Hello,
another year is upon us and Google has announced there will be again
Google Summer of Code 2022 (though AFAIK there is no specific timeline
yet). I'd like to volunteer to be the main Org Admin for GCC again so
let me know if you think I shouldn't or that someone else should, but
otherwise
Snapshot gcc-9-20220106 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20220106/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Hello!
My name is Andras Tantos and I just joined this list, so if I'm asking
something off-topic or not following the rules of the community, please
let me know.
What I'm working on is to port GCC (and Binutils) to a new CPU ISA, I
call 'brew'. During developing for this target, I got the
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:13 PM Andras Tantos wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> My name is Andras Tantos and I just joined this list, so if I'm asking
> something off-topic or not following the rules of the community, please
> let me know.
>
> What I'm working on is to port GCC (and Binutils) to a new CPU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103927
Bug ID: 103927
Summary: ICE in a recursive class template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80ad67e2af0620d58d57d0406dc22693cf5b8ca9
commit r12-6278-g80ad67e2af0620d58d57d0406dc22693cf5b8ca9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
Bug ID: 103928
Summary: [12] ICE in get_insn_template, at final.c:2050
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103922
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, this was fixed by r276764 which is the big rewrite:
"Update the concepts implementation to conform to C++20."
Hi!
The following testcase used to be incorrectly accepted. The match.pd
optimization that uses address_compare punts on folding comparison
of start of one object and end of another one only when those addresses
are cast to integral types, when the comparison is done on pointer types
it assumes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103923
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The instantiation of unordered_map instantiates this alias:
template
using __cache_default
= __not_<__and_,
// Mandatory to have erase not throwing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
--- Comment #3 from Manuel Lauss ---
You're right, I too can only reproduce it on the bdver4 machine itself, not on
e.g. a Zen or Haswell host. I'll rebuild gcc-12 on the bdver4 host again.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 05:52:03PM +0800, Zhao Wei Liew wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 17:55, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:42 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 10:38:53AM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 5,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103923
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Here's a minimal program showing the underlying problem:
template
struct C
{
};
struct T {
struct H {
auto operator()() const { return 0; }
};
C c;
};
T t;
103923.C:1:43: error: use of 'auto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
--- Comment #5 from Manuel Lauss ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> (In reply to Manuel Lauss from comment #3)
> > You're right, I too can only reproduce it on the bdver4 machine itself, not
> > on e.g. a Zen or Haswell host.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> No, bdver4 does not include XOP.
Ohh, didn't know that...
Hi!
The threader changes resulted in a false positive warning during
profiledbootstrap:
In file included from ../../gcc/expr.c:26:
../../gcc/tree.h: In function ‘rtx_def* expand_expr_real_1(tree, rtx,
machine_mode, expand_modifier, rtx_def**, bool)’:
../../gcc/tree.h:244:56: error: ‘context’ may
Hi!
Immediate functions should never be emitted into assembly, the FE doesn't
genericize them and does various things to ensure they aren't gimplified.
But the following testcase ICEs anyway due to that, because the consteval
function returns a lambda, and operator() of the lambda has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82125
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shlomo at fastmail dot com
---
Also remove mode attribute blendsuf, use ssemodesuf instead.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu{-m32,}.
Ready to push to trunk.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/103753
* config/i386/i386-expand.c (ix86_expand_vector_set): Not use
gen_avx2_pblendph_pblendd when elt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45272
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Do you suggest using sreal, or something else?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103923
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103908
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103583
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82125
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
>From PR 103583:
Compiling the following with gcc -c:
struct A {
int *begin();
// int *end();
};
void foo(A a) {
for (auto it : a) { }
}
shows two error messages:
error: ‘begin’ was not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103927
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
On 05/01/2022 14:47, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ wrote:
Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
This moves the last two template parameters of __regex_algo_impl to be
runtime function parameters instead, so that we don't need four
different instantiations for the possible ways to call it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Then you may be affected by PR103905 which is fixed on the current master.
> Please pull to tip of master branch.
No, bdver4 does not include XOP.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103927
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103923
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is another case of https://wg21.link/cwg2335
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 17:55, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:42 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 10:38:53AM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:18 AM Zhao Wei Liew
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > X >= -1 && X <= 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103923
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If I change the __cache_default trait to be:
template
using __cache_default
= __bool_constant::value // Do not cache for fast
hasher.
