBLOCK EAGAIN in
Fix:
On 11/24/2016 12:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:27:05PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
I believe we should be warning on trying to allocation 0 bytes of memory via
malloc, realloc or alloca, with the exception of a non-builtin alloca with
no return value, but I think we've covere
Hi!
This patch optimizes a = {}; b = a; into a = {}; b = {};
and similarly for memset instead of the first stmt and/or memcpy
instead of the second one.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-11-25 Jakub Jelinek
PR c/78408
* tree-ssa-ccp.c:
Hi!
In order to close these 2 PRs fixed recently by Segher, I've added the
corresponding tests and am going to close them as fixed.
2016-11-25 Jakub Jelinek
PR rtl-optimization/78438
PR rtl-optimization/78477
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr78438.c: New test.
* gcc.c
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 06:50:17PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I think this is still wrong for modes that are wide enough to use
> CONST_WIDE_INT but aren't a multiple of a HWI in size. In that
The loop iterates by value_bit, which is 8 bits. Thus, indeed, it will
misbehave if there is a C
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> Hi!
>
> If we try to simplify a paradoxical subreg of a CONST_WIDE_INT,
> we can ICE, because wi::extract_uhwi doesn't like accessing
> bytes beyond the precision.
> for (i = 0; i < elem_bitsize; i += value_bit)
> *vp++ = wi::extract_uhwi (val, i, value_bit);
> for
2016-11-25 18:34 GMT+03:00 Georg-Johann Lay :
> Mentioned PR is about composing 16-bit values out of 8-bit values which due
> to integer promotions likes to work on 16-bit values.
>
> The patch adds 3 combiner patterns to catch such situations and then split
> after reload. Some more splitting is
I'm sorry for delay.
I have a problem with the patch:
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
patching file avr-arch.h
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
patching file avr-devices.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
patch
Uros pointed me out that I should use another target for the PR test.
Here is the patch committed as rev. 242881.
2016-11-25 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/77541
* gcc.target/i386/pr77541.c: Change target to int128.
Index: gcc.target/i386/pr77541.c
===
On 15/11/2016 16:38, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2016 16:59, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> On 14/10/2016 15:59, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
>> There is no limit afaik on gold split stack allocation handling,
>> and I think one could be added for each backend (in the method
>> override require
Hi!
If we try to simplify a paradoxical subreg of a CONST_WIDE_INT,
we can ICE, because wi::extract_uhwi doesn't like accessing
bytes beyond the precision.
for (i = 0; i < elem_bitsize; i += value_bit)
*vp++ = wi::extract_uhwi (val, i, value_bit);
for (; i < elem_bitsize; i += value_bit)
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, we ICE during type verification called from
dwarf2out, because a class has different TYPE_FIELDS from its variants.
In particular it contains an extra CONST_DECL.
While CONST_DECLs are ignored for C/C++ in dwarf2out.c, I think they aren't
ignored for Fortran/Ada, so ign
Hi!
IPA-ICF performs some code-generation visible changes from hash table
traversal, where the hash values can be different between -g and -g0
(I bet it hashes DECL_UID in somewhere, perhaps other things).
The following patch fixes it by adding a vector next to the hash table,
which tracks the gro
Hi Paul,
> This looks fine to me - OK for trunk.
thanks a lot. Committed as r242880.
Cheers,
Janus
> On 25 November 2016 at 13:40, Janus Weil wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here is a patch that fixes a rejects-valid problem with an
>> unlimited-polymorphic variable in a generic procedure. Removing
Hi!
Here is an attempt to fix a couple of bugs in gimple-ssa-sprintf.c.
First of all, it assumes size_t is always the same as uintmax_t, which
is not necessarily the case.
Second, it uses static tree {,u}intmax_type_node; variables for caching
those types, but doesn't register them with GC; but th
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs in the combiner, because we try to optimize
HImode SUBREG of SImode LSHIFTRT with shift count 80, so width is -48,
and in the end we call smallest_mode_for_size (-48, MODE_INT) and
that function has unsigned int as first argument; most of the ports don't
have modes
Dear Janus,
This looks fine to me - OK for trunk.
