On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 02:07:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Stage1:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662379.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662380.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662381.html
> https://
Hi!
I'd like to ping 10 C++ patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672040.html
P1 - Fix ICEs with large initializer lists or ones including #embed [PR118124]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672041.html
P1 - Fix up maybe_init_list_as_array for
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:15:15PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 05:07:40PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I'd like to ping the
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/668699.html
> > patch.
> >
> > The patches it depended on are already committed and t
Hi!
On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 05:07:40PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'd like to ping the
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/668699.html
> patch.
>
> The patches it depended on are already committed and there is a patch
> which depends on this (the builtins shift from nonnu
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/668699.html
patch.
The patches it depended on are already committed and there is a patch
which depends on this (the builtins shift from nonnull to nonnull_if_nonzero
where needed) which has been approved but can't be
Hi!
I'd like to ping 20 C++ patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/658137.html
libcpp, c++: Optimize initializers using #embed in C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659333.html
c++: Speed up compilation of large char array initializers when not us
Hi,
I'd like to ping the following patches sent in stage1:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/20240414001113.1698685-1-ar...@aarsen.me
- Area: Toplevel
- Subject: Recover in-tree libiconv build support
https://inbox.sourceware.org/20240918210202.192478-1-ar...@aarsen.me
- Area: C++, libstdc++
- Subjec
Hi!
According to my notes, from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/669367.html
patch ping the following patches are awaiting middle-end patch review
and nothing else:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/669774.html
expr, c, gimplify: Don't
> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Cc: Kong, Lingling ; Gregory Kanter
> >
> > Subject: Patch ping - [PATCH] [APX EGPR] Fix indirect call prefix
> >
> > Hello,
> > I would like to ping the patch
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-Novembe
Hi,
LGTM.
Now Hongyu and Hongtao are working on APX.
Thanks,
Lingling
> -Original Message-
> From: Gregory Kanter
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2024 8:16 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kong, Lingling ; Gregory Kanter
>
> Subject: Patch ping - [PATCH] [A
Hello,
I would like to ping the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/668105.html
please.
Also CC'ing someone who is working on APX,
sorry if this is frowned upon.
Thanks.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667737.html
> inline-asm: Add support for cc operand modifier
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667949.html
> inline-asm, i386: Add "redzone" clobber support
> This on
Hi!
I'd like to ping 17 C++ patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/658137.html
libcpp, c++: Optimize initializers using #embed in C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659333.html
c++: Speed up compilation of large char array initializers when not us
Hi!
I'd like to ping various stage1 patches.
Padding zeroing patchset
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/665565.html
expr, c, gimplify: Don't clear whole unions [PR116416]
This one needs C FE review (especially if the testcase matches
the actual
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 11:42:00AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I've noticed alloc_align attribute is missing on the non-vector
> ::operator new with std::align_val_t and const std::nothrow_t&
> arguments, this patch adds it. The last hunk is just
> an attempt to make the line shorter.
I'd
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 07:48:39PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 05:44:05PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The following patch adds u{,l,ll,imax}abs builtins, which just fold
> > to ABSU_EXPR, similarly to how {,l,ll,imax}abs builtins fold to
> > ABS_EXPR.
> >
> > Tested o
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 11:47:45AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The following patch adds selftests to genmatch to verify the new printing
> > routine there.
> > So that I can rely on HAVE_DECL_FMEMOPEN (host test), the tests are done
> > solely in sta
I'd like to ping 18 C++ patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/658137.html
libcpp, c++: Optimize initializers using #embed in C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659333.html
c++: Speed up compilation of large char array initializers when not using
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 11:47:45AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The following patch adds selftests to genmatch to verify the new printing
> routine there.
> So that I can rely on HAVE_DECL_FMEMOPEN (host test), the tests are done
> solely in stage2+ where we link the host libcpp etc. to genmatch.
Hi!
I'd to ping a few libcpp patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662960.html
- [PATCH] libcpp, genmatch: Use gcc_diag instead of printf for libcpp
diagnostics
The genmatch side approved, libcpp remains
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/664
Hi!
I'd like to ping 16 C++ patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662507.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662750.html
CWG 2867 - Order of initialization for structured bindings - rest of
implementation [PR115769]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pip
Hi!
I'd like to ping a few #embed related patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/657053.html
- [PATCH] libcpp, c, middle-end: Optimize initializers using #embed in C
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/658137.html
- [PATCH] libcpp, c++: Optimize initiali
Hi!
On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 07:43:25PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> It seems that we currently require
> 1) enabling at least c,c++,fortran,d in --enable-languages
> 2) first doing make html
> before one can successfully regenerate-opt-urls, otherwise without 2)
> one gets
> make regenerate-opt-u
Hi!
I'd like to ping 16 C++ patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/660046.html
c++: Implement C++23 P2718R0 - Wording for P2644R1 Fix for Range-based for
Loop [PR107637]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662507.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/660046.html
c++: Implement C++23 P2718R0 - Wording for P2644R1 Fix for Range-based for
Loop [PR107637]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659836.html
c++: Attempt to implement C++26 P303
Hi,
Pinging these patches again:
- https://inbox.sourceware.org/20240807131613.526335-1-ar...@aarsen.me/
- https://inbox.sourceware.org/20240802211503.3992610-2-ar...@aarsen.me/
Thanks in advance, have a lovely day.
--
Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi!
A gentle ping on these two patches pertaining to C++-related middle-end
diagnostics:
- https://inbox.sourceware.org/20240807131613.526335-1-ar...@aarsen.me/
- https://inbox.sourceware.org/20240802211503.3992610-2-ar...@aarsen.me/
TIA, have a lovely day :-)
(PS: apologies if I'm pinging the
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/thread.html#656299
patch.
Jonathan has acked the libstdc++ side thereof (I've added the
requested #undef on my side), is the c-cppbuiltin.cc side ok for trunk?
And, shall we (incrementally or right away) add some new tr
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 2:28 PM Jiang, Haochen wrote:
>
> Ping for this patch
>
> Thx,
> Haochen
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Haochen Jiang
> > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 9:45 AM
> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Cc: Liu, Hongtao ; hjl.to...@gmail.com;
> > ubiz...@gmail.com
> >
Ping for this patch
Thx,
Haochen
> -Original Message-
> From: Haochen Jiang
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 9:45 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Liu, Hongtao ; hjl.to...@gmail.com;
> ubiz...@gmail.com
> Subject: [PATCH] i386: Use BLKmode for {ld,st}tilecfg
>
> Hi all,
>
> For AM
Hi!
I'd like to ping the C23 #embed patchset:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655012.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655013.html
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:26:52PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'd like to ping the
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/653573.html
> patch. While the committed and backported patch fixed PCH on PIE
> cc1/cc1plus etc. on PowerPC, it grew up the size of the
> rs6000_init_generat
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/653573.html
patch. While the committed and backported patch fixed PCH on PIE
cc1/cc1plus etc. on PowerPC, it grew up the size of the
rs6000_init_generated_builtins function quite a lot.
The above patch decreases it back,
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/651199.html
patch.
Thanks.
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 08:12:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The C++26 P2662R3 Pack indexing paper mentions that both GCC
> and MSVC don't handle T...[10] parameter declaration when T
> is
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 4:02 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > This is never okay. You cannot commit a patch without approval, *ever*.
>
> This is the biggest issue
> Am 11.04.2024 um 16:03 schrieb Segher Boessenkool
> :
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
>>> wrote:
>>> This is never okay. You cannot commit a patch without approval, *ever*.
>
> This is the biggest iss
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > This is never okay. You cannot commit a patch without approval, *ever*.
This is the biggest issue, to start with. It is fundamental.
> > That patch is also obvious --
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 08:31:38AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > If there are no further comments, I plan to commit the referred patch
> > > to the mainline on Wednesday. The latest ver
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 08:31:38AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > If there are no further comments, I plan to commit the referred patch
> > to the mainline on Wednesday. The latest version can be considered an
> > obvious patch that solv
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 08:31:38AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> If there are no further comments, I plan to commit the referred patch
> to the mainline on Wednesday. The latest version can be considered an
> obvious patch that solves certain oversight in the original
> implementation.
This is never
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:48:20AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'd like to ping the following patches:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html
> PR111284 P2
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648215.html
> PR114409 (part of a P1)
>
> http
> Am 01.04.2024 um 21:28 schrieb Uros Bizjak :
>
> Hello!
>
> I'd like to ping the
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647634.html
> PR112560 P1 patch.
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard
> Thanks,
> Uros.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:28 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I'd like to ping the
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647634.html
> PR112560 P1 patch.
If there are no further comments, I plan to commit the referred patch
to the mainline on Wednesday. The latest version can be considere
Hi!
I'd like to ping the following patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html
PR111284 P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648215.html
PR114409 (part of a P1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648381.html
PR114426 P1
Thanks.
Hello!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647634.html
PR112560 P1 patch.
Thanks,
Uros.
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html
PR111284 P2 patch.
Thanks.
Jakub
> > + if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t1)))
> > +{
> > + if (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t1))
> > + {
> > + if (!SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t2)
> > + || SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t1)->align != SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t2)->align
> > + || SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t1)->misalign != SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO
> > (
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > We have wrong code with LTO, too.
> >
> > I know.
> >
> > > The problem is that IPA passes (and
> > > not only that, loop analysis too) does analysis at compile time (with
> > > value numbers in) and streams the info separately.
> >
> > And that is
> > Otherwise
> > I will add your testcase for this patch and commit this one.
> > Statistically we almost never merge functions with different value
> > ranges (three in testsuite, 0 during bootstrap, 1 during LTO bootstrap
> > and probably few in LLVM build - there are 15 cases reported, but some
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 05:16:59PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Sorry, this was bit of a misunderstanding: I tought you still considered
> the original patch to be full fix, while I tought I should look into it
> more and dig out more issues. This is bit of can of worms. Overall I
> think the plan
> > We have wrong code with LTO, too.
>
> I know.
>
> > The problem is that IPA passes (and
> > not only that, loop analysis too) does analysis at compile time (with
> > value numbers in) and streams the info separately.
>
> And that is desirable, because otherwise it simply couldn't derive any
> > int test (int a)
> > {
> > return a>0 ? CST1: CST2;
> > }
> >
> > gets same hash value no matter what CST1/CST2 is. I added hasher and I
> > am re-running stats.
>
> The hash should be commutative here at least.
It needs to match what comparator is doing later, and sadly it does not
try to
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:18:45PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:55:07AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > > So the ipa_jump_func are I think the only thing that actually can
> > > > > differ
> > > > > on the ICF merging candidates from value range POV.
> > > >
> > > >
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:55:07AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > So the ipa_jump_func are I think the only thing that actually can differ
> > > > on the ICF merging candidates from value range POV.
> > >
> > > I agree. Btw, I would have approved the original patch in this
> > > thread that
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:55:07AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > So the ipa_jump_func are I think the only thing that actually can differ
> > > on the ICF merging candidates from value range POV.
> >
> > I agree. Btw, I would have approved the original patch in this
> > thread that wipes SSA_NA
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:21:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > > I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that simp
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:21:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that simply compares
> > > > value range of functions and pr
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:21:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that simply compares
> > > value range of functions and prevents mergi
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:21:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that simply compares
> > value range of functions and prevents merging if they diverge and wanted
> > to make some bigg
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that simply compares
> value range of functions and prevents merging if they diverge and wanted
> to make some bigger statistics. This made me notice some performance
> problems on clan
> Hi!
Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:29:24AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 2024-02-15 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR middle-end/113907
> > * ipa-icf.cc (sem_item_optimizer::merge_classes): Reset
> > SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO and SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO on successfully ICF merged
> > functi
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:29:24AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2024-02-15 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR middle-end/113907
> * ipa-icf.cc (sem_item_optimizer::merge_classes): Reset
> SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO and SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO on successfully ICF merged
> functions.
>
>
Hi!
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/thread.html#645781
[PATCH] c++: Fix up parameter pack diagnostics on xobj vs. varargs functions
[PR113802]
The thread contains two possible further versions of the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/thread.ht
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping 2 patches:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/644580.html
>
>
> PR113617 P1 - Handle private COMDAT function symbol reference in
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:33 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping 2 patches:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/645326.html
> i386: Enable _BitInt support on ia32
>
> all the FAILs mentioned in that mail have been fixed by now.
LGTM, based on HJ's advice.
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/644580.html
PR113617 P1 - Handle private COMDAT function symbol reference in readonly data
On 2/9/24 02:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/644701.html
Introduce HOST_SIZE_T_PRINT_UNSIGNED etc. macros to fix LLP64 host build issue
Both have been successfully bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux, the latter has been tes
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/644580.html
PR113617 P1 - Handle private COMDAT function symbol reference in readonly data
section
More details in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/thread.html#644121
and
https://gcc
Hello!
I have sent an explanation on ICE in try_combine on pr112494.c [1],and
an argument that explains why we can safely ignore non-COMPARISON_P
mode changes [2].
Can we proceed with the proposed solution?
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638726.html
[2] https://gcc.g
Hi!
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:21:43AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The following patch makes most of x86 MD builtins nothrow,leaf
> (like most middle-end builtins are). For -fnon-call-exceptions it
> doesn't nothrow, better might be to still add it if the builtins
> don't read or write memory a
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch.
Thanks
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 11:17:48AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The middle-end has been changed quite recently to canonicalize
> -abs (x) to copysign (x, -1) rather than the other way around.
> While I agree with that at GIMPLE level, since it matches the
Hi!
I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches.
- c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2169R4 - Placeholder variables with no name
[PR110349]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630802.html
- c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2741R3 - user-generated static_assert messages
[PR110348]
https:
Hi!
I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches.
- c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2169R4 - Placeholder variables with no name
[PR110349]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630802.html
- c++: Implement C++26 P2361R6 - Unevaluated strings [PR110342]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 09:20 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:02:55AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-
> patches wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-
> > patches wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priou
Hi!
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:02:55AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > Thanks for the report,
> > >
> > > Af
Hi!
I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches. All of them together
with the 2 updated patches posted yesterday have been
bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux again yesterday.
- c++: Implement C++26 P2361R6 - Unevaluated strings [PR110342]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patc
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping this patch.
> The C++ FE part has been approved by Jason already with a minor change
> I've made in my copy.
> Are the remaining parts ok for trunk?
In the C front-end changes, since you end up discarding any si
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch.
The C++ FE part has been approved by Jason already with a minor change
I've made in my copy.
Are the remaining parts ok for trunk?
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:48:19AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 2023-08-11 Jakub Jelinek
>
> gcc/
> * buil
Hi!
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 05:24:02PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek (12):
> expr: Small optimization [PR102989]
> lto-streamer-in: Adjust assert [PR102989]
> phiopt: Fix phiopt ICE on vops [PR102989]
> Middle-end _BitInt support [PR102989]
> _BitInt lowerin
Hi!
Now that Richi has acked all the middle-end _BitInt patches (but am
deferring committing those until also the C FE and libgcc patches are
approved), I'd like to ping this patch.
Thanks!
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 08:19:41PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The following patch enabl
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 8:25 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 08:14:14PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Jakub Jelinek (12):
> > expr: Small optimization [PR102989]
> > lto-streamer-in: Adjust assert [PR102989]
> > phiopt: Fix phiopt
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Joseph, could I ask now at least for an overall design review of the
> C patches (8-10,13) whether its interfaces with middle-end are ok,
> so that Richi can review the middle-end parts?
I am fine with the interface to the middle-end par
Hi!
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 08:14:14PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek (12):
> expr: Small optimization [PR102989]
> lto-streamer-in: Adjust assert [PR102989]
> phiopt: Fix phiopt ICE on vops [PR102989]
> Middle-end _BitInt support [PR102989]
> _BitInt lowerin
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 9:06 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:42:07PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > The following patch introduces {add,sub}c5_optab and pattern recognizes
> > various forms of add with carry and subtract with carry/borrow, see
> > pr
Hi!
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:42:07PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The following patch introduces {add,sub}c5_optab and pattern recognizes
> various forms of add with carry and subtract with carry/borrow, see
> pr79173-{1,2,3,4,5,6}.c tests on what is matched.
> Primarily forms w
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:09:19AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > PR 108959 shows one more example where undefined code with type
> > incompatible accesses to stuff passed in parameters can cause an ICE
> > because we try to create a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR of mismatching sizes:
> >
> >
Hi!
Honza, could you please have a look?
This is one of the few remaining P1s.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:09:19AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PR 108959 shows one more example where undefined code with type
> incompatible accesses to stuff passed in parameters can cause an ICE
> becaus
Hi!
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 10:59:36PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 2023-03-24 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR target/109254
> * builtins.cc (apply_args_size): If targetm.calls.get_raw_arg_mode
> returns VOIDmode, handle it like if the register isn't used for
> pa
On 3/1/23 05:32, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:06:17AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Thoughts on this? I guess my preference would be the BF -> SF -> TI
path b
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:11 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:32:43PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:0
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:32:43PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:06:17AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via
>> > Gcc-patches wrote:
>> > > Thoughts on
On 3/10/23 09:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch (as I wrote a week ago, NightStrike has tested
it):
Thanks, pushed to master branch.
On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 09:05 +, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to ping these patches. All 3 variants have been
> > bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, the last
> > one is my preference I guess. The current state
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch (as I wrote a week ago, NightStrike has tested
it):
On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:44:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > 2023-02-22 Jakub Jelinek
> > >
> > > PR target/107998
> > > * config.gcc (x86_64-*-cygwin*): Don't add i386/t-cygwin-w64
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping this patch, which has been successfully
> bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611180.html
> - PR108634 - P3 - tree: Use comdat tree_code_{type,len
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping these patches. All 3 variants have been
> bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, the last
> one is my preference I guess. The current state breaks e.g. ccache.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/202
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch, which has been successfully
bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611180.html
- PR108634 - P3 - tree: Use comdat tree_code_{type,length} even for C++11/14
Thanks
Jakub
On Thu, Feb
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607145.html
- PR107558 - P2 - c++: Don't clear TREE_READONLY for -fmerge-all-constants
for non-aggregates
Thanks
Jakub
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:13:55AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrot
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:32:43PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:06:17AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > Thoughts on this? I guess my preference
Hi!
I'd like to ping these patches. All 3 variants have been
bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, the last
one is my preference I guess. The current state breaks e.g. ccache.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610285.html
- PR108464 - P1 - file-prefix-map
1 - 100 of 1012 matches
Mail list logo