// Mandatory to have erase not throwing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #30 from Andrew Cooper ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #27)
>
> x86: Add -mharden-sls=[none|all|return|indirect-branch]
>
It occurs to me that `indirect-branch` needs renaming to be `indirect-jmp` as
the logic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103465
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #18)
> The fix does more harm than good though since it disables
> -freorder-blocks-and-partition entirely for 64-bit Windows.
Can you be more concrete about what's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63281
--- Comment #21 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Also had a test on powerpc, -m32. As testing, it seems no significant benefit
loading from 'rodata' vs. building constants by instructions.
lis %r7,0x410
ori %r7,%r7,0x103c
lis
Hello,
commit aa2c978400f3b3ca6e9f2d18598a379589e77ba0, introduced per
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/545552.html
makes references to __cxa_pure_virtual weak and this is causing
issues on some VxWorks configurations, where weak symbols are only
supported for one of the two
On 1/5/22 15:36, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 05/01/2022 13:04, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 1/5/22 12:08, Tom de Vries wrote:
The allocators-1.c test-case doesn't compile because:
...
FAIL: libgomp.c/allocators-1.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Manuel Lauss from comment #3)
> You're right, I too can only reproduce it on the bdver4 machine itself, not
> on e.g. a Zen or Haswell host. I'll rebuild gcc-12 on the bdver4 host again.
How
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103928
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Then you may be affected by PR103905 which is fixed on the current master.
Please pull to tip of master branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103526
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11146
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
So we were doing:
Define the macros @sc{__gnuc__}, @sc{__gnuc_minor__}
Where texi2pod.pl does:
s/\@sc\{([^\}]*)\}/\U$1/g;
Which should be fine. It should have replaced @sc{__gnuc__} with __GNUC__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103802
--- Comment #6 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> So the point is that P is invariant but we do not hoist it because it's
> computed in a (estimated) cold block? I notice that the condition is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25751
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
template struct gg{};
int main(void)
{
gg v;
v.begin();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78104
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103840
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103847
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11146
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 86354, which changed state.
Bug 86354 Summary: Address comparison not a constant expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86354
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86354
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94716
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pdimov at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
On 1/5/22 13:34, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:02 PM Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/30/21 12:17, Richard Biener wrote:
I'd like to see the gswitch support - that's what was posted before stage3
close, this patch on its own doesn't seem worth pushing for. That said,
I have some
Happy New Year for 2022. This is a simple patch, now that the
nvptx backend has transitioned to STORE_FLAG_VALUE=1, that adds
support for NVidia's cnot instruction, that implements C/C++
style logical negation.
Previously, the simple function:
int foo(int x) { return !x; }
on nvptx-none with
For pretty-printing of GNAT AST we had a custom hash table which stored
visited nodes. Now this custom hash table is replaced with an instance
of GNAT.Dynamic_Tables.Dynamic_Hash_Tables. Expansion and compression
factors for this table are the same as for all other instances of
Dynamic_Hash_Tables
Code cleanup; behaviour is unaffected.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* treepr.adb (Visit_Node): Simplify repeated call to
Next_Entity.diff --git a/gcc/ada/treepr.adb b/gcc/ada/treepr.adb
--- a/gcc/ada/treepr.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/treepr.adb
@@ -2305,8
In package Stringt we already have a Null_String_Id, which represents a
null string with length zero. There is no need to duplicate it in other
packages.
Cleanup originating from enabling expansion of dispatching wrappers for
GNATprove; semantics is unaffected.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
All compile-time messages about division by zero are now located at the
right operand. Previously some of them were located at the division
operator, which was inconsistent.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* sem_eval.adb (Eval_Arithmetic_Op): Add Loc parameter
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 10:22 AM liuhongt via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Also remove mode attribute blendsuf, use ssemodesuf instead.
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu{-m32,}.
> Ready to push to trunk.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> PR target/103753
> *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #62 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But that's off topic for GCC's bugzilla, please try to focus.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #65 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #62)
> But that's off topic for GCC's bugzilla, please try to focus.
Is that because
#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_FENV_H
# include
#endif
here _GLIBCXX_HAVE_FENV_H in the
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 10:33, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 10:00, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2022 14:47, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ wrote:
>> > Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
>> >
>> >
>> > This moves the last two template parameters of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45272
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Do you suggest using sreal, or something else?
MPFR? See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45273#c6 for the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Hi Joseph,
> All targets with _Float128 should have __builtin_nansf128, since we have
> DEF_GCC_FLOATN_NX_BUILTINS (BUILT_IN_NANS, "nans", NAN_TYPE,
> ATTR_CONST_NOTHROW_NONNULL)
> in builtins.def.
