On Sat, Mar 2, 2024, 08:24 Jonathan Yong <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/24 14:08, Jonathan Yong wrote:
> > Attached patch OK?
> >
> > Copy/pasted for review convenience.
> Ping.
>
Pinging this for Jon. It's been a couple months, and this should be mostly
obvious if someone has a spare minut
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 07:50 Radek Barton wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> I've re-run the `x86_64-w64-mingw32` target tests with all the languages
> enabled, except of Ada and JIT, which are harder to bootstrap, and Go,
> which is not supported by MinGW. The summarized results are:
>
> 536176 of exp
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 06:53 Matteo Italia wrote:
> Il 31/01/24 04:24, LIU Hao ha scritto:
> > 在 2024-01-31 08:08, Jonathan Yong 写道:
> >> On 1/24/24 15:17, Matteo Italia wrote:
> >>> Ping! That's a one-line fix, and you can find all the details in the
> >>> bugzilla entry. Also, I can provide execu
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:48 PM Evgeny Karpov
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We would like to take your attention to the review of changes for the
> new GCC target, aarch64-w64-mingw32. The new target will be
> supported, tested, added to CI, and maintained by Linaro. This marks
> the first of three plann
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 4:23 AM Matteo Italia wrote:
>
> Il 06/02/24 10:17, Jonathan Yong ha scritto:
> > On 2/6/24 05:31, NightStrike wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 06:53 Matteo Italia wrote:
> >>
> >>> Il 31/01/24 04:24, LIU Hao ha scritto:
&
> -Original Message-
> Friday, February 23, 2024 6:16 PM
> Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> > +
> > +#undef TARGET_SEH
> > +#define TARGET_SEH 0
> > +
> > +#define SSE_REGNO_P(N) 0
> > +#define GENERAL_REGNO_P(N) 0
>
> Could you add a comment to explain how these two macros are consumed?
> What
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:26 AM Evgeny Karpov
wrote:
>
> Monday, February 26, 2024 2:30 AM
> NightStrike wrote:
>
> > To be clear, because of the refactoring, it will affect x86/x64 Windows
> > targets.
> > Can you do a testsuite run before and after and see
On Fri, May 24, 2024, 04:42 Mariam Arutunian
wrote:
> Hello!
> This patch set detects bitwise CRC implementation loops (with branches) in
> the GIMPLE optimizers and replaces them with more optimal CRC
> implementations in RTL. These patches introduce new internal functions,
> built-in functions,
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 1:45 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> From: Tim Lange
>
> Currently, the analyzer tries to prove that the allocation size is a
> multiple of the pointee's type size. This patch reverses the behavior
> to try to prove that the expression is not a multiple of the pointee's
> type
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 1:47 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> From: Tim Lange
>
> This patch adds the reproducers reported in PR 110014 as test cases. The
> false positives in those cases are already fixed with PR 109577.
>
> 2023-06-09 Tim Lange
>
> PR analyzer/110014
>
> gcc/testsuite/Chan
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 1:03 PM Peter Damianov wrote:
>
> Windows terminal and mintty both have support for link escape sequences, and
> so
> auto_enable_urls shouldn't be hardcoded to false. For older versions of the
> windows console, mingw_ansi_fputs's console API translation logic does mangle
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> GCC now requires ISL and a very new CLOOG but download_prerequisites
> does not download those. Also, there is only one sensible place to
As of what version is isl/cloog no longer optional?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As mentioned in the PR, all traces of this warning option except these
> were removed earlier, so the warning option does nothing.
This is unfortunate. As noted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg01057.html
The wa
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:37 PM JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/2018 04:58 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 2018, JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/10/2018 03:24 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>> On Oct 9, 2018, JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Now, if yo
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 20/12/18 17:23 -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
> >code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
> >%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.
>
> Well the prop
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:16 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 6/27/19 8:03 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > This reduces 2 warnings reported by clang.
> >
> > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
> >
> > Ready to be installed?
> > Thanks,
> > Martin
> >
> > g
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess neither redhat
>>> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a
>>> login page but
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> NightStrike proposed to revert to the 1.2.8 release until zlib stabilizes
> again;
> I'm open for that, but didn't want to stay with the 1.2.10 release.
I don't recall making that proposal. I thought I just sug
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Janne Blomqvist
wrote:
> Don't try to use rand_s on CYGWIN
>
> CYGWIN seems to include _mingw.h and thus __MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR is
> defined even though rand_s is not available. Thus add an extra check
> for __CYGWIN__.
