Hi!
The following testcase ICEs (the embed one actually doesn't but
dereferences random uninitialized pointer far after allocated memory)
because of a typo. In the RAW_DATA_CST handling of list conversion
where there are conversions to something other than
initializer_list<{{,un}signed ,}char>, t
> On Apr 1, 2025, at 10:04, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Montag, dem 31.03.2025 um 13:59 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
>>> I'd like to offer up this to solve the issues we're facing. This is a
>>> combination of everything that's been discussed here (or at least that
>>> I've been able to r
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcases ICE on invalid code which defines
> labels inside of statement expressions and then uses &&label
> from code outside of the statement expressions.
> The C++ FE diagnoses that with a warning (not specifically for
> assume a
On 3/30/25 8:54 PM, Bohan Lei wrote:
The RTL pattern has an "and" operation, which clears out the upper bits after
the shift operation. Since we have (INTVAL (operands[3]) >> INTVAL
(operands[2])) == 0x as a constraint, the RTL template and the split
code should be semantically identi
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:13:22AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> The following fixes ix86_valid_target_attribute_inner_p to properly
> handle target("no-sse4") via OPT_mno_sse4 rather than as unset OPT_msse4.
> I've added asserts to ix86_handle_option that RejectNegative is honored
> for both.
>
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
An inline variable has vague linkage, and needs to be conditionally
emitted in TUs that reference it. Unfortunately this clashes with
[basic.link] p14.2, which says that we ignore the initialisers of all
variables (includi
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:46:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > This looks OK, but I wonder if ...
> > > > - /* The parameter should be a real operand, so that phi
> > >
Hello,
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Bill Wendling wrote:
> 1. The use of '__self' isn't feasible, so we won't use it.
That's a bold statement. How's that? The only thing I read here is that
the very spelling of "self" was objected to. So, call it _Self,
_Selfref, or something. Even _Whatever42 wou
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 11:27:25AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Looking at this some more today, I think we should special case
> > > set_noop_p because that can be put into i2 (except for the JUMP_P
> > > violations), currently both modified_betwee
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 11:34, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 7:28 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> In r15-8491-g778c28c70f8573 I added a use of the Autoconf macro
>> AC_STRUCT_TIMEZONE, but that requires a link-test for the global tzname
>> object if tm.tm_zone isn't support
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:24 PM Aleksandar Rakic
wrote:
>
> This patch series improves the libsanitizer for the mips target
> in GCC.
You should send these improvements to upstream libsanitizer instead.
> These patches are cherry-picked from the mips_rel/11_2_0/master
> and mips_rel/9_3_0/master
Hi!
While working on the previous tailc patch, I've noticed the following
problem.
The testcase below fails, because we decide to tail recursion optimize
the call, but tail recursion (as documented in tree-tailcall.cc) needs to
add some result multiplication and/or addition if any tail recursion u
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 6:10 AM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> phiprop can sometimes prop loads back into loops
> and in some cases cause wrong code when the load
> was from a weak symbol as now it becomes an unconditional
> load before the loop.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no re
The following fixes ix86_valid_target_attribute_inner_p to properly
handle target("no-sse4") via OPT_mno_sse4 rather than as unset OPT_msse4.
I've added asserts to ix86_handle_option that RejectNegative is honored
for both.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
OK?
Thanks,
Richard
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:46:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> This looks OK, but I wonder if ...
> > - /* The parameter should be a real operand, so that phi node
> > -created for it at the start of the function has the meaning
> > -of copying the value. This te
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:50:01AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > While working on the previous tailc patch, I've noticed the following
> > problem.
> > The testcase below fails, because we decide to tail recursion optimize
> > the call, but tail recursion (as documented in tree-tailcall.cc) need
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:46:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > This looks OK, but I wonder if ...
