On 01/20/2017 05:24 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
This is essentially the same patch I sent for the previous instance of
this problem, but this time applied to local_cprop_pass. Bootstrapped
and tested on x86_64-linux, and it seems to fix the testcase with a ppc
cross. Ok?
Bernd
pr79125.diff
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when I fixed PR 78365 by streaming types of parameters that might not
> have been anywhere else, I forgot that I was holding them in non-GC
> memory and so I caused PR 79108. The following patch fixes it by
> putting ipa_param_descri
On 01/11/2017 06:30 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
+__riscv_save_12:
+ addi sp, sp, -112
+ li t1, 0
+ sd s11, 8(sp)
+ j .Ls10
+
+__riscv_save_11:
+__riscv_save_10:
+ addi sp, sp, -112
+ li t1, -16
No unwind info?
r~
On 01/17/2017 01:16 PM, Andrew Waterman wrote:
We went with the /libXX/YY/ approach because, on a multilib system,
the system libraries also need to be distinguished by ABI. It seemed
most natural to us to handle ld.so and e.g. libc.so in a consistent
manner. However, something along the lines
On 01/11/2017 06:30 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
+(define_register_constraint "f" "TARGET_HARD_FLOAT ? FP_REGS : NO_REGS"
+ "A floating-point register (if available).")
+
I know this is the Traditional Way, but I do wonder if using the new enable
attribute on the alternatives would be better. N
On 01/20/2017 04:30 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Going to work from the self-contained test...
Here's a test case that's closer to the one from the bug. It also
ends up with the out of bounds memset even at -O1, during PRE.
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
struct S
int *p0, *p1, *p2;
size_t size
On 01/11/2017 06:30 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
+/* The largest number of operations needed to load an integer constant.
+ The worst case is LUI, ADDI, SLLI, ADDI, SLLI, ADDI, SLLI, ADDI,
+ but we may attempt and reject even worse sequences. */
+#define RISCV_MAX_INTEGER_OPS 32
Why would you
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 04:07:47PM -0700, Kelvin Nilsen wrote:
>
> This patch corrects several errors in a patch originally committed on
> 2016-08-10. The following corrections are required to maintain
> compliance with "Power Architecture 64-Bit ELF V2 ABI Specification",
> also known as "OpenPO
On 01/20/2017 04:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 04:32:19PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
then the loop does the same thing as will memset (p, 6, 3U * 1024 * 1024 *
1024);
do. On such large objects some operations may not work properly, e.g.
&p[i] - &p[0] might be negative etc., b
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:37:13PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > Which is best will depend on what the front/mid ends might have done to
> > > apply the documented limit.
> >
> > Here I know not enough to give a decision. In tree the priority_type is
> > unsigned short. In varasm priority is an int
Hi!
I've discovered today that while I've handled all */Makefile* and toplevel,
in the */*/Makefile* files there are some cat .../BASE-VER constructs left
(for NVPTX offloading testing it actually caused the accel compiler not
being found with --with-gcc-major-version-only).
The following patch f
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 04:32:19PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > then the loop does the same thing as will memset (p, 6, 3U * 1024 * 1024 *
> > 1024);
> > do. On such large objects some operations may not work properly, e.g.
> > &p[i] - &p[0] might be negative etc., but that is not something the abo
Hi!
The Fortran FE has huge amounts of -Wformat-security warnings everywhere,
but in the end they are only a result of a few commonly used things:
1) gfc_get_string uses a printf-like format string, so calling it with
a variable is something -Wformat-security warns about (and would be a bad bug
if
On 01/18/2017 01:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:59:43PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
I agree that breaking those applications would be bad. It could
be dealt with by adding an option to let them disable the insertion
of the trap. With the warning, programmers would get a head
On 01/18/2017 10:45 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 01/18/2017 01:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:59:43PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
I agree that breaking those applications would be bad. It could
be dealt with by adding an option to let them disable the insertion
of the trap. W
Hi!
