On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:54:34AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The following extends the equality compare dangling pointer diagnostics
> > suppression for uses following free or realloc to also cover those
> > following invalidation of auto variable
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/loongarch/loongarch.md: Add '(clobber (mem:BLK (scratch)))'
to PLV instruction templates.
---
gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md | 40 +--
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loonga
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/loongarch/loongarch.md: Add fdiv define_expand template,
then generate floating-point division and floating-point reciprocal
instructions.
---
gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/config/loo
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:00:51AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > 2022-04-25 Richard Biener
> > >
> > > PR middle-end/104492
> > > * gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
> > > (pass_waccess::warn_invalid_pointer): Exclude equality compare
> > > diagnostics for all kind of invalidations.
> > >
We are eventually ICEing in decimal_to_decnumber on non-decimal
REAL_VALUE_TYPE that creep in from uses of build_real (..., dconst*)
for DFP types. The following fixes the single occurance that matters
for the testcase in the PR by instead using build_real_truncate.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:29:21AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I'd say the right thing would be to keep the -Wuse-after-free= stuff as is
> and just adjust
> - if ((maybe && warn_dangling_pointer < 2)
> + if ((equality && warn_dangling_pointer < 3)
> + || (maybe && warn_dan
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:00:51AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > 2022-04-25 Richard Biener
> > > >
> > > > PR middle-end/104492
> > > > * gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
> > > > (pass_waccess::warn_invalid_pointer): Exclude e
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> but not any operations on the pointer value (compare, pointer-plus,
> difference, masking, etc.). A simple-minded implementation would
> then be
>
> if ((!gimple_vuse (use_stmt) && warn_dangling_pointer < 3)
> || (maybe &&
As discussed in the PR, here is the testcase with the appropriate dg-*
directives.
Tested on arm-none-eabi with
1 -mcpu=cortex-a7/-mfloat-abi=soft/-march=armv7ve+simd
2 -mcpu=cortex-a7/-mfloat-abi=hard/-march=armv7ve+simd
3 -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a7/-mfloat-abi=hard/-march=armv7ve+simd
4 -mthumb/-mf
That change was short-circuiting too much, the regular processing (in
particular writing ALI files) was bypassed, causing troubles with e.g.
gnatmake or gprbuild down the road. Thanks to r12-6943, this is no longer
necessary, so revert it.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:50:32AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> As discussed in the PR, here is the testcase with the appropriate dg-*
> directives.
>
> Tested on arm-none-eabi with
> 1 -mcpu=cortex-a7/-mfloat-abi=soft/-march=armv7ve+simd
> 2 -mcpu=cortex-a7/-mfloat-abi=hard/-ma
On 4/26/22 19:49, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Should I use "-ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs" or "--coverage" in the tutorial?
The later one, please.
Cheers,
Martin
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > but not any operations on the pointer value (compare, pointer-plus,
> > difference, masking, etc.). A simple-minded implementation would
> > then be
> >
> > if ((!gimple_vuse (use_st
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux and
s390x-redhat-linux. Ok for master (or GCC 13 in case this doesn't fit
stage4 criteria)?
Building C++ template-heavy code with ASan sometimes leads to bogus
"defined in discarded section" linker errors.
The reason is that .rodata.FUNC.cstN s
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:27:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux and
> s390x-redhat-linux. Ok for master (or GCC 13 in case this doesn't fit
> stage4 criteria)?
I'd prefer to defer this to GCC 13 at this point.
Furthermore, doe
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > but not any operations on the pointer value (compare, pointer-plus,
> > > difference, masking, etc.). A simple-minded implementation
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 11:33 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:27:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-
> patches wrote:
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux and
> > s390x-redhat-linux. Ok for master (or GCC 13 in case this doesn't
> > fit
> > stage4 criteria
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:56:55AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Bootstrapped & tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
> OK?
I think a testcase from the #c0 of the PR would be nice, but it can
be added incrementally, so ok for trunk and unless somebody beats me
to it, I'll try to reduce the testc
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:56:55AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Bootstrapped & tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> >
> > OK?
>
> I think a testcase from the #c0 of the PR would be nice, but it can
> be added incrementally, so ok for trunk and unl
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 11:59 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 11:33 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:27:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-
> > patches wrote:
> > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux and
> > > s390x-red
Hi,
As discussed in PR105334, this patch is to add the test coverage for
the two recent fixes r12-8091 and r12-8226 from Segher, aix is skipped
since it takes soft-float and long-double-128 incompatible.
I noticed the referred test case pack02.c skips if powerpc*-*-darwin*,
but it's for do-run an
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> > "Andre Vieira (lists)" writes:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This patch disables epilogue vectorization when we are peeling for
> > > alignment in the prologue and we can't guarantee the main vectorized
>
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> > > "Andre Vieira (lists)" writes:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This patch disables epilogue vectorization when we are peeling for
> > > > alignment
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 14:57 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote:
> I think the modification should be below.