> > > - /* The parameter should be a real operand, so that phi node
> > > - created for it at the start of the funct
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 7:54 PM Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
>
> gcov_write_* functions must be guarded so they only are called when
> output_to_file is true, like for -fcondition-coverage, otherwise it
> triggers an invalid read as detected by valgrind. The gcno file is
> mostly written to from profile
Linux toolchain may configured with --enable-default-pie, and that will
cause lots of regression test failures because the function name will
append with @plt suffix (e.g. `call foo` become `call foo@plt`), also
some code generation will different due to the code model like the address
generation
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:55 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:40 PM Hongyu Wang wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > For spiltter after 3_mask it now splits the pattern
> > to *3_mask, causing the splitter doesn't generate
> > nf variant. Add corresponding nf counterpart for define_insn_a
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase is miscompiled on x86_64-linux at -O2 by the combiner.
> We have from earlier combinations
> (insn 22 21 23 4 (set (reg:SI 104 [ _7 ])
> (const_int 0 [0])) "pr119291.c":25:15 96 {*movsi_internal}
> (nil))
> (i
On 31/03/2025 20:04, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Recent syntactic fixes enabled the test, but the result was failing.
>
> It turns out it was missing a space between the register arguments in
> the scan-assembler-times directives.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> PR target/119556
> * gc
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 01:36:23PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >Changing ix86_valid_target_attribute_inner_p might be even better because
> >OPT_msse4 is RejectNegative option, so !value for it looks weird.
> msse4 is defined as ix86_opt_isa in ix86_valid_target_attribute_inner_p
>
> 1055IX86_
Hi!
The following testcases ICE on invalid code which defines
labels inside of statement expressions and then uses &&label
from code outside of the statement expressions.
The C++ FE diagnoses that with a warning (not specifically for
assume attribute, genericallly about taking address of a label
o
Reorder to the diagnostic to avoid issues when
nappend < ninteropfor the case no append_args arguments at all (nappend == 0) and one
interop clause to dispatch (ninterop == 1)
Committed as r15-9120-gde92ac6f11e605.
Tobias
commit de92ac6f11e605987421fe1443b5b81ff172dbb6
Author: Tobias Burnu
Hi,
For spiltter after 3_mask it now splits the pattern
to *3_mask, causing the splitter doesn't generate
nf variant. Add corresponding nf counterpart for define_insn_and_split
to make the splitter also works for nf insn.
Bootstrapped & regtested on x86-64-pc-linux-gnu.
Ok for trunk?
gcc/Change
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 6:23 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> This is yet another false positive warning fix. This time the compiler
> can't prove that when the vector has sufficient excess capacity to
> append new elements, the pointer to the existing storage is not null.
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As the following testcase shows, EDGE_FAKE edges from musttail calls to
> EXIT aren't the only edges we should ignore, we need to ignore also
> edges created by the splitting of blocks for the EDGE_FAKE creation that
> point from the musttail cal
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:40 PM Hongyu Wang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> For spiltter after 3_mask it now splits the pattern
> to *3_mask, causing the splitter doesn't generate
> nf variant. Add corresponding nf counterpart for define_insn_and_split
> to make the splitter also works for nf insn.
>
> Bootstra
Am Dienstag, dem 01.04.2025 um 15:01 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
> > On Apr 1, 2025, at 10:04, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Montag, dem 31.03.2025 um 13:59 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> > > > I'd like to offer up this to solve the issues we're facing. This is a
> > > > combination o
The problem in PR101523 was that, after each successful 2->2
combination attempt, distribute_links would search further and
further for the next combinable use of the i2 destination.
The original patch for the PR dealt with that by disallowing such
combinations. However, that led to various optimi
Hi!
As the following testcase shows, EDGE_FAKE edges from musttail calls to
EXIT aren't the only edges we should ignore, we need to ignore also
edges created by the splitting of blocks for the EDGE_FAKE creation that
point from the musttail calls to the fallthrough block, which typically does
the
Another misconfigure (Darwin-only) found by a combination of increases
in system security contraints and the COBOL runtime. We will now fail
any C++ configure test that needs the binary to run.
