On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:14 PM David Faust wrote:
>
>
> On 7/29/24 07:42, Will Hawkins wrote:
> > If the user provides a kind value that is more than 5 bits, the
> > BTF_KIND_INFO macro would emit incorrect values for info (by clobbering
> > values of the kind flag
kind.
Signed-off-by: Will Hawkins
---
Notes:
I have a small out-of-tree test but was not sure whether a) it should
be included and/or b) where it should be included. If you would
like me to include it, please just let me know where it should
go!
include
t; > Tested for bpf-unknown-none on x86_64-linux-gnu host.
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * config/bpf/bpf.opt: Add help information for -mcpu.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Will Hawkins
> > ---
> > gcc/config/bpf/bpf.opt | 2 ++
> > 1 file chan
Add documentation describing the meaning and values for the -mcpu
command-line option.
Tested for bpf-unknown-none on x86_64-linux-gnu host.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/bpf/bpf.opt: Add help information for -mcpu.
Signed-off-by: Will Hawkins
---
gcc/config/bpf/bpf.opt | 2 ++
1 file
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 4:26 PM Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
... snip ...
> + void
> + _M_jump_in(_Coro_handle __rest, _Coro_handle __new) noexcept
> + {
> + __glibcxx_assert(&__new.promise()._M_nest == this);
> + __glibcxx_assert(this->_
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:46 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 at 16:42, Will Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > Thank you, as always, for the great work that you do on libstdc++. The
> > inout_ptr implementation properly handles the issue
the implementation of inout_ptr is not
vulnerable to LWG Issue 3897.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* testsuite/20_util/smartptr.adapt/inout_ptr/3.cc: New test
for LWG Issue 3897.
Signed-off-by: Will Hawkins
---
.../20_util/smartptr.adapt/inout_ptr/3.cc | 17 +
1 file changed,
Just wanted to see if there was anything else I can do to help move
this over the finish line! Thanks for all the work that you all do!
Sincerely,
Will
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:06 PM Will Hawkins wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay. Tested on x86-64 Linux.
>
> -->8--
>
> Af
its/basic_string.tcc::
Remove single-allocation implementation of operator+.
Signed-off-by: Will Hawkins
---
libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h | 66 --
libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc | 41 --
2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 58 deleti
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:05 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022, 18:51 François Dumont via Libstdc++,
> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/09/22 20:30, Will Hawkins wrote:
>> > Based on Jonathan's work, here is a patch for the implementation of
>
Confirming that patch 1 of 2 *does* fix the failing tests here (x86-64).
Will
PS: Please tell me if emails like this are helpful or not. Just trying to help!
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 2:48 PM Philipp Fent via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Philipp Fent
> ---
> libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc
performs single-allocation string
concatenation. (__str_cat)
Use __str_cat to perform optimized operator+, where relevant.
* include/bits/basic_string.tcc::
Remove single-allocation implementation of operator+.
Signed-off-by: Will Hawkins
---
libstdc++-v3/incl
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:03 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 23:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 23:39, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > >
> > > On Aug 24, 2022, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >* include/bits/basic_s
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 19:15, Will Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > Until now operator+(char*, string) and operator+(string, char*) had
> > different performance characteristics. The former required a single
> > me
at you all do to make GCC the best compiler out there.
Will
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Will Hawkins wrote:
> Hello again!
>
> Thanks to the feedback of Mr. Myers and those on the PR, I have
> created a version 3 of this patch. This version introduces a new
> warning flag (e
. Results from make bootstrap and/or make -k check
are available upon request.
Please let me know what I can do to make this better and bring it up
to the standards of the community! Thanks again for the feedback on
this patch during the previous two revisions!
Sincerely,
Will Hawkins
2018
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Will Hawkins wrote:
>
>> +{
>> + warning (OPT_Wignored_qualifiers, "asm-specifier is ignored in "
>> + "typedef declaration");
>
> This does not matc
patience!
Will
2018-04-18 Will Hawkins
PR c,c++/85444
* gcc/c/c-decl.c: Warn about ignored asm label for
typedef declaration
* gcc/cp/decl.c: Warn about ignored asm label for
typedef declaration
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/asm-pr85444.c: c testcase.
* gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asm-pr85444.
bel. This patch will generate
a warning (at -Wpedantic) for such a situation. This is in Bugzilla as
85444.
Again, I hope that I have done all the proper formatting so that it is
inline with all the contribution guidelines. Thank you for your
patience!
Will
2018-04-18 Will Hawkins
* gcc/c
19 matches
Mail list logo
