Re: [PATCH][check_GNU_style.sh] More aggressively ignore dg-xxx directives

On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > The latest patch works as expected for me, both with an operand > and with stdin. But since I'm not empowered to approve it one > of the others reviewers will need to give it their blessing. Seems fine from a test suite

Re: [ada, testsuite] Parallelize check-gnat

On Oct 21, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > > I happened to notice that the gnat.dg testsuite run is slow > 2.6 GHz AMD Opteron 8435, -j24 43m 24s => 33m 4s > 2.93 GHz Intel Xeon X7350, -j16 30m 7s => 9m 8s > 2.67 GHz Intel Xeon X7542, -j48

Re: [ada, testsuite] Parallelize check-gnat

On Oct 21, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >> I'm not strongly against your patch, I'm just very surprised it is really >> needed (acats is much larger, check-gnat is small). > > In what unit do you count? ACATS has fewer tests than gnat.dg nowadays. The only

Re: [libstdc++, testsuite] Add dg-require-thread-fence

On Oct 20, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 20/10/16 09:26 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Oct 20, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> I am considering leaving this in the ARM backend t

Re: [libstdc++, testsuite] Add dg-require-thread-fence

On Oct 20, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > If Every. Single. Test. that uses the libstdc++ library has this > failure, and the library can't be made to be usable, the answer is > surely to change the meaning of "dg-do run" to not link+run tests, not > add a new

Re: [libstdc++, testsuite] Add dg-require-thread-fence

On Oct 20, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I am considering leaving this in the ARM backend to force people to > think what they want to do about thread safety with statics and C++ > on bare-metal systems. Not quite in the GNU spirit? The port people should

Re: [PATCH] PR77895: DWARF: Emit DW_AT_comp_dir in all cases, even if source is an absolute path

On Oct 17, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Ximin Luo <infini...@pwned.gg> wrote: > > Mike Stump: >> On Oct 17, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Ximin Luo <infini...@pwned.gg> wrote: >>> Therefore, it is better to emit it in all circumstances, in case the reader >>> ne

Re: [PATCH] PR77895: DWARF: Emit DW_AT_comp_dir in all cases, even if source is an absolute path

On Oct 17, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Ximin Luo wrote: > Therefore, it is better to emit it in all circumstances, in case the reader > needs to know what the working > directory was at compile-time. I can't help but wonder if this would break ccache some?

Re: [PATCH, libgfortran] PR 67585 Handle EINTR

On Oct 7, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > So using EINTR properly can be really tricky. I'd not phrase it that way. I'd phrase it as deferral can be tricky and choosing what action to do in a signal handler can be tricky. I don't mention deferral nor

Re: [PATCH, libgfortran] PR 67585 Handle EINTR

On Oct 7, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Fritz Reese wrote: > what if a user wants/expects a system call to be interrupted? Then it is interrupted. > With the patch we would always restart the system call even if No, this is a misunderstanding on your part. The signal is delivered

Re: [PATCH, libgfortran] PR 67585 Handle EINTR

On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:59 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > > So I suppose in theory you could have a situation where something > continuously fires signals at the process, and the result is some kind > of race between the process restarting the syscall which then never >

Re: [PATCH, libgfortran] PR 67585 Handle EINTR

On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:41 AM, FX wrote: > >> Many POSIX systems have the bad habit of not restarting interrupted >> syscalls. On these systems it's up to the user to check for an error >> with errno == EINTR and restart manually. This patch does this for >> libgfortran, so

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

On Oct 6, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > I wouldn't hard-fail, but completely disable objc-gc with an appropriate > warning. The Objective-C maintainers may have other preferences, though. gcc historically is fairly weak at complex configurations. I need

Re: [PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed > that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available > there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it to it? > >

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote: >> Hi Matthias, >> >>> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote: As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this one. For obvious reasons I haven't included

Re: [Patch 5/11] Add -fpermitted-flt-eval-methods=[c11|ts-18661-3]

On Sep 30, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> 2016-09-30 James Greenhalgh >> >> * gcc.dg/fpermitted-flt-eval-methods_1.c: New. >> * gcc.dg/fpermitted-flt-eval-methods_2.c: New. > OK.Are you going to need to do something for C++ (or

Re: [PATCH] objc: update documetation and add test-case of constructor/destructor attr.