Tested on x86_64-darwin17,21,24 and on x86_64, powerpc64le, aarch64-linux
confirmed manually that the C
Hi!
This is a partial step towards fixing that PR.
For musttail recursive calls which have non-is_gimple_reg_type typed
parameters, the only case we've handled was if the exact parameter
was passed through (perhaps modified, but still the same PARM_DECL).
That isn't necessary, we can copy the argu
This is a C23/C++11 feature that is supported as an extension with
earlier -std= options too, but was never previously documented. It
interacts with the already-documented forward enum definition extension,
so I have merged discussion of the two extensions into the same section.
gcc/ChangeLog
After commit r15-8947-g8ed2d5d219e999, which added new tests using
gcov, the CI noticed failures because it was calling 'gcov' instead of
$target-gcov.
This is because the CI scripts override GXX_UNDER_TEST, but still run
the testsuite in-tree, and gcc-transform-out-of-tree only depends on
TESTING
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 01:16:32PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> gcc/
> * simplify-rtx.cc (simplify_const_relational_operation): Generalize
> the constant checks in the fold-via-minus path to match the
> INTEGRAL_MODE_P condition.
LGTM.
Jakub
As noted in PR 118965, the initial interop implementation overlooked
the requirement in the OpenMP spec that at least one of the "target"
and "targetsync" modifiers is required in both the interop construct
init clause and the declare variant append_args clause.
Adding the check was fairly straigh
HTEC Proprietary
Hi,
Could you please provide an email address for upstream libsanitizer?
We are not sure where to send these patches.
Kind regards,
Aleksandar Rakic
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:50 PM
To: Aleksandar Rakic
Cc: gcc-
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:34 PM Robin Dapp wrote:
>
> >> Yeah...and I also don't like the magic "ceil(AVL / 2) ≤ vl ≤ VLMAX if
> >> AVL < (2 * VLMAX)" rule...
> >
> > +1, spec has some description about this but I am not sure if I really get
> > the point.
> >
> > From Spec:
> >
> > "For exampl
Am Dienstag, dem 01.04.2025 um 18:58 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
> > On Apr 1, 2025, at 11:28, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > Am Dienstag, dem 01.04.2025 um 15:01 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
> > >
> > > > On Apr 1, 2025, at 10:04, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Montag, de
Note it's not quite "whatever" -- there is a constraint that vl be
monotonically nonincreasing, which in some cases is the only important
property. No denying this is an annoyance, though.
Yes, I was hoping the smiley would convey that "whatever" was not to be taken
literally. In terms of SC
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 12:02 PM Aleksandar Rakic
wrote:
>
> HTEC Proprietary
>
> Hi,
>
> Could you please provide an email address for upstream libsanitizer?
> We are not sure where to send these patches.
It is mentioned in libsantizer/README.gcc :
```
Both tools consist of a compiler module and a
> On Apr 1, 2025, at 15:25, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 01.04.2025 um 18:58 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>>
>>> On Apr 1, 2025, at 11:28, Martin Uecker wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Dienstag, dem 01.04.2025 um 15:01 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
> On Apr 1, 2025, at 10:04, Martin Uecker
On 4/1/25 8:03 AM, Kito Cheng wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 12:47 PM Jeff Law wrote:
On 3/31/25 7:03 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 31, 2025, Jeff Law wrote:
I don't immediately see anything in this test or its history to
indicate it's only supposed to work for rv64.
It's the 64-b
On 01/04/2025 09:42, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As we're starting a new month, introduce a more appropriate -mapril=
> to specify the compilation target instead.
> This helps keep GCC more up to date with the passage of time.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
>
> Si
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 04:31:38PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase ICEs (the embed one actually doesn't but
> dereferences random uninitialized pointer far after allocated memory)
> because of a typo. In the RAW_DATA_CST handling of list conversion
> where there are c
From: Andi Kleen
This isn't a regression, but it's a very simple patch with high
performance improvement, so perhaps suitable in the current stage.