> > >
> > > > if (!TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (f)))
> > > > return -1;
I think (!TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (f)) will never be true (the code handling
calling convention of other ports do
OK!
在 2022/4/27 下午7:45, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 14:57 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote:
I think the modification should be below.
if (!TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (f)))
return -1;
I think (!TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (f)) will never be true (the code handling
calling conventio
The following makes sure to take into account prologue peeling
when trying to narrow down the maximum number of iterations
computed for the epilogue of a vectorized epilogue.
Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
I did not verify this solves the original aarch64 testcase yet
bu
Hi!
Thank you for doing this testcase.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 06:29:07PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> As discussed in PR105334, this patch is to add the test coverage for
> the two recent fixes r12-8091 and r12-8226 from Segher, aix is skipped
> since it takes soft-float and long-double-128 incompa
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> I get a .LASANPC reloc there in the first place because of
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/gcc/patch/20190702085154.26981-1-...@linux.ibm.com/
> but of course it may happen for other reasons as well.
In that case I don't se
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> We crash compiling this test since r11-7993 which changed
> lookup_template_class_1 so that we only call tsubst_enum when
>
> !uses_template_parms (current_nonlambda_scope ())
>
> But here current_nonlambda_scope () is the global NAME
Commit 621cccba3f8b0cd2757feda171e66e3820b55c2c broke the Ada build for all
RTEMS targets except aarch64.
gcc/ada/
* tracebak.c: Add support for ARM RTEMS. Add support for RTEMS to PPC
ELF. Add support for RTEMS to SPARC. Merge aarch64 support of Linux
and RTEMS.
---
gc
This patch is OK, thank you and sorry for the breakage!
Arno
> Commit 621cccba3f8b0cd2757feda171e66e3820b55c2c broke the Ada build for all
> RTEMS targets except aarch64.
>
> gcc/ada/
>
>* tracebak.c: Add support for ARM RTEMS. Add support for RTEMS to PPC
>ELF. Add support for RTEMS
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 02:23:00PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > I get a .LASANPC reloc there in the first place because of
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/gcc/patch/20190702085154.26981-1-...@linux.ibm.com/
> > but of c
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 8:22 AM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Thank you for doing this testcase.
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 06:29:07PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > As discussed in PR105334, this patch is to add the test coverage for
> > the two recent fixes r12-8091 and r12-8226 from Seghe
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:24:54AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > We crash compiling this test since r11-7993 which changed
> > lookup_template_class_1 so that we only call tsubst_enum when
> >
> > !uses_template_parms (current_nonl
On 27/04/2022 07:35, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
"Andre Vieira (lists)" writes:
Hi,
This patch disables epilogue vectorization when we are peeling for
alignment in the prologue and we can't guarantee the main vectorized
loop is entered. This is to p
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> The following makes sure to take into account prologue peeling
> when trying to narrow down the maximum number of iterations
> computed for the epilogue of a vectorized epilogue.
>
> Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
> I did n
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
> On 27/04/2022 07:35, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> "Andre Vieira (lists)" writes:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> This patch disables epilogue vectorization when we are peeling for
> >>> alignment in th
Hi!
The following patch updates baseline_symbols.txt on arches where I have
latest libstdc++ builds (my ws + Fedora package builds).
I've manually excluded:
+FUNC:_ZNKSt17__gnu_cxx_ieee1287num_getIcSt19istreambuf_iteratorIcSt11char_traitsIcEEE14_M_extract_intB5cxx11IjEES4_S4_S4_RSt8ios_baseRSt12_I
Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
For the atomic specializations for shared_ptr and weak_ptr we can reuse
the existing SharedPointerPrinter, with a small tweak.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py (SharedPointerPrinter): Add
support for atomic>
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Consider
>
> struct A {
> int x;
> int y = x;
> };
>
> struct B {
> int x = 0;
> int y = A{x}.y; // #1
> };
>
> where for #1 we end up with
>
> {.x=(&)->x, .y=(&)->x}
>
> that is, two PLACEHOLDER_EXPRs for different types o
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 15:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> The following patch updates baseline_symbols.txt on arches where I have
> latest libstdc++ builds (my ws + Fedora package builds).
> I've manually excluded:
> +FUNC:_ZNKSt17__gnu_cxx_ieee1287num_getIcSt19istreambuf_iteratorIcSt11char_tr
The problem here was that handle_mode_attribute clobbered the changes of any
previous attribute, only copying type qualifiers to the new type. And
common_handle_aligned_attribute had previously set up the typedef, so when
we later called set_underlying_type it saw DECL_ORIGINAL_TYPE set and just
r
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:02:33PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:56:55AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Bootstrapped & tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> > >
> > > OK?
> >
> > I think a testcase from the #c0 of th
On 4/27/22 08:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:24:54AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
We crash compiling this test since r11-7993 which changed
lookup_template_class_1 so that we only call tsubst_enum when
!uses_temp
> Am 27.04.2022 um 17:46 schrieb Jakub Jelinek :
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:02:33PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:56:55AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Bootstrapped & tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>>
The following patch
doc: Document Solaris D bootstrap requirements [PR 103528]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/591844.html
has remained unreviewed for 6 weeks now, despite a reminder. It would
be good to get this into GCC 12.