When building gcc with -Wformat -Werror=format-security, there are various
warnings->errors. This set has been introduced by me :( in the DWARF5
work, thus it is a 7 Regression.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for
trunk?
2017-01-20 Jakub Jelinek
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:55:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > 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
Hi,
when I fixed PR 78365 by streaming types of parameters that might not
have been anywhere else, I forgot that I was holding them in non-GC
memory and so I caused PR 79108. The following patch fixes it by
putting ipa_param_descriptor and ipa_node_params structures into GC
memory, together with
This patch to libgo fixes misc/cgo/test in the master repository to
work with gccgo.
The package testing/internal/testdeps is now installed. It is
required by the new go test.
The function runtime.lockedOSThread is exported from the runtime
package, so that it can be called from misc/cgo/test us
On 20/01/17 19:56, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 20.01.17 17:12, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 19/01/17 06:38, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>>> On 19.01.17 00:33, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/18/2017 11:43 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have the following issue here on aarch64-*-
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> This patch to libgo fixes the build on s390x GNU/Linux by ignoring an
> s390x-specific file that only works in conjunction with s390x assembly
> code that has not (yet) been ported to gccgo. Bootstrapped and ran Go
> tests on x86_64-pc-li
On 01/20/2017 12:56 PM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
On 20.01.17 17:12, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 19/01/17 06:38, Andreas Tobler wrote:
On 19.01.17 00:33, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/18/2017 11:43 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
Hi all,
I have the following issue here on aarch64-*-freebsd:
(sorry if
On 01/19/2017 02:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/17/2017 02:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This feels somewhat different, but still a hack.
I don't have strong suggestions on how to approach this, but what we've
got
here feels like a hack an
2017-01-20 20:08 GMT+03:00 Kirill Yukhin :
> Hi,
> On 20 Jan 14:46, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Senkevich
>> wrote:
>>
>> > here is intrinsics for ktest{b,w,d,q} and kortest{b,w,d,q}. Is it Ok?
>> >
>> > gcc/
>> > * config/i386/avx512bwintrin.h: Add k-mask tes
On 01/20/2017 05:24 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
This is essentially the same patch I sent for the previous instance of
this problem, but this time applied to local_cprop_pass. Bootstrapped
and tested on x86_64-linux, and it seems to fix the testcase with a ppc
cross. Ok?
Bernd
pr79125.diff
On 20.01.17 17:12, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 19/01/17 06:38, Andreas Tobler wrote:
On 19.01.17 00:33, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/18/2017 11:43 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
Hi all,
I have the following issue here on aarch64-*-freebsd:
(sorry if the format is hardly readable)
..
/export/
On 01/20/2017 01:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
In the attached testcase, we have a clearly bounded case of alloca which
is
being incorrec
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:35:32PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > This may be a naive question but why is it not possible to create
> > such an SSA name?
> Time and space complexity. To get the range information in this case we
> have to create new SSA_NAMEs and PHI nodes to merge them at BB3.
Not ju
On 01/20/2017 09:37 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 01/20/2017 01:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez
wrote:
In the attached testcase, we have a clearly b
On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
In the attached testcase, we have a clearly bounded case of alloca which is
being incorrectly reported:
void g (int *p, int *q)
{
size_t n = (size_t)(p - q);
if (n < 10)
f (__builti
Hi Bernd,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:33:59PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> So, when looking for situations where we have only one condition, we can
> try to undo the conversion of a plain REG into a condition, on the
> grounds that this is probably less helpful.
>
> This seems to cure the testc
On 01/20/2017 02:46 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 01/13/2017 06:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/13/2017 08:08 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
Nice example provided in the PR causes ICE as we have an artificial symbol
created in tree-profile.c once being removed by remove unreachable nodes (-O0)
and o
On 20/01/17 18:30, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> On 20/01/17 18:23, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>> OK, the attached patch disable the building of pointer signing code in
>> libgcc
>> on ILP32 mode, except the macro bit RA_A_SIGNED_BIT is still defined as I
>> want to book this bit for ILP32 as LP64 in case we la
On 20/01/17 18:23, Jiong Wang wrote:
OK, the attached patch disable the building of pointer signing code in
libgcc
on ILP32 mode, except the macro bit RA_A_SIGNED_BIT is still defined as I
want to book this bit for ILP32 as LP64 in case we later enable ILP32
support.