>
> Thanks to
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 1:26 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Janne Blomqvist
> wrote:
>> Don't try to use rand_s on CYGWIN
>>
>> CYGWIN seems to include _mingw.h and thus __MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR is
>> defined even though rand_s is not
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Janne Blomqvist
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Janne Blomqvist
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 7:26 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Janne Blomqvist
>>> wrote:
>>>> Don'
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
> is at svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> But then the [[fallthrough]] attribute was
> approved for C++17 [1], and that's what has got me to do all this.
> ...
> I added a new builtin,
> __builtin_fallthrough, that prevents the warning from occurring. It can only
> be used in a swi
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:23:30PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:18:02PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> > > I explained why supporting the classic lint style comment wouldn't fly.
>> >
>> > Not convincing, it worked f
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/27/2016 08:10 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>
>> The last time I ran ./contrib/download_prerequisites, I already had
>> previous symlinks set up from a previous run of the script, so `ln`
>> followed the existing symlinks and created the new one
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 7/13/16, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/27/2016 08:10 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>> The last time I ran ./contrib/download_prerequisites, I already had
>>> previous symlinks set up from a previous run of the script, so `ln`
>>> followed the exis
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch removes support for -funsafe-loop-optimizations, as well as
> -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations. By its name, this option does unsafe
> optimizations by assuming all loops must terminate and doesn't wrap.
> Unfortunately, it's not
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 6:28 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch removes support for -funsafe-loop-optimizations, as well as
>>> -Wunsafe-lo
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Here is an implementation of P0025
> An algorithm to "clamp" a value between a pair of boundary values.
>
> Testing is almost finished - looks good so far.
>
> OK if testing passes?
>
> I didn't see a feature test in an
, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22/07/16 08:51 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/16 19:38 -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Ping
>
> 2012/11/29 Kai Tietz :
>> Hello,
>>
>> this trivial patch fixes a bootstrap issue on LLP64 hosts.
>>
>> ChangeLog
>>
>> 2012-11-29 Kai Tietz
>>
>> PR target/53912
>> * stmt.c (compute_cases_per_edge): Cast from pointer vi
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> recent 4,8 has regressions in g++.old-deja/g++.eh for the catch*.C
>> tests, if exception-mechanism is SjLj. This is due an off by one
>> failure in an decreasing loop.
>>
>> C
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Ping
>
> 2012/11/29 Kai Tietz :
>> Hello,
>>
>> this trivial patch fixes a bootstrap issue on LLP64 hosts.
>>
>> ChangeLog
>>
>> 2012-11-29 Kai Tietz
>>
>> PR target/53912
>> * print-tree.c (print_node): Cast from pointer via uint
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Hi Kai,
>
Index: gcc.target/i386/pr20020-1.c
===
--- gcc.target/i386/pr20020-1.c (Revision 196507)
+++ gcc.target/i386/pr20020-1.c (Arbeitskopie)
>>
Ping
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch fixes an issue about recursice LN_S for mingw-host. The
> issue was already addressed by autotools, but an upgrade of version
> isn't suitable right now.
> For further information see the bug-report PR 52122.
>
> ChangeL
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Gary Funck wrote:
>>
>> Paul Hargrove noted the following build failure on
>> an older x86-32 Linux (Redhat 8.0) system.
>>
>> g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -W -Wall
>> -Wwrite-strin
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Doug was trying to build with gmp 4.2.1 and ran into this error:
>
> gmp-4.2.1/include/gmp.h:515:12: error: 'std::FILE' has not been declared
>
> This bug was fixed in gmp 4.2.3, so I've bumped the minimum
> acceptable version in configure.ac
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:13 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Doug was trying to build with gmp 4.2.1 and ran into this error:
>>
>> gmp-4.2.1/include/gmp.h:515:12: error: 'std::FILE' has not been declared
>>
&
Eric,
Jacek Caban sent this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01987.html
in response to this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01986.html
But it never got reviewed. Could you review and commit?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2012/6/18 JonY :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am told that this ABI test does not apply to mingw targets. OK to apply?
>
> Hi JonY,
>
> The test doesn't apply to x64 windows targets, as for it sse is part of its
> ABI.