On Aug 10, 2016, at 2:11 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > > Following patch clarifies usage of ctor and dtor attributes for Objective C. > Patch survives (on x86_64-linux-gnu): > > make -k check-objc RUNTESTFLAGS="execute.exp" > > Ready for trunk? Ok.

Re: [Patch, testsuite] Require int32plus for builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c

On Sep 27, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 09/27/2016 10:39 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:40:22PM +0530, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch requires int32plus for >>> gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c, as it

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

On Sep 23, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote: > > Doug Gilmore writes: >>> From: Richard Biener [rguent...@suse.de] >>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM >>> To: Doug Gilmore >>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;

Re: [PATCH] Extend dg-{error,warning,message,bogus} line specification to allow relative line numbers

On Sep 22, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > This is something I've been unhappy for a long time with :-) Me too. > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? Ok. Thanks.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Put a TARGET_LRA_P into every target

On Sep 16, 2016, at 6:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Does just "The default version of this target hook returns true." sound > better? I.e. delete "always". That is fine.

Re: Verify package integrity of downloaded prerequisites (partially fixes 61439)

On Sep 14, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Moritz Klammler wrote: > > Joseph Myers writes: > >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Moritz Klammler wrote: >> >>> Ok, I didn't know about the workflow. Do you think I should dike the >>> `--strip-sums` option out again then? >>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Put a TARGET_LRA_P into every target

On Sep 13, 2016, at 9:07 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 09/13/2016 09:45 AM, Peter Bergner wrote: >> On 9/13/16 9:26 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Segher Boessenkool And all new ports should use LRA, so it should be the default. >>> >>> I am

Re: [PATCH, testsuite]: Test compat _Complex varargs passing

On Sep 8, 2016, at 1:53 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: >> On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >>> It looks that different handling of _Complex char, _Complex short and >>> _Complex float is there

Re: [PATCH, testsuite]: Test compat _Complex varargs passing

On Sep 8, 2016, at 1:53 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: >> On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >>> It looks that different handling of _Complex char, _Complex short and >>> _Complex float is there

Re: Verify package integrity of downloaded prerequisites (partially fixes 61439)

On Sep 11, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Moritz Klammler wrote: > > There is a long-standing > [bug report](https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61439) > pointing out that the `download_prerequisites` script doesn't verify the > integrity of the packages it downloads. I like the

Re: [PATCH 3/4][PR 71931] Fix libitm tests

On Sep 6, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.n...@arm.com> wrote: > > On 06/09/16 18:34, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Sep 6, 2016, at 2:11 AM, Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 20:08 +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wr

Re: [PATCH 3/4][PR 71931] Fix libitm tests

On Sep 6, 2016, at 2:11 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 20:08 +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >> Pass build time CC make var down to dejagnu so the sysroot >> is set correctly when gcc is built with --with-build-sysroot. >> >> libitm/ >> 2016-08-24 Szabolcs

Re: [PATCH] Fix template-params-12f.C on darwin/vxworks (PR debug/77389)

On Sep 4, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > > The same should apply to g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/template-params-12g.C: > > --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/template-params-12g.C > 2016-08-12 09:59:34.0 +0200 > +++

Re: [RFC PATCH, alpha]: ABI change: pass SFmode and SCmode variable arguments by reference

On Sep 2, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > >> It looks to me that we have no tests for _Complex float variable >> arguments passing in g*.dg/compat/. There are no xfails for alpha* in >> this directory, and these

Re: PR35503 - warn for restrict pointer (-Wrestrict)

