[PATCH] Make __glibcxx_assert constexpr compatible

By making __glibcxx_assert constexpr compatible we can get rid of a FIXME in basic_string_view and so fix following XPASS in _GLIBCXX_DEBUG modes. XPASS: 21_strings/basic_string_view/element_access/char/2.cc execution test XPASS: 21_strings/basic_string_view/element_access/wchar_t/2.cc executi

[PATCH 1/4 v3 GCC11] Add middle-end unroll factor estimation

Hi, v3 changes: - Updated _uf to _unroll for some function names. By the way, should I guard the current i386/s390 loop_unroll_adjust ealy return with (current_pass->type != RTL_PASS)? I'm inclined not to, since this analysis isn't enabled by default, if those targets want to adopt this analys

Re: [PATCH 1/4 v3 GCC11] Add middle-end unroll factor estimation

Hi! On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 02:50:03PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > v3 changes: > - Updated _uf to _unroll for some function names. Thanks. > By the way, should I guard the current i386/s390 loop_unroll_adjust > ealy return with (current_pass->type != RTL_PASS)? I'm inclined not > to, since this

Re: [PATCH], Rename and document PowerPC -mprefixed-addr to -mprefixed

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:22:37PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 2/10/20 9:24 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>If you use -mpcrel, the compiler will generate PC-relative > >>loads and stores to access items, rather than the current TOC based loads > >>and > >>stores. > >Where that is the best t

Re: coroutines: Update to n4849 allocation/deallocation.

On 2/7/20 1:06 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote: Hi, This is the first of the (small number of) anticipated changes to bring the implementation into line with the latest published C++20 draft (this is now expected to be very close to the final, although some wording might still be adjusted). The allocatio

Re: [PATCH 0/4 GCC11] IVOPTs consider step cost for different forms when unrolling

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:17:04PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > > on 2020/1/20 下午8:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:36:52PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > > >> As we discussed in the thread > > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/m

New Chinese (traditional) PO file for 'gcc' (version 10.1-b20200209)

Hello, gentle maintainer. This is a message from the Translation Project robot. A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted by the Chinese (traditional) team of translators. The file is available at: https://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/zh_TW.po (This file, 'gcc-10.1

Contents of PO file 'cpplib-10.1-b20200209.zh_TW.po'

cpplib-10.1-b20200209.zh_TW.po.gz Description: Binary data The Translation Project robot, in the name of your translation coordinator.

New Chinese (traditional) PO file for 'cpplib' (version 10.1-b20200209)

Hello, gentle maintainer. This is a message from the Translation Project robot. A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted by the Chinese (traditional) team of translators. The file is available at: https://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/zh_TW.po (This file, 'cp

Re: [PATCH 0/4 GCC11] IVOPTs consider step cost for different forms when unrolling

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:34:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Yes, we should decide how often we want to unroll things somewhere before > > ivopts already, and just use that info here. > > > > Or are there advantage to doing it *in* ivopts? I

<    1   2