On 9/7/19 8:27 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
I've been working on transition of cond expressions to match.pd.
With my changes I noticed there's one wrong pattern that leads to:
Transforming _6 > _7 & _6 < _7 into 0
...
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite
Hi Ian,
> gotools:
>
> 2019-09-06 Ian Lance Taylor
>
> * Makefile.am (check-carchive-test): Just run "go test", not "go
> test carchive_test.go".
> * Makefile.in: Regenerate.
>
> gcc/testsuite:
>
> 2019-09-06 Ian Lance Taylor
>
> * go.test/test/fixedbugs/bug369.go: Update to match libgo
Hi!
We ICE on the following testcase, because we don't handle conditional
expression where base has incompatible type (the iv bumped in unsigned type,
but is signed otherwise, as happens for C/C++ signed char/short).
This patch just punts on it, during x86_64-linux and i686-linux
bootstrap/regtest
On Sep 07 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
>> gotools:
>>
>> 2019-09-06 Ian Lance Taylor
>>
>> * Makefile.am (check-carchive-test): Just run "go test", not "go
>> test carchive_test.go".
>> * Makefile.in: Regenerate.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite:
>>
>> 2019-09-06 Ian Lance Taylor
>>
>> *
This has dropped support for riscv64:
diff --git a/libgo/misc/cgo/testcshared/src/libgo2/dup2.go
b/libgo/misc/cgo/testcshared/src/libgo2/dup2.go
deleted file mode 100644
index d343aa54d9a..000
--- a/libgo/misc/cgo/testcshared/src/libgo2/dup2.go
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
-// Copyright
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 06:04:54PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:14 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 04:42:58PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers via gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > Just to prove my point about version checks being brittle, it looks
> > >
I just noticed that the effective target is not right,
this needs to be prefer_ldrd_strd instead of arm_ldrd_strd_ok,
otherwise the ldrd is not generated.
Committed the following fix to the test case as obvious:
Index: gcc.target/arm/pr91684.c
=
Here we ICE with
template struct S {
using U = void() noexcept(B);
};
S s;
since the delayed noexcept parsing patch. The problem is that we create
a DEFERRED_PARSE node for the noexcept-specifier, but we never put the
whole declaration into unparsed_noexcepts (cp_parser_save_default_ar
