On 12 January 2018 at 23:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:38:39AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> >>> Thanks for pointing it out. I see it there as well with
>> >>> Prathamesh's test case, though not with the test case in
>> >>> bug 83543. It is the same root cause in both. I agr
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:38:39AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>> Thanks for pointing it out. I see it there as well with
> >>> Prathamesh's test case, though not with the test case in
> >>> bug 83543. It is the same root cause in both. I agree
> >>> that enhancing the strlen pass to handle this c
On 01/12/2018 09:23 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 01/11/2018 11:44 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 12 January 2018 at 06:15, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2018 02:48 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
>> I am not sure why constant string is not emitted for
>> arm-linux
On 01/11/2018 11:44 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 12 January 2018 at 06:15, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 01/11/2018 02:48 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
I am not sure why constant string is not emitted for arm-linux-gnueabihf
?
As far as this issue is concerned, should I simply XFAIL it on
On 12 January 2018 at 06:15, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 01/11/2018 02:48 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
I am not sure why constant string is not emitted for arm-linux-gnueabihf
?
As far as this issue is concerned, should I simply XFAIL it on arm for
now ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
On 01/11/2018 02:48 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
I am not sure why constant string is not emitted for arm-linux-gnueabihf ?
As far as this issue is concerned, should I simply XFAIL it on arm for now ?
This is not unique to the arm back end but affects other targets
as well, including pow
Hi Martin,
>> I am not sure why constant string is not emitted for arm-linux-gnueabihf ?
>> As far as this issue is concerned, should I simply XFAIL it on arm for now ?
>
> This is not unique to the arm back end but affects other targets
> as well, including powerpc64. There's a bug open (PR 8346
On 01/11/2018 05:02 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 11 January 2018 at 16:14, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
On 11 January 2018 at 14:52, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi
On 10 January 2018 at 19:42, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
Hi,
I have attached patch for PR81703 rebased on Martin's fix for PR8350
On 11 January 2018 at 16:14, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 11 January 2018 at 14:52, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On 10 January 2018 at 19:42, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I have attached patch for PR81703 rebased on Martin's fix for PR83501
>>> posted here since both had
On 11 January 2018 at 14:52, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 10 January 2018 at 19:42, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have attached patch for PR81703 rebased on Martin's fix for PR83501
>> posted here since both had considerable overlaps:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01
Hi
On 10 January 2018 at 19:42, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> I have attached patch for PR81703 rebased on Martin's fix for PR83501
> posted here since both had considerable overlaps:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00180.html
>
> The patch passes bootstrap+test on x86_64-unk
On 01/10/2018 11:42 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> I have attached patch for PR81703 rebased on Martin's fix for PR83501
> posted here since both had considerable overlaps:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00180.html
>
> The patch passes bootstrap+test on x86_64-unknown-linu
Hi,
I have attached patch for PR81703 rebased on Martin's fix for PR83501
posted here since both had considerable overlaps:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00180.html
The patch passes bootstrap+test on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
and cross-tested on aarch64-*-*.
Currently it fails to pa
13 matches
Mail list logo