Best regards and thanks
Paul
On 25 November 2016 at 13:40, Janus Weil wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here is a patch that fixes a rejects-valid problem with an
> unlimited-polymorphic variable in a generic procedure. Removing the
> line with UNLIMITED_PO
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:38:42AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 15:45 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:38:04PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > On 11/22/2016 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > Can't it be done only if xloc.file contains any fanc
>
> > A few comments about this new version:
> > * arm-neon-ref.h: why do you create
> CHECK_RESULTS_NAMED_NO_FP16_NO_POLY64?
> > Can't you just add calls to CHECK_CRYPTO in the existing
> > CHECK_RESULTS_NAMED_NO_FP16?
Yes, that should be fine, I didn't used to have CHECK_CRYPTO before and when
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 10:15:25AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:48:04AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 11/24/2016 07:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> >
> >> >That we compare different kinds of costs
On 11/25/2016 01:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
For the tail-call, issue should we artificially create a lhs and use that
as return value (perhaps by a separate pass before tailcall) ?
__builtin_memcpy (a1, a2, a3);
return a1;
gets transformed to:
_1 = __builtin_memcpy (a1, a2, a3)
return _1;
S
Mentioned PR is about composing 16-bit values out of 8-bit values which
due to integer promotions likes to work on 16-bit values.
The patch adds 3 combiner patterns to catch such situations and then
split after reload. Some more splitting is performed after reload for:
and, ior, xor of reg-r
On 11/25/2016 02:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
That's a good question ;) The stage 3 definition has a loophole via
"go file a bug about feature X, then it's a bugfix!".
Right. That loophole has existed since we've moved to the current model
-- we extend a level of trust to our developers not t
On 25 November 2016 at 15:53, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Hi Tamar,
>
> On 24 November 2016 at 12:45, Tamar Christina wrote:
>> Hi Christoph,
>>
>> I have combined most of the tests in p64_p128 except for the
>> vreinterpret_p128 and vreinterpret_p64 ones because I felt the number
>> of code that wo
Hi Tamar,
On 24 November 2016 at 12:45, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> I have combined most of the tests in p64_p128 except for the
> vreinterpret_p128 and vreinterpret_p64 ones because I felt the number
> of code that would be have to be added to p64_p128 vs having them in those
> fi
The patch is selecting the proper section where -fprofile-generate is
documented.
Martin
>From 00a7b92ef9bc7158a3e7202deb9b18b8d95dd5d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:11:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix documentation reference (PR web/71666)
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-11
On Nov 23 2016, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Since you committed this patch (r242733), I've noticed a regression:
> gcc.dg/uninit-pred-6_c.c warning (test for warnings, line 43)
>
> now fails on some arm targets, for instance arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
> --with-cpu=cortex-a5 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16-fp16
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:01:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > I am testing the following to beat some sanity into
> > compute_complex_assign_jump_func.
>
> That the function does not handle ternary operations (did we have them
> sin
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Robin Dapp wrote:
> Found some time to look into this again.
>
>> Index: tree-ssa-propagate.c
>> ===
>> --- tree-ssa-propagate.c(revision 240133)
>> +++ tree-ssa-propagate.c(working cop
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:01:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I am testing the following to beat some sanity into
> compute_complex_assign_jump_func.
That the function does not handle ternary operations (did we have them
since the beginning?) is clearly my fault and the patch is fine.
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > after discussing this with Honza, we have decided that scheduling an
> > extra pass_rebuild_cgraph_edges after pass_fixup_cfg is the correct
> > way to keep the cgraph consistent with gimple IL when early IPA passes
> > need i
Hi,
The patch below addresses PR68270. could you please take a look?
2016-11-25 Alexander Ivchenko
* c-family/c.opt (flag_chkp_flexible_struct_trailing_arrays):
Add new option.
* tree-chkp.c (chkp_parse_array_and_component_ref): Forbid
narrowing when chkp_parse_arr
Hi all,
here is a patch that fixes a rejects-valid problem with an
unlimited-polymorphic variable in a generic procedure. Removing the
line with UNLIMITED_POLY fixes the error and the rest of the patch is
just slightly refactoring the for-loop.
Regtested successfully on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok for t
Dear All,
Since both Andre and I have taken a good look at this rather small
patch, I decided to commit it as revision 242875.
