On 12/13/2016 04:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00262.html
(I would have almost forgotten about this if it weren't for bug
78786. While working on a fix for it I keep thinking that some
of the changes I'm making look like they should have already
Thanks for your quick feedback.
I'll update the comments regarding possible future enhancement to
support QImode for operands[1] as well.
Regarding the two test cases that are missing the scan-assembler
directive (byte-in-set-1.c and byte-in-set-2.c), those tests are both
expected to fail. They
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 06:17:17PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > + else if (mode == V8HImode)
> > > + {
> > > + rtx tmp_gpr_si = (GET_CODE (tmp_gpr) == SCRATCH
> > > + ? dest_si
> > > + : gen_rtx_REG (SImode, REGNO (tmp_gpr)));
> >
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 05:25:52PM -0700, Kelvin Nilsen wrote:
> Regarding the two test cases that are missing the scan-assembler
> directive (byte-in-set-1.c and byte-in-set-2.c), those tests are both
> expected to fail. They are checking that the compiler rejects those
> programs with appropriat
In a discussion of my patch for bug 78696 I mentioned I had found
a bug/limitation in MPFR that causes GCC to allocate excessive
amounts of memory on some corner cases (very large precision).
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01098.html
I've since raised GCC bug 78786 for the GCC p
On 12/12/2016 05:40 PM, Kelvin Nilsen wrote:
@@ -15105,6 +15109,24 @@ If all of the enabled test conditions are false, t
The @code{scalar_test_neg} built-in functions return a non-zero value
if their @code{source} argument holds a negative value.
+The @code{__builtin_byte_in_set} function r
On 12/13/2016 09:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
In a discussion of my patch for bug 78696 I mentioned I had found
a bug/limitation in MPFR that causes GCC to allocate excessive
amounts of memory on some corner cases (very large precision).
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01098.html
On 12/02/2016 05:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Bug 78608 - gimple-ssa-sprintf.c:570:17: runtime error: negation
of -9223372036854775808 cannot be represented in type 'long int'
points out an integer overflow bug in the pass caught by ubsan.
The bug was due to negating a number without checking for e
On 12/07/2016 04:21 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Presumably the MEM isn't a valid memory address, but it's allowed
through due to the use of an "X" constraint?
Yes (that was supposed to be more or less clear given the description :-).
ISTM that LRA has to be prepared to handle an arbitrary RTX, s
On 12/07/2016 08:24 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
You're right! Good chatch! I missed that there are two ways to
represent the same thing. For example, these two declarations
void __attribute ((nonnull (1, 2)))
f (void);
void __attribute ((nonnull (1))) __attribute ((nonnull (2)))
f (void
On 12/09/2016 03:40 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 12/09/2016 11:02 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Following patch enhances scripts and fixed various small issues.
Ready to be installed?
Martin
I forgot to squash commits, this is the right patch.
M.
0001-Enhance-analyze_brprob-script.patch
From c6
On 13 December 2016 at 17:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 05:41:09PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
>> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
>> @@ -,6 +,90 @@ handle_char_store (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
>>return true;
>> }
>>
>> +/* Try to
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