Thanks.
Rainer
--
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Is this the correct strathegy to deal with this problem? Would
> it be valid to just set ->is_decimal in build_real based on
Just setting ->decimal isn't correct; that signifies that ->sig stores the
number in decimal128 format (host-
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:19:57AM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The problem here was that handle_mode_attribute clobbered the changes of any
> previous attribute, only copying type qualifiers to the new type. And
> common_handle_aligned_attribute had previously set up the typedef,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:47:02AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 4/27/22 08:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:24:54AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >
> > > > We crash compiling this test since r11-7993 which
On 4/27/22 13:00, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:47:02AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 4/27/22 08:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:24:54AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
We crash compiling this test s
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> + if (typedef_variant_p (type))
> + {
> + /* Set up the typedef all over again. */
This seems wrong when the typedef is just being used in another
declaration with the mode attribute, as opposed to being defined using th
More testing found more issues. Instead of adding more band aid to the
pre-existing band aid, which was extended before, let's try a different
approach:
Just ensure that all component types are resolved (which includes
finalizers) before continuing with the derived type. This also resolves
the fi
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:00:46AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > Consider
> >
> > struct A {
> > int x;
> > int y = x;
> > };
> >
> > struct B {
> > int x = 0;
> > int y = A{x}.y; // #1
> > };
> >
> > where for #1 we end up
Hi,
as we say in German "Nicht documentiert ist nicht gemacht", if
it is not documented, it wasn't done.
So I thought it would be time to document the changes to the various
ways of specifying CONVERT before gcc12 went out of the door, so
here is a patch for that.
If that goes in, I will also w
Here we wrongly reject the definition of "::N::a"
struct A;
namespace N { extern A a; }
struct A {} ::N::a;
because our code to diagnose a missing ; after a class definition doesn't
realize that :: can follow a class definition.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk/1
On 4/27/22 13:02, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ if (typedef_variant_p (type))
+ {
+ /* Set up the typedef all over again. */
This seems wrong when the typedef is just being used in another
declaration with the mode attribut
On 4/27/22 18:45, Marek Polacek wrote:
Here we wrongly reject the definition of "::N::a"
struct A;
namespace N { extern A a; }
struct A {} ::N::a;
because our code to diagnose a missing ; after a class definition doesn't
realize that :: can follow a class definition.
Bootstrapped/regt
I have pushed upstream. Thanks. Lulu Cheng
在 2022/4/27 下午7:45, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 14:57 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote:
I think the modification should be below.
if (!TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (f)))
return -1;
I think (!TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (f)) will never be tr
Committed to trunk.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 3:08 PM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, jiawei wrote:
>
> > The "ftree-parallelize-loops=" imply -pthread option in gcc/gcc.cc,
> > some target are not support pthread like elf target use newlib,
> > and will get an error:
Generally this patch LGTM, but let's defer to GCC 13 :)
For builtin function...I guess we might need a document in
https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-c-api-doc first.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 2:21 PM wrote:
>
> From: yulong-plct
>
> This patchset adds support for three recently ratified RIS
---
htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html | 13 -
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html
index 78b7b05f..e9f132c0 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html
@@ -736,7 +736,18 @@ function M
on 2022/4/27 8:46 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 8:22 AM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Thank you for doing this testcase.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 06:29:07PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> As discussed in PR105334, this patch is to add the test coverage for
>>>
Hi
Still time for this fix for gcc 12 ?
If so I'll make sure to run tests quickly, especially the abi.exp
one to confirm that the cleanup in gnu-versioned-namespace.ver do not
need to be replaced by the same in __8 namespace.
libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_INLINE_VERSION] Fix std::random_devic
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs, because the ctors during cc1plus all have
!opt_for_fn (decl, flag_semantic_interposition) - they have NULL
DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIFIC_OPTIMIZATION (decl) and optimization_default_node
is for -Ofast and so has flag_semantic_interposition cleared.
During free lang data,
gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-31a.c covers ppc variants
that accept and reject misaligned accesses. The message that it
expects for rejection was removed in the gcc-11 development cycle by
commit r11-1969. The patch adjusted multiple tests to use the message
introduced in r11-1945, b
The following removes the indirection to real_value from REAL_CST
which doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Any sharing can
be achieved by sharing the actual REAL_CST (which is what usually
happens when copying trees) and sharing of real_value amongst
different REAL_CST doesn't happen as far
libstdc++'s bits/simd.h section for PPC (Altivec) defines various
intrinsic vector types that are only available along with VSX: 64-bit
long double, double, (un)signed long long, and 64-bit (un)signed long.
experimental/simd/standard_abi_usable{,_2}.cc tests error out reporting
the unmet require
67 matches
Mail list logo