> As test already checks for !ia32, we
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 12-05-25 11:06 , Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
> That's one of my fears, namely that those used to the libstdc++
> style impose that on the compiler source base. Because IMHO the
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
>
>> so, why you just don't use the hash table implementation from libstdc++?
>
> we have agreed on C++03 as a bootstrap compiler.
> There is unfortunately no hash table in C++03.
Th
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> with the current implementation language. Consequently, I think
> we should retain the binding suggested by the C++ standard.
> I realize that the existing GNU C convention says the opposite -- but
> then it is written for C.
This point
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> Ping, did this go in trunk already?
>
> I would be surprised to see this happening if nobody like you or Kai actually
> does the commit ;)
>
> P
>
Does Jon have commit access?
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM, JonY wrote:
>> On 4/10/2012 20:37, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM, JonY wrote:
Hi,
Patch OK?
>>>
>>> What kind of warning?
>>>
>>
>> Oops, I forgot to mention g
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM, JonY wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2012 20:37, Richard
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> no warning from trunk. Which GCC version emits this warning?
>
>> Looks like cygwin gcc 3.4.4
>
> 3.4.4 is a little old now.. We'd encourage an u
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 04:20 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>>> no warning from trunk. Which GCC version emits this warning?
>>
>>> Looks like cygwin gcc 3.4.4
>
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 01:50:26PM +0200, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> > Ok.
>> > Richard.
>>
>> Applied at revision 175206 to trunk.
>
> There is no need to post such notices to gcc-patches, we have the gcc-cvs
> mailing list where this is automatica
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:37:30AM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 01:50:26PM +0200, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> >> Appli
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> The following two libgcc patches have seen almost no comments, and
> certainly neither testing or review in a week:
>
> CFT: [build] Move fp-bit support to toplevel libgcc
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg00927.html
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> For 64bit x86 targets, long is 32bit for x32 and win64. But long long
> is always 64bit. This patch removes _WIN64 check. OK for trunk?
Isn't that what int64_t is for?
Ping
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch adds the ability for bitwise-truth operations to sink into
> use-statement, if it is a cast, if type of it is compatible.
>
> By this we can sink cases like
>
> _Bool D1, D2, D3;
> int R, x, y;
>
> D1 = (bool) x;
> D2
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2011/5/4 Richard Guenther :
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Andreas Krebbel
>>> wrote:
Hi,
the attached patch uses the existing promote_function_mode hook. For
Ping again. Still no review.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Fix annoying gcov filename handling:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01380.html
>
> (rs6000) Fix thinko in output_profile_hook:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01624.html
>
> Intr
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 12:44 PM NightStrike wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 1:47 PM David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > From: Tim Lange
> >
> > This patch adds the reproducers reported in PR 110014 as test cases. The
> > false positives in those cases are already f
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 15:41 Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
> > On 20 Mar 2025, at 19:28, Robert Dubner wrote:
> >
> > Although I am confused about how _int64_t can be anything but a 64-bit
> > signed integer, and because it is my understanding that long and long
> long
> > really *do* change from plat
How is an online only name different from an anonymous pseudonym? It
doesn’t seem to me that your changes actually clarify anything. To me, they
make it more ambiguous.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 09:47 Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Ping again. Are there any other clarifications you like to see added?
>
>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 5:02 AM LIU Hao wrote:
>
> 在 2025-4-14 04:10, Peter Damianov 写道:
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/amd64-abi-9.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/amd64-abi-9.c
> > index 9b2cd7e7b49..827215be3e2 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/amd64-abi-9.c
>
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 14:00 Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> > AFAIK we have not knowingly changed any specific requirements beyond the
> > stated 4.7 and 4.9 for PDF output, but it concerns me that nobody is
> > likely to be using versions that old on a regu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:21 PM Jerry DeLisle via Fortran
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Similar to a patch I committed a while ago for Cygwin, the attached
> patch allows it to pass on the mingw version of gfortran.
>
> It is trivial.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry
ping
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 10:24 AM Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this is the incompatibility of -fstack-clash-protection with Windows SEH. Now
> the Windows ports always enable TARGET_STACK_PROBE, which means that the stack
> is always probed (out of line) so -fstack-clash-protec
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 3:16 AM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > This fixes dg.exp/stack-check-2.c, -7, 8, and -16.c, which is great!
>
> Try the attached patch.
Well... that patch just marks all of the tests as unsupported. But
for example, the ones quoted above run, work, and pass. And when they
di
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 17:32 Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> That was a bit too much in terms of additions things. :-)
>
> Pushed.
