Tested on SPARC/Solaris, applied on the mainline and 6 branch.
2016-10-23 Eric Botcazou
* config/sparc/sparc-c.c (sparc_target_macros): Replace TARGET_64BIT
with TARGET_ARCH64. Define __VIS to 0x400 if TARGET_VIS4.
--
Eric BotcazouIndex: config/sparc/sparc-c.c
=
On 10/22/16 08:52, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 10/22/16 04:17, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 10/21/2016 04:37 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> The quoting in the diagnostic should be %<&&%>, not '&&'.
>>
>> Presumably same for '*' (i.e., %<*%>).
>>
>> But I would actually suggest a somewhat more formal phras
Hi all,
due to no complains about the trunk version, backported to gcc-6 as r241448.
Regards,
Andre
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:52:59 +0200
Andre Vehreschild wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> thanks for the review. Committed as r241088 on trunk.
>
> Letting it mature for one week in trunk before bac
Hi Paul,
here are my comments to your patch:
> Index: gcc/fortran/class.c
> ===
> *** gcc/fortran/class.c (revision 241439)
> --- gcc/fortran/class.c (working copy)
> *** add_procs_to_declared_vtab (gfc_symbol *
> --- 218
Hi
I have run all tests with success. Even if it doesn't get rid of
_GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT_IF it still limits it to one place.
So is it ok to commit ?
François
On 12/10/2016 22:36, François Dumont wrote:
On 10/10/2016 23:01, Tim Song wrote:
Trying again...with a few edits.
On Mon, Oc
Hi,
I don't know much about tilegx, but
I think the patch should work as is.
This is because the
Save r10 code is a bundle
{
addi sp, sp, -8
st sp, r10
}
which stores r10 at [sp] and subtracts 8 from sp.
The restore r10 code is actually two bundles:
addi sp, sp, 8
ld r10, sp
This
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 08:55:46AM +0200, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> Thanks for persevering with this. The patch looks good to me. If it
> has regtested OK, please feel free to commit.
>
The attached patch is the final version, which I just committed.
2016-10-23 Steven G. Kargl
Hi Andre,
Thanks for the review. I have partially responded to your comments - see below.
Committed as revision 241450.
Cheers
Paul
On 23 October 2016 at 14:45, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> here are my comments to your patch:
>
>> Index: gcc/fortran/class.c
>>
Tested on SPARC/Solaris, applied on the mainline and 6 branch.
2016-10-23 Eric Botcazou
* config/sparc/sparc.md (cpu_feature): Minor tweak.
(enabled): Likewise.
(movsi_insn, movdi_insn_sp32, movdi_insn_sp64, movsf_insn,
movdf_insn_sp32, movdf_insn_sp64, zero_ex
I've committed the following patch. Both Oracle's manual
and DVF's manual indicate that STRUCTURE can appear in a
BLOCK DATA statement. While I was here, I sorted the
case labels.
2016-10-23 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/77763
* parse.c (parse_spec): Allow STRUCTURE in BLOCK DAT
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> The way the current code was written assumes all cores have an unique part
> num which is not true. What they have is an unique pair of implementer and
> part num. This changes the code to look up that pair after the parsing
> of the two
Tested on Linux-x64. Ok for trunk?
I don't plan to backport this unless somebody shouts.
2016-10-24 Ville Voutilainen
Cross-port exception-safety and move fixes of std::any to
std::experimental::any.
* include/std/any (operator=(const any&)):
Make strongly exception-safe.
On 24 October 2016 at 02:33, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
> * include/std/any (operator=(const any&)):
No sir, that's not what the patch modifies:
2016-10-24 Ville Voutilainen
Cross-port exception-safety and move fixes of std::any to
std::experimental::any.
* include/experimental
13 matches
Mail list logo