All pauth builtins are
Here is the patch.
For XPACLRI builtin which drops the signature in a pointer, it's
prototype is "void *foo (void *)"
FOR PAC/AUT builtin which sign or authenticate a pointer, it's prototype
is "void *foo (void *, uint64)".
This patch adjusted those modes to make sure they strictly follow the
> This seems to have fallen through a crack. Did you get a chance to try
> either of these suggestions?
So just:
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-mapcs-frame -O -foptimize-sibling-calls -ffunction-sections"
} */
in the header of the tescase?
--
Eric Botcazou
On 19/01/17 12:05 +, Joe Seymour wrote:
Here's the patch I'm proposing. I've tested it as follows:
- msp430-elf no longer encounters the error when configuring libstdc++-v3. Note
that libstdc++-v3 doesn't build due to an ICE though.
- Configuring libstdc++-v3 for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu p
On Jan 20 2017, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c
> ===
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c (revision 244691)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c (workin
On 01/09/16 10:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 01/09/16 10:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 01/09/16 08:47, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Since you're going to need a back-port there should be a PR filed for this.
>>>
>>> PR target/77439
>>>
Have you checked that this works with
Hi,
On 20 Jan 14:46, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Senkevich
> wrote:
>
> > here is intrinsics for ktest{b,w,d,q} and kortest{b,w,d,q}. Is it Ok?
> >
> > gcc/
> > * config/i386/avx512bwintrin.h: Add k-mask test, kortest intrinsics.
> > * config/i386/avx512dqi
Hi Guys,
I would like to close out PR 70681 by applying the patch below. It
updates the XFAIL comments in the two affected tests, explaining why
the check for shrink-wrapping will fail. There is nothing actually
wrong here. The shrink wrapping optimization is working and the
targets a
On 20/01/17 17:50 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 20 January 2017 at 17:27, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
On 20 January 2017 at 17:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This part for std::unique_ptr is the only part that isn't C++17-only,
so this is the part I'm most nervous about. Given that we're in sta
On 01/20/2017 01:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
In the attached testcase, we have a clearly bounded case of alloca which
is
being incorrec
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 01/20/2017 08:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I would guess that if we're going to do this we need to also use
>> forward_parm in maybe_thunk_body.
>
>
> Apparently not needed. maybe_thunk_body is called after we've genericized
>
Hi Guys,
[I have been asked to look at this PR in the hopes that it can be
fixed soon and so no longer act as a blocker for the gcc 7 branch].
It seems to me that Richard's proposed patch does work:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00909.html
The only problem is that the ch
ping?
On 01/11/2017 10:53 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 01/04/2017 12:53 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, that seems like where the problem is. We shouldn't try to
instantiate the inheriting constructor until we've already chosen the
base constructor; in the new model the inheriting constructor i
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 05:14:34PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> We already have code to handle
>
> case 0:
> foo ();
> label:
> bar ();
>
> where we don't want to warn, but the code didn't handle consecutive non-case
> labels. Thus fixed.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux,
On 20/01/17 12:36, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 20/01/17 11:15, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20/01/17 03:39, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jiong Wang
>>> wrote:
On 11/11/16 18:22, Jiong Wang wrote:
> As described in the cover letter, this patch implements retur
We already have code to handle
case 0:
foo ();
label:
bar ();
where we don't want to warn, but the code didn't handle consecutive non-case
labels. Thus fixed.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2017-01-20 Marek Polacek
PR c/79152
* gimplify.c
On 19/01/17 06:38, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 19.01.17 00:33, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 01/18/2017 11:43 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have the following issue here on aarch64-*-freebsd:
>>>
>>> (sorry if the format is hardly readable)
>>>
>>> ..
