Rope iterators sometimes contain pointers to an internal buffer
inside the iterator itself. When such an iterator is copied, the
copy incorrectly retains pointers to the original.
This patch takes the simple approach of not copying the cached
information when the internal buffer is being used, i
Hi
I think the comment in lower_eh_constructs_2 need a comma.
And I don't have write permission to GCC.
Bootstraped on x86-64
Thanks,
Zhouyi
Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-05-21 Zhouyi Zhou
* tree-eh.c (lower_eh_constructs_2): Add a comma to comment.
---
g
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> PR libstdc++/85843
> * src/c++11/cow-stdexcept.cc (logic_error, runtime_error): Explicitly
> initialize base class to avoid warnings.
And this patch fixes the warning to treat defaulted constructors the
same as impl
Hello,
Did you receive my previous email?
Pls inform.
Best regards,
T. K Acharya
PR libstdc++/85843
* src/c++11/cow-stdexcept.cc (logic_error, runtime_error): Explicitly
initialize base class to avoid warnings.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk.
commit e64c045676caee3153d62bdaaf207bb331f10d3d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Mon May 21 00:
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 09:44:47PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
>
> >> The patch still regtests cleanly. Ok for trunk?
> >
> > Patch looks good to me. The only thing that worries me is
> > whether the patch will cause the SPEC benchmark to throw
> > an error or warning that it did not before. As I d
On Sat, 19 May 2018, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
> Here's an update covering gcc 5.5.0.
Thanks, applied.
Gerald
Hi.
This patch intends to fix Bug 83566 - cyl_bessel_j returns wrong result
for x>1000 for high orders.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83566 for issue
description.
* libstdc++-v3/include/tr1/bessel_function.tcc
Series expansion in __cyl_bessel_jn_asymp() shall not
On Sat, 19 May 2018, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
> Going through the archives I found two results missing from the
> buildstat page.
Thanks, Tom! I applied this.
Gerald
On Sun, 20 May 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
> IIRC there is a 24h rule that global maintainers can invoke. Not
> sure if that is formally documented somewhere.
Yes, we have a reversion policy; it is documented at
https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
And, after me just having applied the patch belo
Hi!
(This whole idea/patch still needs an overall re-work, as discussed, but
here is a small incremental improvement/bug fix.)
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:52:58 +, Joseph Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > [...] here is my current messy WIP patch [...]
> +/* List of
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2018, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This fixes PR 85822 by removing incorrect reversal of condition in VRP
>> assertion. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64.
>>
>> Ok for trunk?
>
> Please address the following iss
Hi Steve,
thanks for your comments!
>> The patch still regtests cleanly. Ok for trunk?
>
> Patch looks good to me. The only thing that worries me is
> whether the patch will cause the SPEC benchmark to throw
> an error or warning that it did not before. As I don't have
> SPEC benchmark and it c
> r254152 disabled partial_reg_dependency and movx for Haswell and newer
> Intel processors. r258972 restored them for skylake-avx512. For Haswell,
> movx improves performance. But partial_reg_stall may be better than
> partial_reg_dependency in theory. We will investigate performance impact
>
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 07:28:49PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
>
> > the attached patch deals with the fact that the Fortran 2018 standard
> > marks two features as "deleted" (i.e. no longer supported), namely
> > arithmetic IFs and nonblock DO constructs. Both have been obsolescent
> > since the 90s
Hi all,
> the attached patch deals with the fact that the Fortran 2018 standard
> marks two features as "deleted" (i.e. no longer supported), namely
> arithmetic IFs and nonblock DO constructs. Both have been obsolescent
> since the 90s (and have been warned about by gfortran with appropriate
> fl
On May 20, 2018 7:02:40 PM GMT+02:00, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
>On Sonntag, 20. Mai 2018 15:07:59 CEST Richard Biener wrote:
>> On May 20, 2018 11:01:54 AM GMT+02:00, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> wrote:
>> >A little over a year back we had a regression in a point release of
>gcc
>> >
>> >because
On Sonntag, 20. Mai 2018 15:07:59 CEST Richard Biener wrote:
> On May 20, 2018 11:01:54 AM GMT+02:00, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> >A little over a year back we had a regression in a point release of gcc
> >
> >because the builtin __builtin_clzs got removed from i386, in part
> >because it
> >i
r254152 disabled partial_reg_dependency and movx for Haswell and newer
Intel processors. r258972 restored them for skylake-avx512. For Haswell,
movx improves performance. But partial_reg_stall may be better than
partial_reg_dependency in theory. We will investigate performance impact
of partial
Hi,
On 19/05/2018 15:30, Jason Merrill wrote:
I would expect it to cause different diagnostic issues, from
complaining about something not being a proper declaration when it's
really an expression. I also wonder about warning problems (either
missed or bogus) due to trying these in a different
On May 20, 2018 2:54:46 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Richard Biener
>wrote:
>>
>> Noticed in PR63185.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>> 2018-05-17 Richard Biener
>>
>> * tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vn_refe
On May 20, 2018 11:01:54 AM GMT+02:00, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
>A little over a year back we had a regression in a point release of gcc
>
>because the builtin __builtin_clzs got removed from i386, in part
>because it
>is was wrongly named for a target specific builtin, but we were using
>it
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 1:54 AM, graham stott via gcc-patches
wrote:
> It's --disable-libsanitizer that works not --disable-asan I got that wrong
>
> Original message
> From: graham stott via gcc-patches
> Date: 19/05/2018 10:30 (GMT+00:00)
> To: gcc-patches
> Subject: O3 boo
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Noticed in PR63185.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
>
> Richard.
>
> 2018-05-17 Richard Biener
>
> * tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vn_reference_lookup_3): Improve memset handling.
>
> * gcc.dg/tree-
Hi all,
the attached patch deals with the fact that the Fortran 2018 standard
marks two features as "deleted" (i.e. no longer supported), namely
arithmetic IFs and nonblock DO constructs. Both have been obsolescent
since the 90s (and have been warned about by gfortran with appropriate
flags).
Her
On May 20, 2018 2:01:24 PM GMT+02:00, Alexander Monakov
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 May 2018, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This fixes PR 85822 by removing incorrect reversal of condition in
>VRP
>> assertion. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64.
>>
>> Ok for trunk?
>
>Please address the follow
On Sun, 20 May 2018, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This fixes PR 85822 by removing incorrect reversal of condition in VRP
> assertion. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64.
>
> Ok for trunk?
Please address the following issues:
Use correct PR reference in Changelog.
Double-check the commen
Hi all,
This fixes PR 85822 by removing incorrect reversal of condition in VRP
assertion. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64.
Ok for trunk?
-Y
pr85822-1.patch
Description: Binary data
A little over a year back we had a regression in a point release of gcc
because the builtin __builtin_clzs got removed from i386, in part because it
is was wrongly named for a target specific builtin, but we were using it in Qt
since it existed in multiple compilers. I got the patch removing it
It's --disable-libsanitizer that works not --disable-asan I got that wrong
Original message
From: graham stott via gcc-patches
Date: 19/05/2018 10:30 (GMT+00:00)
To: gcc-patches
Subject: O3 bootstraps fail on x86-64
O3 bootstraps have started to fail to build since about
30 matches
Mail list logo