---
bitmap_set_bit checks the original value of the bit to return it to the
caller and then only writes the new value back if it changes.
Most call
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 5:41 AM Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Bill Wendling wrote:
>
> > 1. The use of '__self' isn't feasible, so we won't use it.
>
> That's a bold statement. How's that? The only thing I read here is that
> the very spelling of "self" was objected to.
From: Philip Herron
We need to check for error_mark_node when doing adjustments from coercion
sites otherwise we hit assetions as part of the coercion. That fixes the
ICE but the reason for the error_mark_node is because the array element
value.
Fixes Rust-GCC#3567
gcc/rust/ChangeLog:
Hi!
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 08:34:10AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> As discussed here and in bugzilla, [[clang::musttail]] attribute in clang
> not just strongly asks for tail call or error, but changes behavior.
> To quote:
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#musttail
> "The li
On 4/1/25 12:15 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 3/31/25 23:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer suggested some typos to the patch for 118551. Here
is the changed patch.
In bug PR target/118541 on power9, power10, and power11 systems, for the
function:
extern double __ieee754_acos (double);
double
__acospi (double x)
{
do
gcc/ChangeLog
PR c/118118
* doc/extend.texi (Boolean Type): New section.
---
gcc/doc/extend.texi | 12
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index 76fb210060d..d2bf6048be7 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc
Per the issue, the discussion of these two attributes needed to be
better integrated. I also did some editing for style and readability,
and clarified that almost all targets support this feature (it is
enabled by default unless the back end disables it), not just "some".
Co-Authored_by: Jonathan
> I'd like to ping the
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/679182.html
> patch.
> I know it is quite controversial and if clang wouldn't be the first
> to implement this I'd certainly not go that way; I am willing to change
> the warning option names or move the maybe one from -W
From: Owen Avery
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* rust/compile/const_generics_3.rs: Modify test to run with name
resolution 2.0 only and to handle the absence of a bogus
resolution error.
* rust/compile/nr2/exclude: Remove const_generics_3.rs.
Signed-off-by: Owen Avery
> On Apr 1, 2025, at 11:28, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 01.04.2025 um 15:01 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>>
>>> On Apr 1, 2025, at 10:04, Martin Uecker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Montag, dem 31.03.2025 um 13:59 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> I'd like to offer up this to solve
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 05:13:46PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 8:29 AM Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, dem 01.04.2025 um 15:01 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
> > > > On Apr 1, 2025, at 10:04, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > > Am Montag, dem 31.03.2025 um 13:59 -0700 schrieb Bi
Segher -- there's a combine question near the end...
On 3/23/25 8:43 PM, Bohan Lei wrote:
The combine pass can generate an index like (and:DI (mult:DI (reg:DI)
(const_int scale)) (const_int mask)) when XTheadMemIdx is available.
LRA may pull it out, and thus a splitter is needed when Zba is n
Avoid using gensub that FreeBSD awk lacks, use gsub and split those each
of gawk, mawk, and FreeBSD awk provides.
Reported-by: mp...@vip.163.com
Link: https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=awk
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/loongarch/genopts/gen-evolution.awk: Avoid using gensub
tha
On 4/1/25 20:15, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 3/31/25 23:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges.
Curr
On 4/1/25 10:46 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 4/1/25 20:15, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 3/31/25 23:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional lo
> Am 02.04.2025 um 00:02 schrieb Andi Kleen :
>
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> This isn't a regression, but it's a very simple patch with high
> performance improvement, so perhaps suitable in the current stage.
Ok. Can you add a comment as to why we store unconditionally?
