This is an example of converting one of our existing plugin-based
tests to run within -fself-test instead.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* spellcheck.c: Include "selftest.h".
(levenshtein_distance_unit_test_oneway): New function, adapted
from testsuite/gcc.dg/plugin/levenshtein_plugin.c.
Jeff pre-approved the plugin version of this (as a new
file unittests/test-bitmap.c):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03284.html
with:
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up moving it
> elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files is pre-approved.
This v
Jeff approved an earlier version of this (as
unittests/test-hash-map.c):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03301.html
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up
> moving it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files is
> pre-approved.
This version moves the
Jeff approved an older version of this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03285.html
with:
> Unless there's a good reason, drop the presumably redundant tests
> and this is OK. Save preapprovald for these changes as the bitmap
> patch.
This version removes the redundant tests, moves th
gcc/ChangeLog:
* diagnostic-show-locus.c: Include "selftest.h".
(make_range): New function.
(test_range_contains_point_for_single_point): New function.
(test_range_contains_point_test_for_single_line): New function.
(test_range_contains_point_for_multiple_lin
Hi,
PR70957 reports that the two subject tests fail on an older P7 machine. These
tests rely on
built-ins that exploit POWER9 vector support. It turns out that the failure
occurs because the
configured assembler is downlevel, and does not support even POWER8
instructions. This
causes TARGET
This patch adds the RS6000_BTM_MODULO flag to to the set of flags
associated with the RS6000_BTM_COMMON variable.
This patch has bootstrapped with the trunk and the gcc-6-branch on
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu and there were no regressions.
Is it ok to merge this with the trunk? Can I merge w
Jeff approved an earlier version of this (as
unittests/test-functions.c):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03310.html
with:
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up moving
> it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files is pre-approved.
gcc/ChangeLog:
Jeff approved an earlier version of this (as
unittests/test-tree.c):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03303.html
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up
> moving it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files is
> pre-approved.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tre
Hi
I was trying to play with tuple implementation and was annoyed by
repetition of _Head type when instantiating _Head_base so I thought
about this patch.
How do you like it ?
I still need to run tests, will do before commit, ok ?
François
Index: include/std/tuple
==
Jeff conditionally approved an earlier version of this (as
unittests/test-locations.c):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03307.html
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up
> moving it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files is
> pre-approved.
gcc/Chang
Jeff approved an earlier version of this (as
unittests/test-rtl.c):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03302.html
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up
> moving it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files is
>pre-approved.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* rtl-t
Jeff approved an early version of this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03309.html
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up
> moving it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files is
> pre-approved.
This version moves it to wide-int.cc and converts it to t
Jeff approved an earlier version of this (as
unittests/test-vec.c):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03308.html
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up
> moving it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files is
> pre-approved.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* vec.
Jeff approved an older version of this (as a separate
unittests/test-folding.c):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03305.html
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up
> moving it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files
> is pre-approved.
gcc/ChangeLog:
Jeff approved an earlier version of this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03295.html
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up
> moving it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files
> is pre-approved.
This version has been updated to the new style.
gcc/Ch
Jeff approved an earlier version of this (as
unittests/test-hash-set.c):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03300.html
> OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up
> moving it elsewhere or standardizing/reducing header files is
> pre-approved.
This version moves the
On Wed, 25 May 2016, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > > It seems like we should reject the combination of -msoft-stack -fopenacc?
> >
> > Possibly; the doc text makes it explicit that the option is exposed only for
> > the purpose of testing the compiler, anyway.
>
> It is always best to prevent the user
OK.
Jason
Hi,
while working on c++/70202, I noticed a few more of those pairs for
errors which we changed in the past to error + inform. Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
/
/cp
2016-06-02 Paolo Carlini
* decl.c (xref_tag_1): Change pairs of errors to error + inform
From: Chen Gang
r10 may also be as parameter stack pointer for the nested function, so
need save it before call mcount.
2016-06-03 Chen Gang
gcc/
PR target/71331
* config/tilegx/tilegx.c (tilegx_function_profiler): Save r10
to stack before call mcount.
---
gc
On 06/02/2016 11:06 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* Makefile.in (OBJS): Add function-tests.o,
hash-map-tests.o, hash-set-tests.o, rtl-tests.o,
selftest-run-tests.o.
(OBJS-libcommon): Add selftest.o.
(OBJS-libcommon-target): Add selftest.o.
+ /* For the "generic" overloads, the first two arguments can have different
+ types and the last argument determines the target type to use to check
+ for overflow. The arguments of the other overloads all have the same
+ type. */
+ tree type = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (arg2));
+ boo
In a discussion of a patch in a this area (c/68120 and c++/70507)
Jakub noticed that the integer arithmetic built-ins with overflow
checking that expect a pointer to an integer as the last argument
silently (i.e., without a warning) accept a null pointer. As the
test case in the bug referenced in
+{
+ /* Perform the computation in the target type and check for
overflow. */
+ arg0 = fold_convert (type, arg0);
+ arg1 = fold_convert (type, arg1);
+
+ if (tree result = size_binop_loc (loc, opcode, arg0, arg1))
+return TREE_OVERFLOW (result) ? build_one_cst (boolean
On 06/02/2016 03:23 PM, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
fprintf (file,
+ "\t{\n"
+ "\taddi\tsp, sp, -8\n"
+ "\tst\tsp, r10\n"
+ "\t}\n"
"\t{\n"
You need only do this if cfun->static_chain_decl is set.
r~
This bug has actually been around since the introduction of the
FSM/backwards threader a few years ago. It was just latent.
Essentially we need to look at the copied path for branches back into
the path -- due to an off-by-one error, we missed the case where the
last block in the path bran
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