>>> /export/devel/net/src/gcc/head
On 01/20/2017 08:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, I would guess that if we're going to do this we need to also use
forward_parm in maybe_thunk_body.
Apparently not needed. maybe_thunk_body is called after we've
genericized the parent ctor. That ctor's parms have been bashed to
reference an
On 20 January 2017 at 17:27, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
> On 20 January 2017 at 17:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> This part for std::unique_ptr is the only part that isn't C++17-only,
>> so this is the part I'm most nervous about. Given that we're in stage
>> 4 and this isn't even fixing something i
We're in stage 4 now, and this isn't a regression, but I'm going to be
naughty and commit it anyway because it's a large patch but very
simple. It just adds operator!= to every xxx_distribution::param_type,
doing return (!p1 == p2), so hard to get wrong. The rest of the patch
only changes whitespa
On 20 January 2017 at 17:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> This part for std::unique_ptr is the only part that isn't C++17-only,
> so this is the part I'm most nervous about. Given that we're in stage
> 4 and this isn't even fixing something in Bugzilla (even if it is a
> real bug), would it be possibl
Not a regression in the strict sense, but a left over from the Java
removal. Can we still get that in?
(I think I pretty much committed all other changes of things I found
as left overs from the GCJ/libgcj removal.)
Gerald
2017-01-20 Gerald Pfeifer
* config/i386/cygming-crtbegin.c (
On 20/01/17 17:00 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/unique_ptr.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/unique_ptr.h
@@ -789,10 +789,9 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
{ return !(nullptr < __x); }
/// std::hash specialization for unique_ptr.
- template
-struc
On 13/01/17 18:17, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> Ping ARM maintainers? (target independent part ACKed by Jeff)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> On 03/01/17 17:19, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
>> Ping?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> On 12/12/16 17:52, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The
On January 20, 2017 3:56:31 PM GMT+01:00, David Malcolm
wrote:
>On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 09:06 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:22 PM, David Malcolm
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 14:42 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> > > On 01/09/2017 07:38 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > >
This patch introduced a new testsuite failure:
FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C:9:3:
warning: this condition has identical branches [-Wduplicated-branches]
/n
This is a follow-up to
2017-01-01 Jakub Jelinek
* update-copyright.py (TestsuiteFilter): Skip params/README.
(GCCCmdLine): Remove libjava and libjava/testsuite add_dir.
which removed the usage of LibJavaFilter in this script, just not the
filter class itself.
Applied.
Gera
Tested on Linux-x64. The approach is a bit ugly, the hashes derive
from __poison_hash and also use its nested __enable_hash_call as
an argument for another utility base. I prototyped various approaches
to try to decrease that duplication, but didn't like any of them (more
utility bases, aliases, ev
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:05:22AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> This patch introduced a new testsuite failure:
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess
> errors)
> Excess errors:
> /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C:9:
On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 09:06 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:22 PM, David Malcolm
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 14:42 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On 01/09/2017 07:38 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > > > * passes.c: Include "insn-addr.h".
> > > >
On 17/01/17 08:52, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch fixes inconsistencies in the format strings used to emit
> error messages when problems are detected in the AdvSIMD tests. They
> are not used normally since there is currently no error, but Doko
> complained about warnings when he run
On 20/01/17 14:33, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 06/01/17 11:54, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
In this wrong-code issue the RTL tries to load a const_vector:
(const_vector:V8QI [
(const_int 1 [0x1])
(const_int 0 [0])
(const_int 1 [0x1])
(const_int 0 [0]
On 2017.01.20 at 15:27 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Unfortunately this way would not work as clobber marks content of the
> > memory as uninitialize
> > is different behavior that just marking a memory can be used (and maybe
> > a
On 06/01/17 11:54, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In this wrong-code issue the RTL tries to load a const_vector:
> (const_vector:V8QI [
> (const_int 1 [0x1])
> (const_int 0 [0])
> (const_int 1 [0x1])
> (const_int 0 [0])
> (const_int 1 [0x1])
> (
On 20 January 2017 at 12:54, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 20/01/17 10:30, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> error: 'DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE' undeclared (first use in this
>> function)
>>fs->regs.reg[DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE].loc.offset ^= 1;
>> ^
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Richard Biener
>>
>> Or a later pass introduced it (in this case, the vectorizer).