>
> Gerald
> ---
> htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 08:45 Jonathan Yong via Gcc-patches <
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/i386/harden-sls-6.c: fix warning on LLP64
> targets.
>
> Attached patch OK?
Ping
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023, 05:42 Jonathan Yong via Gcc-patches <
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> Attached patches OK?
Ping
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 11:10 LIU Hao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> --
> Best regards,
> LIU Hao
>
Ping
>
The reason would be to show that they continue to not ICE as they used to.
No go paths are just as useful as go paths.
On Sat, Mar 11, 2023, 10:57 Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/23 01:16, Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> This fixes dg.exp/stack-check-2.c, -7, 8, and -16.c, which is great
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 8:33 AM Jacek Caban via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 2022-10-21 11:44, Eric Botcazou via Libstdc++ wrote:
> >>>/How does this compare with Eric B's proposal at
> >>>/>>>/https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg01840.html ?
> >>>/>>//>>/My proposal was to reimple
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 7:00 PM Jonathan Yong via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 12/22/22 12:28, i.nix...@autistici.org wrote:
> > On 2022-12-22 12:21, Jonathan Yong wrote:
> >
> > hello,
> >
> >> On 12/16/22 19:20, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> The libgcc parts look reasonable to me, but I can't approve
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 4:56 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108308.c.jj 2023-01-06 10:43:45.793009294 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108308.c 2023-01-06 10:43:40.218090375 +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> +/* PR target/108308 */
> +/* { dg-do run { target {
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:07 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:58:40AM -0500, NightStrike wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 4:56 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108308.c.jj 2023-01-06 10:43:45.793009294
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:43 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 04:27:11AM -0500, NightStrike wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:07 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:58:40AM -0500, NightStrike wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 7:14 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I've committed following after regtesting it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux:
...
> +/* { dg-do run { target int32 } } */
Ah, I didn't realize you meant literally int32. I didn't see that as
a choice here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcci
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:37 AM David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> I'm working on a rewrite of the region_model code for GCC 11 that I
> hope will fix these issues, and allow this warning to be reintroduced.
If that's the case, why remove the warning just to add it back? You
could leave it
On Thu, May 28, 2020, 4:25 PM David Malcolm via Gcc-patches <
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 22:27 -0300, Nicolas Bértolo wrote:
> > > New C++ source files should have a .cc extension.
> > > I hope that at some point we'll rename all the existing .c ones
> > > accordingly.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Gaius Mulley via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > The following adjusts libgm2 to properly use the multilib build
> > infrastructure, thereby fixing the install with
> > --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
> >
> > In particular config-ml.pl ne
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 18:59 Jerry D via Fortran wrote:
>
> Proposed ChangeLog entry using git gcc-commit-mklog:
>
> Author: Jerry DeLisle
> Date: Sat Jan 21 15:47:19 2023 -0800
>
> Revise the line end tests to pass on certain windows test environments
> which inject spurious /r chara
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:27 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> Pushed to trunk as r13-5615-gd03ae4be2c6d48.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * gcc.dg/analyzer/call-summaries-2.c: Add
> dg-require-effective-target alloca.
>
Jakub, ping
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:50 i.nixman--- via Gcc-patches <
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> hello,
>
> could someone look at the patch attached please?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610392.html
>
Is it too soon to ping again? :) I think Nixman needs some feedback as to
whether he's on the right track in addressing your concerns.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2023, 12:39 NightStrike wrote:
> Jakub, ping
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:50 i.nixman--- via Gcc-patches <
> gcc-patche
ping
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 1:16 PM Jonathan Yong <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Patch OK?
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.dg/pr65658.c: fix LLP64 test.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 3:52 AM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2023, Jonathan Yong via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> could you please close the corresponding BR too?:
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108350
> > I can't close it, but I put a note that it has been committed.
>
>
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, 18:31 cqwrteur via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> When building GCC hosted on windows with Canadian/native compilation
> (host==target), the build scripts in GCC would override DLLs with each
> other. For example, for MinGW-w64, 32-bit DLLs would override 64 bits
> because build script
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 10:14 PM Jerry D via Fortran wrote:
> I am certainly not a C++ expert but it seems to me this all begs for
> automatic finalization where one would not have to invoke free at all.
> I suspect the gfortran frontend is not designed for such things.
+1 for RAII
85 matches
Mail list logo