On Aug 30, 2016, at 4:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > On 30 August 2016 at 17:11, Eric Gallager wrote: >> On 8/29/16, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Marek Polacek

Re: [PATCH] Fix template-params-12f.C on darwin/vxworks (PR debug/77389)

On Aug 29, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > This testcase expects to find DWARF extensions, but those are disabled by > default on darwin/vxworks because broken tools there don't handle debug info > very well. > > I think the following patch (regtested on

Re: [RS6000] ABI_V4 ifunc

On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > On 24/08/16 02:55, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> If you make a ".gitattributes" >> somewhere in your tree (I have it in the gcc/ subdir), containing >> >> *.md diff=md >> >> and then in your git config

Re: [PATCH] Remove whitespace

On Aug 22, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Aditya Kumar wrote: > > libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog | 5 + > libstdc++-v3/include/bits/algorithmfwd.h| 206 ++-- > libstdc++-v3/include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h | 26 ++-- > 3 files changed, 121

Re: C++11? (Re: protected alloca class for malloc fallback)

On Aug 22, 2016, at 5:02 AM, Eric Gallager wrote: > > As a rookie programmer considering possibly contributing to GCC in the > future once I'm more confident in my abilities, switching to C++11 > would increase the barrier for me to contribute. I currently really > only

Re: protected alloca class for malloc fallback

On Aug 10, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Oleg Endo wrote: > > Or just wait until people have agreed to switch to C++11 or C++14. I > don't think in practice anybody uses an C++11-incapable GCC to build a > newer GCC these days. I use the system gcc 4.4.7 on RHEL to build a newer

Re: [Patch, testsuite] Skip tests that expect 4 byte alignment for avr

On Aug 11, 2016, at 12:40 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > > The below patch adds the AVR target to the list of targets that don't > have natural_alignment_32. It also skips ipa/propalign-*.c > tests (which expect 4 byte alignment), if both >

Re: [patch] Some testsuite cleanup

On Jul 31, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > -fno-show-column is a good general option. If you guys want to add column number test cases, they can avoid it, and test down to the column. Most people don't care, and most test aren't interested in column testing

Re: [PATCH] Make check_effective_target_c++ work for libstdc++

On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I've been working on some changes to let the libstdc++ testsuite use > the same approach as G++ to specify a minimum language dialect for > tests. That means instead of hardcoding { dg-options "-std=gnu++11" } > we can

Re: Implement -Wimplicit-fallthrough (take 2): fix missing breaks

On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > This is what the new warning pointed out. I think all these are bugs. > > --- gcc/libgo/runtime/heapdump.c > +++ gcc/libgo/runtime/heapdump.c > @@ -766,6 +766,7 @@ dumpefacetypes(void *obj __attribute__ ((unused)), >

Re: [Patch, testuite, committed] Fix some more tests that fail for non 32-bit int targets

On Jul 26, 2016, at 1:08 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > Is the below patch ok? Ok. Thanks. Such changes are trivial, usual and customary.

Re: GCC testsuite maintenance (was: [PATCH] Fix OpenACC vector_length parsing in fortran)

On Jul 25, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >>> No, we want to have as little churn as possible in existing tests, the >>> general policy is to add new tests (not just for OpenACC/OpenMP, but for >>> all

Re: GCC testsuite maintenance (was: [PATCH] Fix OpenACC vector_length parsing in fortran)

On Jul 25, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >>> No, we want to have as little churn as possible in existing tests, the >>> general policy is to add new tests (not just for OpenACC/OpenMP, but for >>> all

Re: [Patch, testuite, committed] Fix some more tests that fail for non 32-bit int targets

On Jul 25, 2016, at 5:00 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > > The below patch fixes tests that fail for the avr target, because they > assume ints are atleast 32 bits wide and pointers and longs have the > same size. > > I've required int32plus support

Re: [Patch, testsuite, tentative] Explicitly disable pointer <-> int cast warnings for avr?

