The default C library is normally computed based on the target
triplet. However, for embedded systems, it can be useful to leave the
triplet alone while changing which C library is used by default. Other
C libraries may still be available on the system so the compiler and
can be used by specifying
This option allows targets to insert an OS library after the C library
in the LIB_PATH spec file fragment. This library maps a few POSIX APIs
used by picolibc to underlying system capabilities.
For example, picolibc provides 'libsemihost' on various targets which
maps these APIs to semihosting
Picolibc is a C library for embedded systems based on code from newlib
and avr libc. To connect some system-dependent picolibc functions
(like stdio) to an underlying platform, the platform may provide an OS
library.
This OS library must follow the C library in the link command line. In
current
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
---
gcc/config.gcc | 11 ++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
index 0679a76bebb..84bca8df615 100644
--- a/gcc/config.gcc
+++ b/gcc/config.gcc
@@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ case ${target} in
esac
# Common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108675
Bug ID: 108675
Summary: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/*printf.c when
stdio.h includes definitions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On 2/4/23 20:41, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/4/23 20:08, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/4/23 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
After r13-5684-g59e0376f607805 the (pruned) callee of a non-dependent
CALL_EXPR is a bare FUNCTION_DECL rather than ADDR_EXPR of
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsadd_vv-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsadd_vv-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsadd_vv-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsadd_vv_m-1.c: New test.
*
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsaddu_vv-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsaddu_vv-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsaddu_vv-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsaddu_vv_m-1.c: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssub_vv-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssub_vv-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssub_vv-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssub_vv_m-1.c: New test.
*
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssubu_vv-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssubu_vv-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssubu_vv-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssubu_vv_m-1.c: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssubu_vv-1.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssubu_vv-2.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssubu_vv-3.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssubu_vv_mu-1.C: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssub_vv-1.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssub_vv-2.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssub_vv-3.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vssub_vv_mu-1.C: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsaddu_vv-1.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsaddu_vv-2.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsaddu_vv-3.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsaddu_vv_mu-1.C: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsadd_vv-1.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsadd_vv-2.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsadd_vv-3.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsadd_vv_mu-1.C: New test.
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/binop_vx_constraint-100.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/binop_vx_constraint-101.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/binop_vx_constraint-102.c: New test.
*
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/iterators.md: Add saturating Addition && Subtraction.
* config/riscv/riscv-v.cc (has_vi_variant_p): Ditto.
* config/riscv/riscv-vector-builtins-bases.cc (BASE): Ditto.
* config/riscv/riscv-vector-builtins-bases.h:
On 2/4/23 20:08, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/4/23 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
After r13-5684-g59e0376f607805 the (pruned) callee of a non-dependent
CALL_EXPR is a bare FUNCTION_DECL rather than ADDR_EXPR of FUNCTION_DECL.
This innocent change revealed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
--- Comment #10 from Roman Lebedev ---
Created attachment 54409
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54409=edit
the patch
I'm not at all familiar with the GCC's preferred patch protocol,
this is the result of `git format-patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
--- Comment #9 from Roman Lebedev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #0)
> > I believe in the version 12, a new instance of such intentional wraparound
> > was introduced into libstdc++:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/4/23 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > After r13-5684-g59e0376f607805 the (pruned) callee of a non-dependent
> > CALL_EXPR is a bare FUNCTION_DECL rather than ADDR_EXPR of FUNCTION_DECL.
> > This innocent change revealed that cp_tree_equal doesn't
Hi,
this patch enables AVX512 by default on Zen4. While internally 512
registers are splits into two 256 halves, 512 bit vectors reduces number
of instructions to retire and has chance to improve paralelism.
There are few tsvc benchmarks that improves significantly:
runtime
benchmark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #3)
> This is incorrect.
> unsigned-integer-overflow is *NOT* enabled by -fsanitize=undefined
> It is enabled by -fsanitize=integer, separately.
> I'm not enabling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #0)
> I believe in the version 12, a new instance of such intentional wraparound
> was introduced into libstdc++: https://godbolt.org/z/rq153fxKW
No, that code is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2016-07/msg00051.html .
Sorry when I said 5 years I meant 7 years.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
> This is quite the hot take.
Hot take from 5 years ago. See te other bugs I referenced and even the mailing
list emails that are referenced from there. Rather clang is the one who decided
this breaking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97844
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 108674 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
Roman Lebedev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 21:23 Christopher Bazley, wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc,
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Does the lack of support for Clang's nullability qualifiers in GCC
>>> indicate
>>> a greater
On 2/4/23 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
After r13-5684-g59e0376f607805 the (pruned) callee of a non-dependent
CALL_EXPR is a bare FUNCTION_DECL rather than ADDR_EXPR of FUNCTION_DECL.
This innocent change revealed that cp_tree_equal doesn't first check
dependentness of a CALL_EXPR before treating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97844
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 108674 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a bug in clang in the first place for enabling
unsigned-integer-overflow at all.
I would file a bug with clang to disable unsigned-integer-overflow by default
when using -fsanitize=undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
Bug ID: 108674
Summary: [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!)
unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Snapshot gcc-12-20230204 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20230204/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108671
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc,
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Does the lack of support for Clang's nullability qualifiers in GCC
>> indicate
>> a greater likelihood for my proposed feature to be accepted into GCC?
