Hi,
Thanks for your good suggestions!
This patch was remade and attached. Does the v2 patch look better?
Bootstrap and new testcase tested on aarch64 & x86 Linux platform.
Kaipeng Zhou
PR95854-v2.diff
Description: PR95854-v2.diff
A rather straightforward issue (mis-)referencing the proper symbol name
in an error message.
OK for master / backport?
Thanks,
Harald
PR fortran/95880 - ICE in gfc_add_type, at fortran/symbol.c:2030
The fix for PR39695 did not properly distinguish between procedure names
and other symbols name
Hi,
This is a enabler patch that enables a reasonable approach to
fixing 5 reported PRs (it doesn’t fix anything in its own right).
It has been tested on x86_64-linux, darwin, powerpc64-linux
OK for master / 10.2?
thanks
Iain
--
The standard describes a rewrite of the body of the user-autho
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 01:57:52AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:52:50AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 03:53:37PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > Add tests for -mcpu=future that test the generation of PADDI (and PLI
> > > which
> >
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 01:49:23AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:52:50AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 03:53:37PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > Add tests for -mcpu=future that test the generation of PADDI (and PLI
> > > which
> >
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 01:55:19AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:09:41PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:03:51PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mpaddi\M|\mpli|\mpla\M} 3 } } */
> >
> > Is th
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 01:50:48AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:18:42PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > +/* { dg-do compile } */
> > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_prefixed_addr } */
> >
> > Is this test necessary anymore, does -mcpu=power10 not g
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po
(This file, 'gcc-10.1.0.sv.po', has ju
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 17:53, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 21:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > For these three tests I think this would be slightly better:
> >
> > // { dg-additional-options "-Wno-deprecated" { target c++17 } }
> >
> > That way we only ignore the warning when
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 21:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> For these three tests I think this would be slightly better:
>
> // { dg-additional-options "-Wno-deprecated" { target c++17 } }
>
> That way we only ignore the warning when actually needed.
Sure thing. The test run revealed some additional t
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
In theory yes, but there are cases where paths converge (like you've shown)
where
you may have evaluated to a constant on the paths, but it's not a constant at
the
convergence point. You have to be very careful using b_c_p like this and it'
On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 13:38 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2020, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > Is there something specific that a compiler user should look out
> > for?
> > For example, here is the kernel code, from which the test was
> > derived:
> >
> > static inline
Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches writes:
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux, ppc64le-redhat-linux
> and s390x-redhat-linux.
Agree we should do this FWIW, but as a belt-and-braces fix, would it
make sense to define NULL to nullptr in system.h for all hosts?
Currently we have:
/*
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches wrote:
Is there something specific that a compiler user should look out for?
For example, here is the kernel code, from which the test was derived:
static inline void atomic_add(int i, atomic_t *v)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MARCH_Z196_FEATURES
Hi Dominieque,
While investigating pr95538, I see several module files that were not
cleaned.
Several were cleaned by a patch I had in my working directory.
However new ones were not cleaned (e.g., gfortran.dg/pr95091.f90) due to
continuation lines.
This is now fixed with the attached pa
Hi!
This implements the fallback mentioned in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-June/232874.html
Special cases for triangular loops etc. to follow later, also composite
constructs not supported yet (need to check the passing of temporaries around)
and lastprivate might not give the same answ
On June 27, 2020 10:58:56 AM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>For lp64 targets and int off ... ptr[off + 1]
>is lowered in pointer_sum to *(ptr + ((sizetype) off + (sizetype) 1)).
>That is fine when signed integer wrapping is undefined (and is not done
>already if off has unsigned type), bu
Hi
This adds a diagnostic only,
tested on x86_64-linux,darwin powerpc64-linux,
applied to master as obvious,
thanks
Iain
-
If the user provides operator new and that is noexcept, this
implies that it can fail with a null return. At that point, we expect
to be able to call get_return_obj
Hi!
For lp64 targets and int off ... ptr[off + 1]
is lowered in pointer_sum to *(ptr + ((sizetype) off + (sizetype) 1)).
That is fine when signed integer wrapping is undefined (and is not done
already if off has unsigned type), but changes behavior for -fwrapv, where
overflow is well defined. Run
Hi Harald,
here's another NULL pointer dereference on invalid code.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
OK for master / backports where appropriate?
OK.
(Also would have classified as obvious and simple, I think).
Thanks for the patch
Regards
Thomas
Hi Mark,
Use -fdec-add-missing-indexes to enable feature. Also enabled by fdec.
A warning that the lower bound is being used for a mission dimension
is output unless suppressed by using -Wno-missing-index.
This is... seriously problematic. I forsee all sorts of not-so-funny
interactions with
21 matches
Mail list logo