On Jul 19, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > The patch fixes a couple of testsuite failures that show up for the > avr target because it has different sizes for longs and pointers (4 > bytes versus 2), by explicitly disabling the warning for

Re: [PATCH]: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_{,M}1{,U} some more

On Jul 19, 2016, at 5:46 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > The result of exercises with sed in gcc/ directory. > > 2016-07-19 Uros Bizjak > >* builtins.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_1 instead of (HOST_WIDE_INT) 1, >HOST_WIDE_INT_1U instead of (unsigned

Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback

> On Jul 11, 2016, at 7:44 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 07/08/2016 08:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hello >> >> Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html >> >> Ready after it finished regression tests?

Re: [PATCH, GCC/LRA] Teach LRA to not use same register value for multiple output operands of an insn

On Jul 8, 2016, at 8:07 AM, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > While investigating the root cause a testsuite regression for the > ARM/embedded-5-branch GCC in gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-5.c, we found that the bug > seems to also affect trunk. Hum... If in 6.x, and safe to

Re: Check fpic is ok for target in pr69102.c

On Jul 5, 2016, at 1:39 AM, Kito Cheng wrote: > > pr69102.c use -fPIC flag in dg-options but not check is available for > target, so I add "dg-require-effective-target fpic" for it.' I happened to notice you didn't ask Ok?, and you didn't apply it or have it applied. I'd

Re: [Driver] Add support for -fuse-ld=lld

On Jul 4, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2016.07.04 at 10:08 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Davide Italiano >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Davide Italiano >>>

Re: [PATCH PR c/71699] Handle pointer arithmetic in nonzero tree checks

On Jul 1, 2016, at 6:10 AM, Manish Goregaokar wrote: > > +} > \ No newline at end of file Minor nit, please end all files with a newline...

Re: [patch,avr]: ad PR71151: Make test cases pass on smaller targets.

On Jun 23, 2016, at 5:21 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > > 2. Even if (1) is fixed, the custom section (.foo) is not mapped to > any output section or region in the linker script. The linker can > error out only if the contents overflow a region. If the

Re: [patch,avr]: ad PR71151: Make test cases pass on smaller targets.

On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:00 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Binutils don't produce a message That's unfortunate. > so there is nothing to scan for. Hacking binutils is beyond my scope. That's fine. > avrtest behaves just as if the program under test would call abort. That's

Re: [PATCH 3/4] Add support to run auto-vectorization tests for multiple effective targets

On May 5, 2016, at 8:14 AM, Robert Suchanek wrote: > > I'm resending this patch as it has been rebased and updated. I reverted a > change > to check_effective_target_vect_call_lrint procedure because it does not use > cached result. Ok. Please ensure that the

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/testsuite, ping2] 29_atomics/atomic/65913.cc: require atomic-builtins rather than specific target

Please include the libstdc++ list, they don't all read the other list. Also, the patch or a link to the patch helps the reviewers find the patch, otherwise even finding the patch to review can be hard for some folks. Seems reasonable to me, though, I'd normally punt to the atomic people. > On

Re: [Patch, avr] Fix PR 71151

On Jun 23, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Maybe even check during configure whether an appropriate version of > Binutils is used? >> That would be nice, but is it ok to add target specific conditions to >> configure.ac? > > We already have avr-specific tests

Re: [patch,testsuite,avr]: Support dg-require-effective-target avr_3byte_pc (and use it with PR71151 tests).

On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:06 AM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > Please see target-utils.exp and ensure that the tools generate a stylized > message and then add support for that to target-utils.exp. Also, see return "::unsupported::memory full" in gcc-d

Re: [patch,testsuite,avr]: Support dg-require-effective-target avr_3byte_pc (and use it with PR71151 tests).

