On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 01:33:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Making it guaranteed that it has at least one argument say through
> template poly_int(const U &, const T &...) {}
> fixes it for 4.8/4.9 as well.
So, perhaps (but so far totally untested, the other bootstrap is still
running):
2
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:23:49AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/cse.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/cse.cc
> > @@ -4951,8 +4951,14 @@ cse_insn (rtx_insn *insn)
> > && is_a (mode, &int_mode)
> > && (extend_op = load_extend_op (int_mode)) != UNKNOWN)
> > {
> > +#if GCC_
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 12:43:10PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> It seemed like there was considerable support for bumping the minimum
>> to beyond 4.8. I think we should wait until a decision has been made
>> before adding more 4.8 workarounds.
>
> I think adding a w
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 12:43:10PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> It seemed like there was considerable support for bumping the minimum
> to beyond 4.8. I think we should wait until a decision has been made
> before adding more 4.8 workarounds.
I think adding a workaround until that decision i
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> "Roger Sayle" writes:
> > I'd like to ping my patch for restoring bootstrap using g++ 4.8.5
> > (the system compiler on RHEL 7 and later systems).
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632008.html
> >
> > Note the p
"Roger Sayle" writes:
> I'd like to ping my patch for restoring bootstrap using g++ 4.8.5
> (the system compiler on RHEL 7 and later systems).
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632008.html
>
> Note the preprocessor #ifs can be removed; they are only there to document
> why t
2023 17:20
> To: Roger Sayle ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: 'Richard Sandiford'
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support g++ 4.8 as a host compiler.
>
>
>
> On 10/4/23 16:19, Roger Sayle wrote:
> >
> > The recent patch to remove poly_int_pod trigger
> On 8 Oct 2023, at 05:40, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/7/23 15:30, Sam James wrote:
>> Jeff Law writes:
>>> On 10/4/23 16:19, Roger Sayle wrote:
The recent patch to remove poly_int_pod triggers a bug in g++
4.8.5's
C++ 11 support which mistakenly believes poly_uint16 has a non-trivi
On 10/7/23 15:30, Sam James wrote:
Jeff Law writes:
On 10/4/23 16:19, Roger Sayle wrote:
The recent patch to remove poly_int_pod triggers a bug in g++
4.8.5's
C++ 11 support which mistakenly believes poly_uint16 has a non-trivial
constructor. This in turn prohibits it from being used as
Jeff Law writes:
> On 10/4/23 16:19, Roger Sayle wrote:
>> The recent patch to remove poly_int_pod triggers a bug in g++
>> 4.8.5's
>> C++ 11 support which mistakenly believes poly_uint16 has a non-trivial
>> constructor. This in turn prohibits it from being used as a member in
>> a union (rtx
On 10/4/23 16:19, Roger Sayle wrote:
The recent patch to remove poly_int_pod triggers a bug in g++ 4.8.5's
C++ 11 support which mistakenly believes poly_uint16 has a non-trivial
constructor. This in turn prohibits it from being used as a member in
a union (rtxunion) that constructed statical
On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 23:19 +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> The recent patch to remove poly_int_pod triggers a bug in g++ 4.8.5's
> C++ 11 support which mistakenly believes poly_uint16 has a non-trivial
> constructor. This in turn prohibits it from being used as a member in
> a union (rtxunion) tha
12 matches
Mail list logo