Richard
> ---
>
> bi
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 2:46 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 11:34, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 7:28 PM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> >>
> >> In r15-8491-g778c28c70f8573 I added a use of the Autoconf macro
> >> AC_STRUCT_TIMEZONE, but that requir
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 3:56 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 01:36:23PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > >Changing ix86_valid_target_attribute_inner_p might be even better because
> > >OPT_msse4 is RejectNegative option, so !value for it looks weird.
> > msse4 is defined as ix86_op
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is a partial step towards fixing that PR.
> For musttail recursive calls which have non-is_gimple_reg_type typed
> parameters, the only case we've handled was if the exact parameter
> was passed through (perhaps modified, but still the same
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> While working on the previous tailc patch, I've noticed the following
> problem.
> The testcase below fails, because we decide to tail recursion optimize
> the call, but tail recursion (as documented in tree-tailcall.cc) needs to
> add some resul
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the testcase in PR 118924, when compiled on Aarch64, contains an
> gimple aggregate assignment statement in between different types which
> are types_compatible_p but behave differently for the purposes of
> alias analysis.
>
> SRA replaces the
On 4/1/25 7:02 AM, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
An inline variable has vague linkage, and needs to be conditionally
emitted in TUs that reference it. Unfortunately this clashes with
[basic.link] p14.2, which says that we ignor
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 01:36:23PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > >Changing ix86_valid_target_attribute_inner_p might be even better because
> > >OPT_msse4 is RejectNegative option, so !value for it looks weird.
> > msse4 is defined as ix86_opt_isa in ix86
This patch forestalls a regression in gcc.dg/rtl/x86_64/vector_eq.c
with the patch for PR116398. The test wants:
(cinsn 3 (set (reg:V4SI <0>) (const_vector:V4SI [(const_int 0) (const_int
0) (const_int 0) (const_int 0)])))
(cinsn 5 (set (reg:V4SI <2>)
(eq:V4SI (reg
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 11:32 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> This was fixed on trunk by r15-4473-g3abe751ea86e34, but that isn't
> suitable for backporting. Instead, just add another unreachable
> condition in std::vector::_M_range_insert so the compiler knows this
> memcpy doesn't use a length origi
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 11:27:25AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Looking at this some more today, I think we should special case
> > set_noop_p because that can be put into i2 (except for the JUMP_P
> > violations), currently both modified_between_p (pc_rtx, i2, i3)
> > and reg_used_between_p (p
Ping.
Thanks,
Tejas.
On 3/18/25 11:27 AM, Tejas Belagod wrote:
This series is based on a previous thread and review comments from RichardS and
Jakub upstream:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/677072.html
The changes suggested are cosmetic in nature. As suggested in the p
Push to trunk since the CI is green :)
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 3:43 PM Kito Cheng wrote:
>
> Linux toolchain may configured with --enable-default-pie, and that will
> cause lots of regression test failures because the function name will
> append with @plt suffix (e.g. `call foo` become `call foo@p
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 12:47 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/31/25 7:03 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 2025, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> I don't immediately see anything in this test or its history to
> >> indicate it's only supposed to work for rv64.
> >
> > It's the 64-bit integral argument
> "Richard" == Richard Biener writes:
Richard> On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 8:32 AM Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>>
>> > Let's involve Eric here, I have no idea what was intended here.
>>
>> We discussed it with Tom internally and he makes the final decisions here.
Richard> Well the, Tom, go ahead.
On 3/31/25 23:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> changes since v2
>> - dump log sanfu
>>
>> ---
>> vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
>> It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges.
>> Currently it asserts/abo
On 3/31/25 4:59 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 11:27:04AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/25/25 3:37 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk/14?
-- >8 --
Since r15-8011 cp_build_indirect_ref_1 won't do the *&TARGET_EXPR ->
TARGET_
From: Philip Herron
Array expressions are still getting turned into VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR's becuase
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT is not set so then we might as well reuse the type-hasher
to sort this out.
Fixes Rust-GCC#3588
gcc/rust/ChangeLog:
* backend/rust-compile-context.h: only push named types
81 matches
Mail list logo