On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > Some tests for PR71151 assume that the target MCU has a 3-byte PC. The tests > are failing because the simulator (avrtest) rejects to load the respective > executables if .text exceeds 128KiB, e.g. for -mmcu=atmega128

Re: [PATCH] Implement -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits

On Jun 21, 2016, at 8:25 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > I implemented tests using both -fself-test and DejaGnu. > For the DejaGnu test coverage, I attempted to implement detection of the > output strings via existing directives, but after several hours of > failing, I instead

Re: [Patch, testsuite] Mark some more tests as UNSUPPORTED for avr

On Jun 20, 2016, at 2:13 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > > This patch fixes some bogus failures for the avr target by requiring > int32plus or ptr32plus support. > > Ok for trunk? Ok. If you feel comfortable making these sort of "obvious" changes, you

Re: [PATCH] PR52665 do not let .ident confuse assembler scan tests

On Jun 18, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > > A branch with a name matching scan-assembler pattern triggers > inappropriate FAIL. > The patch below adds -fno-ident if a testcase contains one of > scan-assembler, scan-assembler-not or

Re: Cilk Plus testsuite needs massive cleanup (PR testsuite/70595)

On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Ilya Verbin <iver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:19:47 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Apr 29, 2016, at 5:41 AM, Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> >> wrote: >>> diff --git a/gcc/config/darwin.h b/g

Re: [Patch, testsuite] Skip some more tests for targets with int size < 32

On Jun 8, 2016, at 6:14 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > > This patch requires int32plus support for a few more tests - these > were failing for the avr target. > If this is ok, could someone commit please? I don't have commit access. Ok. Committed

Re: [Patch, avr] Fix broken stack-usage-1.c test

On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:20 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > > I forgot to send this testcase modification with that patch - here's > the fix for making gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c pass again for avr. > > If this is ok, could someone commit please? I don't have

Re: [PATCH] gcc/config/tilegx/tilegx.c (tilegx_function_profiler): Save r10 to stack before call mcount

On May 29, 2016, at 3:39 AM, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote: > > r10 may also be as parameter for the nested function, so need save it > before call mcount. mcount can have a special abi where it preserves more registers than one would otherwise expect. I'm wondering if you know what

Re: [Patch, testsuite] Make some more tests xfail/pass/unsupported for avr

On May 25, 2016, at 6:23 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > If ok, could someone commit please? Ok. Committed revision 236741. > 2016-05-25 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj > > * c-c++-common/Wduplicated-cond-1.c: Use

Re: [Patch] Implement is_[nothrow_]swappable (p0185r1)

On May 24, 2016, at 9:50 PM, Daniel Krügler wrote: > > 2016-05-23 13:50 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely : >> On 17/05/16 20:39 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote: >>> >>> This is an implementation of the Standard is_swappable traits according to >>> >>>

Re: [PATCH] Clean up tests where a later dg-do completely overrides another.

On May 18, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 05/02/2016 10:24 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote: >> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:29:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 04/29/2016 05:56 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote: ... Maybe a comment should be added to the test case /*

Re: [PATCH, testsuite] Skip tail call tests on Thumb-1 targets

On May 25, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > > 2016-05-24 Thomas Preud'homme > >* gcc.dg/plugin/plugin.exp: skip tail call tests for Thumb-1. > Is this ok for trunk? Ok. Normally I'd just punt to the arm

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/70735 (static locals and generic lambdas)

On May 25, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >> I think: >> >> g++.dg/pr65295.C >> >> can be updated to use c++14 as well. It is the last one that needs updating. &

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/70735 (static locals and generic lambdas)

On May 24, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 23/05/2016 21:01, Jason Merrill wrote: >> +// PR c++/70735 >> +// { dg-do run { target c++1y } } >> + > [...] >> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ >> +// PR c++/70735 >> +// { dg-do run { target c++1y } } > I'm changing these c++1y

Re: PING^5 [PATCH, GCC 5] PR 70613, -fabi-version docs don't match implementation