>
>
> No, I
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc,
wrote:
>
> Does the lack of support for Clang's nullability qualifiers in GCC indicate
> a greater likelihood for my proposed feature to be accepted into GCC?
No, I don't think so. I think it would be better to support the same
qualifiers
This patch (primarily) documents the VEC_PERM_EXPR tree code in
generic.texi. For ease of review, it is provided below as a pair
of diffs. The first contains just the new text added to describe
VEC_PERM_EXPR, the second tidies up this part of the documentation
by sorting the tree codes into
After r13-5684-g59e0376f607805 the (pruned) callee of a non-dependent
CALL_EXPR is a bare FUNCTION_DECL rather than ADDR_EXPR of FUNCTION_DECL.
This innocent change revealed that cp_tree_equal doesn't first check
dependentness of a CALL_EXPR before treating the callee as a dependent
name, which
I ran into this by chance and found there are probably quite a bit
more parts of https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/beginner.html that should
be removed.
Any volunteers to have a look? (Jeff, maybe you can help trim this a bit?)
Gerald
---
htdocs/projects/beginner.html | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108672
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72058eea9d407edc85558efc76cde5ceb1d06b0a
commit r13-5702-g72058eea9d407edc85558efc76cde5ceb1d06b0a
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > Reduced testcase:
>
> Interestingly Clang also rejects this testcase, so I'm not sure if we were
> correct to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #9)
> If we remove the line #1 then this bogus error disappears.
The line 'B b;' rather.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Reduced testcase:
Interestingly Clang also rejects this testcase, so I'm not sure if we were
correct to accept it previously.
Here's a more reduced testcase
In August, I had an idea for a C language extension to improve null pointer
safety. The tl;dr is that whereas a pointer-to-const may have undefined
behaviour on write access, a pointer-to-_Optional may have undefined
behaviour on read or write access. I shared this proposal with my
colleagues,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70536
--- Comment #6 from Ed Catmur ---
Resubmitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611366.html
Hopefully this time I'll remember to save the email for pinging.
Per http://wiki.dwarfstd.org/index.php?title=C%2B%2B0x:_Variadic_templates
DW_TAG_GNU_formal_parameter_pack should have a DW_AT_name:
17$: DW_TAG_formal_parameter_pack
DW_AT_name("args")
18$: DW_TAG_formal_parameter
! no DW_AT_name attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I should mention, this also fails:
print *, [real:: ((/2, 3/))] ** 2
So we also have to deal with this. I think I have it figured out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108673
Christian Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||franke at computer dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106209
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e58d94ac56127ebca3a893284455032a707d948
commit r11-10505-g8e58d94ac56127ebca3a893284455032a707d948
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108529
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60032329cde87a7505b7784e1dcfb09574ee2e90
commit r11-10506-g60032329cde87a7505b7784e1dcfb09574ee2e90
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108420
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c3985fd624053502b0aad85132982b4f8970811a
commit r11-10501-gc3985fd624053502b0aad85132982b4f8970811a
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76a6f8470c8c786b271cb0d897de891fe0d4043f
commit r11-10504-g76a6f8470c8c786b271cb0d897de891fe0d4043f
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7ec0bdfeae883d852d7c0dfc67766a3793f5892
commit r11-10503-gd7ec0bdfeae883d852d7c0dfc67766a3793f5892
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108421
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2235737a967c9eeabe7b02ffb014d8efef3276af
commit r11-10502-g2235737a967c9eeabe7b02ffb014d8efef3276af
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108453
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be8003ffcfb02dd8ef49ffec01bf96da2d973bc2
commit r11-10500-gbe8003ffcfb02dd8ef49ffec01bf96da2d973bc2
Author: Harald Anlauf
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 13:12 François Dumont via Libstdc++, <
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On 03/02/23 15:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 18:38, François Dumont
> wrote:
> >> Let's submit a proper patch proposal then.
> >>
> >> The occasion for me to ask if there is any
On 03/02/23 15:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 18:38, François Dumont wrote:
Let's submit a proper patch proposal then.
The occasion for me to ask if there is any reason for cow string not
being C++11 allocator compliant ? Just lack of interest ?
Mostly lack of interest,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108673
Bug ID: 108673
Summary: ICE with -fstack-clash-protection and noreturn
attribute on x86_64-w64-mingw32
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
I can only go back as far as 20221028, when the git tree was installed.
$ /home/dcb36/gcc/results.20221028/bin/gcc -w -O3 -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero
bug880.c
$ ./a.out
checksum = BCC02729
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #5)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> > Also, the possible bug seems to have first occurred sometime before 20230103
>
> Also before 20221201:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> Also, the possible bug seems to have first occurred sometime before 20230103
Also before 20221201:
$ /home/dcb36/gcc/results.20221201/bin/gcc -w -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
Summary|[12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 03:20 Hans-Peter Nilsson via Libstdc++, <
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> Tested cris-elf and native x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> Ok to commit?
>
Yes, we already do this with other stdint.h types when we don't want to
include stdint.h if we don't *really* need all of it.
OK,
69 matches
Mail list logo