>>
>>> Pred
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> Unfortunately this way would not work as clobber marks content of the memory
> as uninitialize
> is different behavior that just marking a memory can be used (and maybe
> already contains a value).
>
> This shows the problem:
>
> #
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andre Vieira (lists)
wrote:
> On 29/11/16 09:45, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>> On 17/11/16 10:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Andre Vieira (lists)
>>> wrote:
Hello,
This patch tackles the issue reported in PR7160
On 01/20/2017 12:49 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Great, thanks a lot. I'm going to re-trigger asan-bootstrap with your patch.
> I'm also adding gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/asan/use-after-scope-10.c that is a valid
> test-case for this issue.
Hi.
Unfortunately this way would not work as clobber marks conten
As our development plan says, stage4 means bumping to 7.0.1.
Richard.
2017-01-20 Richard Biener
* BASE-VER: Bump to 7.0.1.
Index: gcc/BASE-VER
===
--- gcc/BASE-VER(revision 244712)
+++ gcc/BASE-VER(workin
Status
==
The trunk is now in regression and documentation fixes mode (Stage 4)
thus as if it were a release branch. We still have the pending adoptions of
the BRIG FE and the RISC-V port.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- --
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 13:15 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:29 PM, David Malcolm
>> wrote:
>> > Here's a version of the patch which simply tweaks
>> > cp_parser_primary_expression's call to finish_id_expression so th
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Senkevich
wrote:
> here is intrinsics for ktest{b,w,d,q} and kortest{b,w,d,q}. Is it Ok?
>
> gcc/
> * config/i386/avx512bwintrin.h: Add k-mask test, kortest intrinsics.
> * config/i386/avx512dqintrin.h: Ditto.
> * config/i386/avx512fintrin.h: Di
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Bug 78495 is a wrong code bug caused by an invisiref parm. When building
> the inherited ctor, we use forward_parm to create a forwarding reference.
> That code generation considers the type of the parm to be 'T'. We thus end
> up with a t
* Graham Markall [2016-12-12 20:44:17 +]:
> Hi Claudiu,
>
> On 12/12/16 19:18, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
> > It looks sane to me, please apply (ask Andrew to do it for you)
> >
> > //Claudiu
>
> Many thanks for the quick review. I'll ask Andrew to do it once the
> binutils patch is approve
2017-01-19 20:55 GMT+03:00 Kirill Yukhin :
> On 19 Jan 19:42, Andrew Senkevich wrote:
>> 2017-01-19 13:39 GMT+03:00 Kirill Yukhin :
>> > Hi Andrew,
>> > On 18 Jan 15:45, Andrew Senkevich wrote:
>> >> 2017-01-17 16:51 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
>> >> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:03:08PM +0300, Andrew
Bug 78495 is a wrong code bug caused by an invisiref parm. When
building the inherited ctor, we use forward_parm to create a forwarding
reference. That code generation considers the type of the parm to be
'T'. We thus end up with a tree that looks like *&PARM
The subsequent call gets 'CALL_
On 20/01/17 11:15, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 20/01/17 03:39, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jiong Wang
wrote:
On 11/11/16 18:22, Jiong Wang wrote:
As described in the cover letter, this patch implements return address
signing
for AArch64, it's controlled by the new option
The PR is about infinite recursion in combine_simplify_rtx, because
if_then_else_cond does strange things to an expression, and we end up
simplifying something to itself. The patch below tries to address this
by improving that function a little. As stated in the PR, the situation
is that we hav
On 01/19/2017 10:26 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
2) For LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF members we don't make_decl_local, but instead
clear DECL_COMDAT and DECL_WEAK. Thus forcing this decl to be the
prevailing decl in the final link
3) For decls we localize, we also clear node->externally_visible and
node->for
This is essentially the same patch I sent for the previous instance of
this problem, but this time applied to local_cprop_pass. Bootstrapped
and tested on x86_64-linux, and it seems to fix the testcase with a ppc
cross. Ok?
