RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

2016-09-21 Thread Doug Gilmore
> From: Richard Biener [rguent...@suse.de] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:48 AM > To: Doug Gilmore > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rgue...@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654 > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote: > > > It looks like the original messa

[PATCH] fix ILP32 bootstrap failures due to -Wformat-length

2016-09-21 Thread Martin Sebor
As mentioned in PR77676. the gimple-ssa-sprintf.c pass committed yesterday caused a number of bootstrap failures, including on ILP32 targets. All of them were due to differences between integer sizes between the host and the target. To unblock the powerpc64 bootstrap failure reported in the PR I

Re: [PATCH] fix ILP32 bootstrap failures due to -Wformat-length

2016-09-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:39:42PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c b/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c > index dddb026..652d3fb 100644 > --- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c > +++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c > @@ -210,8 +210,8 @@ struct format_result > static HOST_WIDE_INT > ta

Re: [PATCH] fix ILP32 bootstrap failures due to -Wformat-length

2016-09-21 Thread Martin Sebor
On 09/21/2016 05:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:39:42PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c b/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c index dddb026..652d3fb 100644 --- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c +++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c @@ -210,8 +210,8 @@ struct forma

[PATCH] Introduce selftest::locate_file

2016-09-21 Thread David Malcolm
On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 11:31 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/16/2016 03:19 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > > When possible I don't think we want the tests to be target > > > specific. > > > Hmm, I'm probably about to argue for Bernd's work... The 71779 > > > testcase > > > is a great example -- it

Re: [PATCH] Fix various minor gimple-ssa-sprintf.c issues

2016-09-21 Thread Martin Sebor
On 09/21/2016 09:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! When looking at PR77676, I've noticed various small formatting etc. issues, like not using is_gimple_* APIs where we have them, not using gimple_call_builtin_p/gimple_call_fndecl (this one actually can show up, if e.g. uses the builtin with incorr

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++/77641 fix std::variant for literal types

2016-09-21 Thread Tim Shen
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > THanks, OK for trunk. Committed. Thanks! -- Regards, Tim Shen

[Patch, avr] Provide correct LD offset bound in avr_address_cost

2016-09-21 Thread Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
Hi, This patch fixes cost computation in avr_address_cost - instead of the hardcoded 61, it uses the already existing MAX_LD_OFFSET(mode) macro. This showed up when investigating a code size regression in the ivopts pass. That pass computes address_cost with and without an offset to dec

Re: PR35503 - warn for restrict pointer

2016-09-21 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 20 September 2016 at 18:31, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> Could someone please take a look at the change to c-format.c, I am not sure >> if I have added that correctly. > > Any changes to these GCC formats also require tests to be updated > (gcc.dg/f

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++/77641 fix std::variant for literal types

2016-09-21 Thread Ville Voutilainen
This problem is not introduced by the latest patch, but it's something that we should look at anyway. There's been recent discussion about what assignments do with variants that hold references. Consider this: #include int main() { float f1 = 1.0f, f2 = 2.0f; std::variant v1(f1); v1 =

<    1   2