My movements are such that I will have to hold off on 5- and
6-branches until the week after next.
Best regards
Paul
PS Andre, I wasn't trying to make you feel bad but
Hi Joseph,
I have updated the patch with the changes,
w.r.t to the formatting, there are tabs there that seem to be rendered
at 4 spaces wide. In my editor setup at 8 spaces they are correct.
Kind Regards,
Tamar
From: Joseph Myers
Sent: Thursday, November
Hi Thomas,
> Andre put me to shame with a devastatingly simple replacement for a
> horribly complicated and wrong patch that I was getting into.
I did not mean to. I happened to work in the same area and the PR's description
rang a whole chorus of bells what might have been going wrong.
> The pa
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch fixes two issues in newly introduced pattern: (cond (cmp
>>> (convert1? @1) @3) (convert2? @1) @2).
>>> For P
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
> without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
> patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the shift-pattern
> does. It does nothing
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch fixes two issues in newly introduced pattern: (cond (cmp
>> (convert1? @1) @3) (convert2? @1) @2).
>> For PR78507, we need to check if from_type is INTEGRAL_TYPE_P expl
On 24/11/2016 15:01, Michael Matz wrote:
>> > (set (reg:DI 69)
>> > (zero_extract:DI (reg:DI 65 [ v_x ]) <-
>> > (const_int 32 [0x20])
>> > (const_int 20 [0x14])))
> Hmm, this transformation (from v_x>>12 to zext(v_x,32,20) is only valid
> when the top 20 bits of v_
I am testing the following to beat some sanity into
compute_complex_assign_jump_func. There's still that odd 'stmt2'
hanging around that gets set to sth else than stmt with
op1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt);
if (TREE_CODE (op1) == SSA_NAME)
{
if (SSA_NAME_IS_DEFAULT_DEF (op1))
27;W');
> end record;
>
> begin
> null;
> end;
> eric@polaris:~/build/gcc/native> gcc/gnat1 -quiet p.adb
> +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
> | 7.0.0 20161125 (experimental) [trunk revision 242863] (x86_64-suse-linux)
> GCC error:|
> | in siz
> Hi.
>
> Using priority {cd}tors on a target that does not support that can cause
> failures (see the PR).
> Apart from that, I decided to use priority 100 for both gcov_init and
> gcov_exit functions as
> the reserved range includes priority 100. Moreover, I enhanced test-cases we
> have.
>
Hi all,
This adds the following NEON intrinsics
to the Aarch64 back-end of GCC:
* vsriq_n_p64
* vsri_n_p64
* vextq_p64
* vext_p64
* vceq_p64
* vbslq_p64
* vbsl_p64
Added new tests for these and ran regression tests on aarch64-none-linux-gnu
and on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. Tests added in other p
.. 'Z';
type Arr is array (Char range <>) of Integer;
type Rec (D : Char) is record
A : Arr (D .. 'W');
end record;
begin
null;
end;
eric@polaris:~/build/gcc/native> gcc/gnat1 -quiet p.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 02:05:27PM +, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This fixes (PR78142) by turning off scheduling for the test.
> r241590 is causing more registers to be used and so
> the SP registered happens to be picked and used.
>
> This test I believe was checking explicitly that
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I am testing the following patch for an optimization regression where
> a loop made dead by final value replacement was made used again by
> DOM 20 passes later. The real issue here is that we do not get rid
> of dead loops until very late so this p
ll tests fail to link not finding
the RTS.
> +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
> | 7.0.0 20161125 (experimental) [trunk revision 242863] (x86_64-suse-linux)
> GCC error:|
> | in size_binop_loc, at fold-const.c:1744
On 11/25/2016 10:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Bootstrap and testing in progress.
>
> Richard.
>
> 2016-11-25 Richard Biener
>
> * gimple-fold.c (fold_stmt_1): Check may_propagate_copy
> before valueizing return stmts.
>
> Index: gcc/gimple-fold.c
> ==
ion (c41104a):
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 7.0.0 20161125 (experimental) [trunk revision 242863] (x86_64-suse-linux)
GCC error:|
| in size_binop_loc, at fold-const.c:1744 |
| Error detected at c41104a.adb:60:33
Hello!
