On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 8:58 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 11/14/20 6:35 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> Jeffrey Law wrote:
> >> I worry a bit about the less common native targets -- aix, hpux and the
> >> like. But testing them is too painful to contemplate these days. I'm
> >> sure those with
On 11/14/20 1:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Any news on the latest snapshot? Can we remove the duplicate range
> built-in code?
11-08 looks real good, best we've had since mid-sept.
jeff
On 11/14/20 6:35 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Jeffrey Law wrote:
>> I worry a bit about the less common native targets -- aix, hpux and the
>> like. But testing them is too painful to contemplate these days. I'm
>> sure those with access to suitable hardware will chime in if something
>> is
> Jeffrey Law wrote:
> I worry a bit about the less common native targets -- aix, hpux and the
> like. But testing them is too painful to contemplate these days. I'm
> sure those with access to suitable hardware will chime in if something
> is amiss.
All of these testcases now fail on AIX w
GCC considers PTRDIFF_MAX - 1 to be the size of the largest object
so that the difference between a pointer to the byte just past its
end and the first one is no more than PTRDIFF_MAX. This is too
liberal in LP64 on most systems because the size of the address
space is constrained to much less th
Dear all,
here is a first version to check the status of ALLOCATABLE and POINTER
arguments to the SIZE intrinsic at runtime.
What it does not yet cover is situations like
complex, allocatable :: z(:)
print *, size (z% re)
Feedback, such as comments for improvement, are welcome.
As is, the
Hi,
The test needs to use Object rather than NSObject on this and earlier
OS versions. Although the PR reports against the GNU runtime, we run
this on NeXT as well.
tested on x86_64-darwin11 and x86_64-darwin16
pushed to master,
thanks
Iain
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* objc.dg/pr23214.m:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:27 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 1/14/20 5:05 PM, Lewis Hyatt wrote:
> > Hello-
> >
> > I thought I might ping this short patch please, just in case it may
> > make sense to include in GCC 10 along with the other UTF-8-related
> > fixes to diagnostics. Thanks!
> >
> > https
Any news on the latest snapshot? Can we remove the duplicate range built-in
code?
Aldy
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020, 22:43 Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 11/5/20 2:40 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > I'll wait for the 11/01 snapshot to finish then.
>
> I'm worried that the 11/01 snapshot is going to generate so ma
GCC has had the ability to emit fix-it hints in machine-readable form
since GCC 7 via -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits and
-fdiagnostics-generate-patch.
The former emits additional specially-formatted lines to stderr; the
option and its format were directly taken from a pre-existing option
in clang.
On Linux/x86_64,
520d5ad337eaa15860a5a964daf7ca46cf31c029 is the first bad commit
commit 520d5ad337eaa15860a5a964daf7ca46cf31c029
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sat Nov 14 13:52:36 2020 +0100
Detect EAF flags in ipa-modref
caused
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr59776.c -O1 -DPREVENT_OPTIMIZATION l
On Friday 13 November 2020 at 21:58:25 +, Mike Crowe via Libstdc++ wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2020 at 23:07:47 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 29/05/20 07:17 +0100, Mike Crowe via Libstdc++ wrote:
> > > The futex system call supports waiting for an absolute time if
> > > FUTEX_WAIT_B
ping
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Tamar
> Christina
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:31 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw ; nd ;
> Marcus Shawcroft
> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/16]AArch64: Add SVE2 Integer RTL patterns for
> Complex Addition,
ping
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Tamar
> Christina
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:30 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw ; nd ;
> Marcus Shawcroft
> Subject: [PATCH v2 11/16]AArch64: Add SVE RTL patterns for Complex
> Addition, Multiply
ping
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Tamar
> Christina
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:32 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw ; nd ;
> Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Subject: [PATCH v2 15/16]Arm: Add MVE RTL patterns for Complex Addition,
> Multiply
ping
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Tamar
> Christina
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:30 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw ; nd ;
> Marcus Shawcroft
> Subject: [PATCH v2 10/16]AArch64: Add NEON RTL patterns for Complex
> Addition, Multipl
ping
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Tamar
> Christina
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:31 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw ; nd ;
> Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Subject: [PATCH v2 14/16]Arm: Add NEON RTL patterns for Complex Addition,
> Multipl
Hi All,
This patch adds the pre-requisites and general scaffolding for supporting doing
SLP pattern matching.
Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
Ok for master?
Thanks,
Tamar
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-vect-loop.c (vect_dissolve_slp_only_patterns): New.
On Sat, 14 Nov 2020, 13:30 Mike Crowe via Libstdc++,
wrote:
> On Saturday 14 November 2020 at 00:17:59 +, Jonathan Wakely via
> Libstdc++ wrote:
> > On 32-bit targets where userspace has switched to 64-bit time_t, we
> > cannot pass struct timespec to SYS_futex or SYS_clock_gettime, because
>
On Saturday 14 November 2020 at 00:17:59 +, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++
wrote:
> On 32-bit targets where userspace has switched to 64-bit time_t, we
> cannot pass struct timespec to SYS_futex or SYS_clock_gettime, because
> the userspace definition of struct timespec will not match what the
On Saturday 14 November 2020 at 00:17:22 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13/11/20 22:45 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 13/11/20 21:12 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On 13/11/20 20:29 +, Mike Crowe via Libstdc++ wrote:
> > > > On Friday 13 November 2020 at 17:25:22 +, Jonathan
Hey,
On 13.11.20 05:45, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/29/19 12:15 PM, Tim Rühsen wrote:
* cplus-dem.c (ada_demangle): Correctly calculate the demangled
size by using two passes.
So I'm not sure why, but I can't get this patch to apply. What's even
more interesting is ada_demangle doesn't seem to
This is the third revision of my patch:
1. Two typos in the commit message have been fixed.
2. Support for `%a` and `%A` has been added. Documentation can be
found on the same page in the commit message.
3. GCC will no longer warn about 'ISO C does not support the ‘L’
ms_printf length modifi
acsaw...@linux.ibm.com writes:
> From: Aaron Sawdey
>
> After discussion with Richard Sandiford on IRC, he suggested adding a
> new mode class MODE_OPAQUE to deal with the problems (PR 96791) we had
> been having with POImode/PXImode in powerpc target. This patch is the
> accumulation of changes I
Hi, thanks for reviewing this patch. This patch just change a typo in
comment of gcc/lto/lto-symtab.c. The original comment is "because after
removing one of duplicate decls the hash is not correcly updated to the
ohter dupliate.", I change "ohter" to "other". So I don't do any tesst and
provide re
25 matches
Mail list logo