Hum, I see, I didn’t know that version existed. To be honest, I find the “other
built-ins” doc
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 08:53 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-12-19 at 22:30 +0100, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> > This patch fixes a memory leak in the pass manager. In the existing
> > code,
> > the m_name_to_pass_map is allocated in
> > pass_manager::register_pass_name, but
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103923
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61611
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103600
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|102551 |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102551
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103911
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c83ecfbe74a5cf107642b9c5e1680b548ff1a0e1
commit r12-6281-gc83ecfbe74a5cf107642b9c5e1680b548ff1a0e1
Author: Jonathan Wakely
> The final index into (ira_)memory_move_cost is 1 for loads and
> 0 for stores. Thus the combination:
>
> entry_freq * memory_cost[1] + exit_freq * memory_cost[0]
>
> is the cost of loading a register on entry to a loop and
> storing it back on exit from the loop. This is the cost to
> use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69681
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77911
Bug 77911 depends on bug 69681, which changed state.
Bug 69681 Summary: C/C++ FEs do not consider comparisons of distinct function
pointers to be constant expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69681
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 69681, which changed state.
Bug 69681 Summary: C/C++ FEs do not consider comparisons of distinct function
pointers to be constant expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69681
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 77911, which changed state.
Bug 77911 Summary: Comparing function pointers in a constexpr function can
produce an error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77911
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #52 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Aladjev from comment #35)
> Hello cqwrteur, do you have an influence on core gcc developers?
He has negative influence. The more he comments on a bug, the less likely I am
to even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 89367, which changed state.
Bug 89367 Summary: Constexpr expression is not constexpr in template, but is
constexpr in non-template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
What|Removed
On 1/6/22 11:02, Martin Liška wrote:
On 1/6/22 16:11, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 1/5/22 07:34, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:02 PM Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/30/21 12:17, Richard Biener wrote:
+ unswitch_predicate *predicate
+ = new
Committed with minor changelog fix
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:52 PM Kito Cheng wrote:
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.c (riscv_implied_info): Add
> vector extensions.
> (riscv_ext_version_table): Add version info for vector extensions.
>
Committed
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:51 PM Kito Cheng wrote:
>
> RISC-V spec only allow alphabetical name for extension before, however
> vector extension add several extension named with digits, so we try to
> extend the naming rule.
>
> Ref:
> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/pull/718
This proves the generic unit System.Exponu instantiated for Unsigned,
Long_Long_Unsigned and Long_Long_Long_Unsigned. The proof is simpler
than the one for signed integers, as there are no possible overflows
here.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
*
Analysis of loop variant is known to lead to false alarms with CodePeer.
Add pragma Annotate in such a case which can be justified.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* libgnat/s-exponu.adb (Exponu): Add annotation.diff --git a/gcc/ada/libgnat/s-exponu.adb
This patch fixes an issue in the compiler whereby it fails to recognize
the presence of a current instance of an incomplete type when the
instance is used within a default expression for a record component.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* exp_ch3.adb
The previous fix introduced a not-yet-understood regression in compiling
CodePeer. For now, we attempt a quick workaround for the problem.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* sem_util.adb (Build_Discriminant_Reference): In the unexpected
case where we
Cleanup related to handling of -gnatwE (warnings-as-errors) in instances
of generic units.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* err_vars.ads (Warn_On_Instance): Remove; it was a relic from
the previous handling of warning in instances that was removed
When going to the outer level for the placement of a freeze node in the
case where the current package has no body, the previous change would
overlook instantiations whose body has not materialized yet.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* sem_ch12.adb
Cleanup related to handling of warnings-as-errors. Semantics is
unaffected.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* errout.adb (Remove_Warning_Messages): Use traversal procedure
instead of traversal function, since we discard status of each
step
Proof of the generic unit to array operations (vector/matrix), only at
silver level, for runtime errors that come from the generic part of the
unit. This does not prove e.g. absence of overflows in an instantiation
related to arithmetic operations passed as formal generic subprogram
parameters.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #61 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Alexander von Gluck from comment #56)
> Canadian builds are pretty important in GCC.
>
> clang doesn't really need Canadian builds since they support all targets out
> of the box on every
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #33 from Andrew Cooper ---
Looks good to me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #66 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #63)
> so what's your solution to fix this problem? Are we going to fix it after
> GCC13?
I'm working on it right now, but it would help if you would just shut the
1 - 100 of 358 matches
Mail list logo