On May 17, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > I thought I remembered mail going by that changes to a release branch require > RM approval too. For time to time, the RM can close any release branch at any time for any reason. :-) For example, a gcc 3.2.x

Re: [PATCH, wide-int] change fixed_wide_int_storage from class to struct

On May 15, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > Can we recommend that clang disable this warning by default instead? No. We want to ensure the class/struct tags match as there is no good reason to have them differ. > Or use an option flag to disable the warning while

Re: PING^5 [PATCH, GCC 5] PR 70613, -fabi-version docs don't match implementation

On May 16, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Jim Wilson wrote: >> This is my fifth ping. I just need someone to rubber stamp it so I >> can check it in. > > The documentation change looks fine, but as a documentation maintainer only

Re: PING^5 [PATCH, GCC 5] PR 70613, -fabi-version docs don't match implementation

Or, you can cc Jason directly, and ping it. His mailbox filtering has him reading a subset of the patches emails, (those with C++ as I recall), so this is likely the first time he has seen it. > On May 16, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Jim Wilson wrote: > > This is my fifth ping.

Re: [PATCH, wide-int] change fixed_wide_int_storage from class to struct

On May 15, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > While not a bug according to the language of the C++ standard, this > causes dozens of warnings when building GCC with clang, and there is > not benefit of mixing struct and class like this. > > Mike, when I had a similar

Re: [PATCH] Import config.sub and config.guess from upstream.

On May 14, 2016, at 1:15 AM, Jakub Sejdak wrote: > Then when those scripts get copied 'as they are' from GNU config? Only > for newly created branches? Only for trunk...

Re: [PATCH] Import config.sub and config.guess from upstream.

On May 13, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Jakub Sejdak wrote: > > OK I understand. So am I right, that in such a case there is no way to > introduce new OS targets to branch 4.9 and 5? No. You just hand edit in the bits you need for your port, and seek approval for that. In

Re: [Patch, testsuite] PR70227, skip g++.dg/lto/pr69589_0.C on targets without -rdynamic support

On May 13, 2016, at 6:53 AM, Jiong Wang wrote: > > This patch skip g++.dg/lto/pr69589_0.C on typical arm & aarch64 > bare-metal targets as they don't support "-rdynamic". > > OK for trunk? Ok.

Re: Enabling -frename-registers?

On May 5, 2016, at 6:00 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > > Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> >> Can you file a bugzilla entry with a testcase that folks can look at please ? > > I created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70961. Unfortunately > I don't have a simple

Re: Cilk Plus testsuite needs massive cleanup (PR testsuite/70595)

On Apr 29, 2016, at 5:41 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/config/darwin.h b/gcc/config/darwin.h > --- a/gcc/config/darwin.h > +++ b/gcc/config/darwin.h > @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ extern GTY(()) int darwin_ms_struct; >%{L*} %(link_libgcc) %o >

Re: Cilk Plus testsuite needs massive cleanup (PR testsuite/70595)

On Apr 29, 2016, at 5:41 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/config/darwin.h b/gcc/config/darwin.h > --- a/gcc/config/darwin.h > +++ b/gcc/config/darwin.h > @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ extern GTY(()) int darwin_ms_struct; > %{L*} %(link_libgcc) %o >

Re: [PATCH] Fix a recent warning in reorg.c

> On Apr 26, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > So pre ISO C++ gave the second decl the same scope as the first one? > that's... exciting ;) So, all the code in the world that is meant to be ported up the an ANSI standard for C++ has already been so ported, we

Re: Cilk Plus testsuite needs massive cleanup (PR testsuite/70595)

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:22 AM, Rainer Orth > wrote: > Will commit to mainline in a day or two, giving interested parties an > opportunity to comment. :-) Always nice to see cleanups.