Attached patch tries to fix the mess with operations where register
allocator is free to use either mask or general registers. There are
plenty of problems with this approach:
a) missing operations wth general registers
- kxnor operation with general register does not exist
- kandn operatio
Bootstrap and testing in progress.
Richard.
2016-11-25 Richard Biener
* gimple-fold.c (fold_stmt_1): Check may_propagate_copy
before valueizing return stmts.
Index: gcc/gimple-fold.c
===
--- gcc/gimple-fold.c
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 25 November 2016 at 13:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:28:06PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> > --- a/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
> >> > +++ b/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
> >> >
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:48:04AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/24/2016 07:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> >
>> >That we compare different kinds of costs (which really has no meaning at
>> >all, it's a heuristic at best) in variou
On 25 November 2016 at 13:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:28:06PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> > --- a/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
>> > +++ b/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
>> > @@ -1271,8 +1271,30 @@ lto_init (void)
>> >gcc_assert (TYPE
Hi James,
On 16 November 2016 at 15:15, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
> On 11/11/16 15:42, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Finally, having added support for single-step DFmode to HFmode
>> conversions,
>> this patch adds support for _Float16 to the ARM back-end.
>>
>> That means making sure th
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 09:15:42PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> * gcc.c-torture/execute/comp-goto-1.c (insn_t): Change offset to
> signed int.
The same testcase is copied to gcc.dg/tree-prof/, just with extra dg-
directives. Committed as obvious:
2016-11-25 Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after discussing this with Honza, we have decided that scheduling an
> extra pass_rebuild_cgraph_edges after pass_fixup_cfg is the correct
> way to keep the cgraph consistent with gimple IL when early IPA passes
> need it, such as is
On 25 November 2016 at 13:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 25 November 2016 at 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 24 November 2016 at 18:08, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 24 No
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:33:32AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/24/2016 02:59 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 01:22:31PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>> PR target/77822
> >>> * system.h (SIZE_POS_IN_RANGE): New.
> >>OK. Though system.h seems like an unfortunate place. Would
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:05:42PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:54:17PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > The following two patches fix PR 77822 on s390x for gcc-7. As the
> > > macro doing the argument ran
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 25 November 2016 at 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 24 November 2016 at 18:08, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 24 Novem
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch fixes two issues in newly introduced pattern: (cond (cmp
> (convert1? @1) @3) (convert2? @1) @2).
> For PR78507, we need to check if from_type is INTEGRAL_TYPE_P explicitly,
> this patch adds check for that.
> Note we don't che
The smaller int size for the avr target breaks the test's
expectation on the number of iterations. The failure goes
away if 32 bit ints are used in place of a plain int.
Fix by conditionally typedef int32_t to __INT32_TYPE__ for targets
with int size < 4, and then use int32_t everywher
On 25 November 2016 at 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 24 November 2016 at 18:08, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 24 November 2016 at 17:48, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 24 No
On 2016.11.22 at 20:02 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> PR tree-optimization/78476
> * gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (struct pass_sprintf_length::call_info):
> Add a member.
> (handle_gimple_call): Adjust signature.
> (try_substitute_return_value): Remove cal
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:28:06PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
> > +++ b/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
> > @@ -1271,8 +1271,30 @@ lto_init (void)
> >gcc_assert (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (const_tm_ptr_type_node)
> > == const
Hi all,
In "config/acx.m4", there are still some "tail +16c" which are invalid
on POSIX systems.
In my opinion， all "tail +16c" should be changed to "tail -c +16"
directly, as most systems has accept the latter.
And, to skip first 16 bytes, we should use "tail -c +17" instead of
"tail -c
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 24 November 2016 at 18:08, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 24 November 2016 at 17:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 24 Novem
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:28:06PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> --- a/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
> +++ b/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
> @@ -1271,8 +1271,30 @@ lto_init (void)
>gcc_assert (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (const_tm_ptr_type_node)
> == const_ptr_type_node);
>
> - ptrdiff_type_node = integer
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I've been analyzing a failing regtest (gcc.dg/strlenopt-8.c) for the
> >>
82 matches
Mail list logo
