On 03/15/2017 04:12 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 03/15/2017 12:58 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2017-03-13 16:33 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška :
On 03/13/2017 02:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
No, that can't happen. I said that for example for
struct S { ... } s;
foo (s);
pass_by_reference may be true but
On 03/15/2017 12:58 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2017-03-13 16:33 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška :
On 03/13/2017 02:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
No, that can't happen. I said that for example for
struct S { ... } s;
foo (s);
pass_by_reference may be true but on gimple you see a struct s as
actual argume
2017-03-13 16:33 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška :
> On 03/13/2017 02:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> No, that can't happen. I said that for example for
>>
>> struct S { ... } s;
>> foo (s);
>>
>> pass_by_reference may be true but on gimple you see a struct s as
>> actual argument. I'm not sure
>> what ch
On 03/13/2017 02:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> No, that can't happen. I said that for example for
>
> struct S { ... } s;
> foo (s);
>
> pass_by_reference may be true but on gimple you see a struct s as
> actual argument. I'm not sure
> what chkp_find_bounds does to 's' in this case. Like if
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 03/13/2017 01:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2017 12:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 03/07/2017 03:53 PM, Ri
On 03/13/2017 01:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 03/08/2017 12:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 03/07/2017 03:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Ma
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 12:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 03/07/2017 03:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 03/07/2017 11:17 AM, Rai
On 03/08/2017 12:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 03/07/2017 03:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 03/07/2017 11:17 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> marxin writes:
>
>> diff --gi
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 03/07/2017 03:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 03/07/2017 11:17 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
marxin writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C
> b/gcc/testsu
On 03/07/2017 03:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 03/07/2017 11:17 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> marxin writes:
>>>
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C
new file mode 100644
index 000
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 03/07/2017 11:17 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> marxin writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000..f9223db1b2d
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsu
On 03/07/2017 11:17 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> marxin writes:
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..f9223db1b2d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C
>> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
>> +/* { dg-do compil
Hello!
> 2017-03-06 Martin Liska
>
> PR target/79763
> PR target/79769
> PR target/79770
> * tree-chkp.c (chkp_find_bounds_1): Handle REAL_CST,
> COMPLEX_CST and VECTOR_CST.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-03-06 Martin Liska
>
> PR target/79763
> PR target/79769
> PR target/79770
> * g
marxin writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..f9223db1b2d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79769.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target { ! x32 } } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-fchec
14 matches
Mail list logo