Re: [PATCH][AARCH64]Replace gen_rtx_PLUS with plus_constant

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 03:40:59PM +0100, Renlin Li wrote: > Thank you, can you please commit it for me? > > Kind regards, > Renlin Li > > On 09/20/13 15:26, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: > > On 20 September 2013 15:18, Renlin Li wrote: > > > >> 2013-09-20 Renlin Li > >> > >> * config/aarch64/

Re: [gomp4] C++ OpenMP user defined reductions (take 2)

On 09/20/2013 12:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: In templates the UDRs are always FUNCTION_DECLs in classes or at function block scope, the above one liner was I believe for the latter, where without it duplicate_decls was returning incorrectly 0; the UDRs from mismatching templates would actually ne

Re: [c++-concepts] Constrained friends

On 09/13/2013 12:21 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote: Previously, if constraints were not satisfied, we would not record the template as a candidate. However, this causes errors in class template instantiation if there are constrained friend declarations whose constraints are not satisfied ("no matching t

Re: [c++-concepts] Constrained friends

I'm going to rewrite this patch tomorrow morning. The semantics aren't quite right --- they should be simpler. >> Previously, if constraints were not >> satisfied, we would not record the template as a candidate. However, >> this causes errors in class template instantiation if there are >> constr

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 58099: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

> Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? > This looks good to me but I let Tobias have the final word as he expressed some concerns in the PR audit trail. >> >> Sorry for the very belated replay. I played with the patch and it looks >> okay. > > thanks. Committe

[Patch, Fortran] PR 58355: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] ICE with TYPE, EXTENDS before parent TYPE defined

Hi all, the straightforward patch in the attachment does two things: 1) It prevents a segfault, which is a regression on 4.7/4.8/trunk (by simply switching the order of two statements). 2) It modifies an error message, which was not perfectly correct in my opinion. The patch was regtested succes

Revisit Core tunning flags

Hi, this is upated version of patch discussed at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00841.html It makes CORE tuning to more follow the optimization guidelines. In particular it removes some tuning flags for features I implemented years back specifically for K7/K8 chips that ended up in

Re: Revisit Core tunning flags

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > this is upated version of patch discussed at > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00841.html > > It makes CORE tuning to more follow the optimization guidelines. > In particular it removes some tuning flags for features I imple

Re: [c++-concepts] Constrained friends

On 09/21/2013 08:52 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: It is wrong, but not for the reasons I gave. This only happens when you try to constrain a friend function that declares a specialization, which happens to be completely separate from the previously declared template. I'm going to disallow the abili

Re: Revisit Core tunning flags

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> Hi, >> this is upated version of patch discussed at >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00841.html >> >> It makes CORE tuning to more follow the optimization guidelines.

Re: [patch] Make vector::at() assertion message more useful (try #2)

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > In the meanwhile, since you are also touching debug-mode and > profile-mode, make sure to run check-debug and check-profile too. Thanks for mentioning that. Several more tests needed line number adjustments. There are also tests that are f