Bernd
PR rtl-optimization/79125
* cprop.c (local_cprop_pass): Handl
Hi,
because the BRIG FE run-time and HSA libgomp plugin need the same
hsa.h that is currently in libgomp/plugin/, the plan is to move that
file to top-level include/ subdirectory.
This patch renames gcc/hsa.h to gcc/hsa-common.h so that it does not
conflict with the one in include. It was an unf
On 20/01/17 11:54, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 20/01/17 10:30, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> error: 'DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE' undeclared (first use in this
>> function)
>>fs->regs.reg[DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE].loc.offset ^= 1;
>> ^~~
On 20/01/17 02:37 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I misread the specifications for pointer_traits::rebind and
allocator_traits::rebind_alloc and was requiring them to be valid for
any specialization of the class templates. In fact they're only needed
if instantiated. This fixes the problem.
This patch fixes a compiler abort on a call to a function that returns a
limited view of a type. The following sources must compile quietly:
limited with Root;
package Api is
type Object is tagged null record;
function Is_Present (Name : in String) return Boolean;
function Get (Name : in
The pragma Check_Poliy and the names Precondition / Postcondition were
introduced in GNAT before the Ada2012 standardization, and they have a
different behavior from that of the standardized pragma Assertion_Policy.
Rather than making the behavior of both more conformant we choose to preserve
the o
On 20/01/17 10:30, Christophe Lyon wrote:
error: 'DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE' undeclared (first use in this
function)
fs->regs.reg[DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE].loc.offset ^= 1;
^
Hi Christophe, could you please confirm you svn revision
This patch implements several checks on use clauses to prevent mixing Ghost and
non-Ghost names. A context clause is marked as ignored Ghost when it mentions
an ignored Ghost package or type. Pruning of ignored Ghost code now looks at
compilation unit nodes in order to remove ignored Ghost clauses
On 01/19/2017 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:34:48PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> During bootstrap, I came to following test-case:
>>
>> struct A
>> {
>> int regno;
>> };
>> struct
>> {
>> A base;
>> } typedef *df_ref;
>> int *a;
>> void
>> fn1 (int N)
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 01/20/2017 03:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez
wrote:
On 20/01/17 03:39, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 11/11/16 18:22, Jiong Wang wrote:
As described in the cover letter, this patch implements return address
signing
for AArch64, it's controlled by the new option:
-msign-return-address=[none | non
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:32:59PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> s/indentical/identical in the doc/invoke.texi changes.
Fixed.
> > diff --git gcc/c/c-typeck.c gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> > index 96e7351..ed8ffe4 100644
> > --- gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> > +++ gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> > @@ -5193,6 +5193,15 @@ build_conditio
On 01/20/2017 03:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
In the attached testcase, we have a clearly bounded case of alloca which
is
being incorrec
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2017-01-20 Pascal Obry
* a-locale.adb, a-locale.ads: Update Ada.Locales for RM 2012 COR:1:2016
Index: a-locale.adb
===
--- a-locale.adb(revision 244691)
+++ a-loca
In some cases of an assignment to an unconstrained formal parameter
being inlined as part of the special frontend inlining in GNATprove mode,
the inlined assignment is to an unconstrained view of a constrained local
variable, which is unexpected in GNATprove. Rather, keep the most precise
type of t
This patch modifies the generation of the Default_Initial_Condition procedure
to disregard class-wide types and the underlying full views of private types.
In addition, the patch preserves the attributes of freeze nodes when the
partial and/or full views of a private type inherit the freeze node of
On 20 January 2017 at 11:18, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 20/01/17 10:11, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>>
/tmp/8132498_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:
In function 'execute_cfa_program':
/tmp/8132498_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccs
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