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Expand vec_ld and vec_st during parsing to improve performance

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Looking into this a bit more reminded me why things are the way they > are. The AltiVec interfaces were designed way back to be overloaded > functions, which isn't valid C99. Thus they can't be declared in >

Re: [wwwdocs,Java] java/index.html -- fix formatting on gcc.gnu.org

> On Apr 16, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Soo, GCC 6 has branched -- would it make sense for you guys to > start this removal? No, the home page says: Status: 2016-03-10 (regression fixes & docs only). for gcc 7 (aka trunk). Technically, that should update

Re: [Patch, testsuite] Require int32plus and scheduling support for some tests

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 5:00 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj > wrote: > This patch add dg-require-effective-target directives to a few tests > that were failing unnecessarily for the AVR target. So the branch has been cut. We’re now in RM only mode. The change

Re: [PATCH][PR target/63890] Turn on ACCUMULATE_OUTGOING_ARGS when profiling on darwin

On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > I'm installing this on the trunk momentarily. Thank you for the review.

Re: [PATCH v2] sanitize paths used in regular expression

On Feb 8, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Zach Welch wrote: > > Ping. From what I see, my patch has not yet been committed. Can I talk > someone into taking care of that for me? I had hoped that someone would commit it for you. Committed revision 234533.

Re: [PATCH] Disable guality tests for powerpc*-linux*

On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > We have no plans to make code generation a slave to the testsuite. > The testsuite is a tool, successful results from the testsuite is not > a goal unto itself. > > This patch is okay. We look forward to the day when

Re: [PATCH] Disable guality tests for powerpc*-linux*

On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These > failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for > POWER, which is working fine. > Verified to remove hundreds of failure

Re: RFA [Patch] PR 45076 - [OOP] gfortran.dg/dynamic_dispatch_6.f03 ICEs with -fprofile-use

On Mar 11, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > AFAICT pr45076 is fixed on the gcc-4.9, gcc-5 branches, and trunk. I have > borrowed the machinery in g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp for the attached > patch and tested it on the three branches. Is it OK as such or

Re: [PATCH 2/2][GCC][ARM] Fix testcases after introduction of Cortex-R8

On Mar 9, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> I'm seeing a DejaGNU error while testing >> RUNTESTFLAGS="arm.exp=pr45701-*.c": >> ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "^-" does not exist. > 2016-03-09 Andre Vieira > > *

Re: [PATCH] libffi testsuite: Use split to ensure valid tcl list

On Feb 25, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:45:06 -0800, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Feb 25, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> >> wrote: >>> +

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

On Mar 3, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote: > I have revised the patch and removed the limits. I looked at the patch, I can find no more unreasonable limits! Wonderful. Hope someone will finish off the review and approve.

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

On Mar 3, 2016, at 6:21 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > What C standard can we assume for libiberty? I was looking at patching this > and discovered that SIZE_MAX is defined only for C99, so I'm leaning towards > retaining the ints and using INT_MAX. As long as you don’t need a

Re: [PATCH] Fix detection of setrlimit in libstdc++ testsuite

On Mar 2, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > PING ^ 2. The patch is sitting without comments for 4+ months. So the libstdc++ people are usually pretty active and responsive, I usually let them review these sorts of patches as domain experts. I only kick in if

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

On Mar 2, 2016, at 12:33 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote: > Please find attached the proposed patch for Bug 69687: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69687 > > * Limiting the length of the mangled string to 264k characters. No. This isn’t in the spirit of GNU

Re: [hsa,testsuite] New directory for HSA-specific C testcases

On Feb 26, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Martin Jambor wrote: > we would like a place to have some HSA-specific tests Sounds reasonable. > I have very little experience with tcl, expect or DejaGNU and would > appreciate very much any feedback or guidance of anyone more > experience in

Re: [hsa, testsuite] Suppress hsa warnings in libgomp tests

On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > What is the difference betwee the $flags and $default-extra-cflags > arguments to dg-runtest? You seem to stick -Wno-hsa into the former, > which to me looks like it will be mentioned as part of the test > names (e.g. when

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >