Re: PATCH: Add a testcase for PR middle-end/47364.

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 03:06:25PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > Hi, > > I checked in this patch to add a testcase for PR middle-end/47364. > I also checked in 2 other testcases. H.J. --- Index: gcc.target/i386/pr47364-1.c === --- gcc.t

Re: PATCH: Add a testcase for PR middle-end/47364.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I checked in this patch to add a testcase for PR middle-end/47364. >> >> H.J. >> --- >> Index: gcc.target/i386/pr47364-1.c >>

PATCH: Add a testcase for PR target/47369

Hi, I checked in this patch to add a testcase for PR target/47369. H.J. --- Index: gcc.dg/pr47369-1.c === --- gcc.dg/pr47369-1.c (revision 0) +++ gcc.dg/pr47369-1.c (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-re

[pph] Adding one hard and failing ordering test (issue4854042)

This is the test I was talking would potentially fail with our current implementation. And it does. It has an assembly difference in the order of the global variables, like we used to have in simpler tests. Gab 2011-08-05 Gabriel Charette * (x0hardorder1.h): New. * (x3hard

[trans-mem] Removed gtm_thread and threadnum. Renamed gtm_transaction to gtm_thread.

Here is one try at cleaning up the gtm_transaction vs. gtm_thread confusion. As suggested off-list, gtm_transaction is renamed to gtm_thread. This makes up the largest part of the patch. _ITM_getThreadnum is not supported anymore. According to the ABI spec, its only purpose was to provide an ID th

Re: [trans-mem] Move state from gtm_thread to gtm_transaction

On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 12:35 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 08/04/2011 12:24 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 11:55 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > >> On 08/04/2011 09:22 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:43 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On

C++ PATCH for c++/49988 (constexpr causing wrong code)

The constexpr on the A constructor led us to try to expand the call in the B constructor to a constant. But in that call we're passing the B parameter s, which is not constant, so it should just fail quietly. But instead we were trying to treat it as a STRING_CST, which causes an ICE with che

C++ PATCH for c++/49669 (ICE on invalid array init)

Just fail more gracefully. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.6. commit a9c72513517e8b5cbf3128cb89994eae59961ade Author: Jason Merrill Date: Fri Aug 5 16:51:08 2011 -0400 PR c++/49669 * init.c (perform_member_init): Handle invalid array initializer. diff --git a/gc

C++ PATCH for c++/49221 (ICE with decltype of ->*)

5.5 says, "If the result of .* or ->* is a function, then that result can be used only as the operand for the function call operator ()." We need to enforce that in finish_decltype_type. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.6. commit b5a38c10b1755e85d931c05b9b5f85b348d0eb94 Autho

C++ PATCH for c++/48993 (ICE with constexpr ctor)

This bug is related to 48089: as there, we can't use 'this' in a constructor because it doesn't refer to anything yet. And as with 48089, this isn't a complete fix; we currently just sorry rather than try to separate the well-formed cases from the ill-formed. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, apply

<    1   2