> > That leaves 2, 4, and 5.
> >
> > 2. I am pretty sure xobj functions should have the struct they are a
> > part of recorded as the method basetype member. I have already checked
> > that function_type and method_type are the same node type under the
> > hood and it does appear to be, so it
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:14:20 +0100
> reload and constrain_operands had some old code to look through unary
> operators. E.g. an operand could be (sign_extend (reg X)), and the
> constraints would match the reg rather than the sign_extend.
>
> This was previously
LGTM.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: pan2.li
Date: 2023-11-03 11:26
To: gcc-patches
CC: juzhe.zhong; pan2.li; yanzhang.wang; kito.cheng
Subject: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Refactor prefix [I/L/LL] rounding API autovec
iterator
From: Pan Li
Update in v2:
* Add mode size equal check to disable
From: Pan Li
Update in v2:
* Add mode size equal check to disable different mode size when expand,
because the underlying codegen is not implemented yet.
Original log:
The previous rounding API start with i/l/ll only works on the same
mode types. For example as below, and we arrange the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112263
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/635073.html
On 10/28/23 00:07, waffl3x wrote:
I wanted to change DECL_NONSTATIC_MEMBER_FUNCTION_P to include explicit
object member functions, but it had some problems when I made the
modification. I also noticed that it's used in cp-objcp-common.cc so
would making changes to it be a bad idea?
-- cp-tree.h
The libbacktrace sources, as used by libstdc++-v3, fail to correctly
determine whether the system supports dl_iterate_phdr. The issue is
that the libbacktrace configure assumes that _GNU_SOURCE is defined
during compilation, but the libstdc++-v3 configure does not do that.
This configury failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
As Andrew said, if there's a test that depends on behavior of -INT_MIN, then
the test needs to be fixed. That's undefined behavior.
On 11/2/23 03:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 07:05:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp26/literals1.C.jj 2023-08-25 17:23:06.662878355
+0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp26/literals1.C 2023-08-25 17:37:03.085132304
+0200
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+//
Oh, this also fixes PR102284 and its other linked PRs (apart from
fields); I forgot to note that in the commit.
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 12:18:29PM +1100, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86-64_pc_linux_gnu.
>
> I'm not entirely sure if the change I made to have destructors
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86-64_pc_linux_gnu.
I'm not entirely sure if the change I made to have destructors clobber with
CLOBBER_EOL instead of CLOBBER_UNDEF is appropriate, but nothing seemed to have
broken by doing this and I wasn't able to find anything else that really
depended on this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112326
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112326
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ea3c039b784b0676323243940fd9916b1f6d540
commit r14-5092-g5ea3c039b784b0676323243940fd9916b1f6d540
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Fri Nov 3
With compile option --param=riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax, we have
redundant AVL/VL toggling:
vsetvli a5,a3,e8,mf4,ta,ma -> should be changed into e32m1
vle32.v v1,0(a1)
vle32.v v2,0(a0)
vsetivlizero,4,e32,m1,ta,ma -> redundant
slli
Thanks Patrick.
It caused by the underlying codegen is not implemented but expand modes opened.
Revert it first to unblock others and will fix it ASAP.
Pan
From: Patrick O'Neill
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 6:57 AM
To: Li, Pan2 ; juzhe.zhong
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Wang, Yanzhang ;
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
>
> If I understand correctly, the major question we need to answer is:
>
> For the following example: (Jakub mentioned this in an early message)
>
> 1 struct S { int a; char b __attribute__((counted_by
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:00 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of
Robin Dapp writes:
>> Looks reasonable overall. The new match patterns are 1:1 the
>> same as the COND_ ones. That's a bit awkward, but I don't see
>> a good way to "macroize" stuff further there. Can you at least
>> interleave the COND_LEN_* ones with the other ones instead of
>> putting them
Testcases in g++.dg/vect rely on check_vect_support_and_set_flags
to set dg-do-what-default and avoid running vector tests on non-vector
targets. The three testcases in this patch overwrite the default with
dg-do run.
Removing the dg-do run directive resolves this issue for non-vector
targets
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 6:52 AM Robin Dapp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> as described in PR111401 we currently emit a COND and a PLUS expression
> for conditional reductions. This makes it difficult to combine both
> into a masked reduction statement later.
> This patch improves that by directly emitting a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112358
Bug ID: 112358
Summary: [14 Regression] glibc -Wstringop-overflow= build
failure
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On 11/1/2023 11:53 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/1/23 12:17, Edwin Lu wrote:
Now that all insns are guaranteed to have a type, ensure every insn
is associated with a cpu unit/insn reservation.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_sched_variable_issue): add disabled
assert
OK.
Hi Pan,
This patch is causing new failures (ICEs) on trunk:
https://github.com/patrick-rivos/gcc-postcommit-ci/issues/110
Pre-commit CI run:
https://github.com/ewlu/gcc-precommit-ci/issues/553#issuecomment-1790688172
New rv32gcv failures:
|FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/fast-math-bb-slp-call-2.c (internal
Thanks Robin.
Committed with change nuints into nunits
and change mode_idx into 0 for vnshift and vnclip.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-11-02 23:18
To: Juzhe-Zhong; gcc-patches
CC: rdapp.gcc; kito.cheng; kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] RISC-V: Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111931
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #12)
> signbit execution issue should be ignored. It's ISA issue not compiler issue.
>
> I knew this issue long time ago and confirm Clang has the sam issue:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111401
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87281
--- Comment #15 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 56496
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56496=edit
Test that started failing on 20 July 2023
Another instance of this ICE appeared in my glibc bot on 20 July;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87281
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-06-14 00:00:00 |2023-11-2
Target Milestone|---
Snapshot gcc-11-20231102 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20231102/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #12 from JuzheZhong ---
signbit execution issue should be ignored. It's ISA issue not compiler issue.
I knew this issue long time ago and confirm Clang has the sam issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112316
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c1d011bc1f8b26dba4ebcbd4a429628dfb2698d
commit r14-5088-g7c1d011bc1f8b26dba4ebcbd4a429628dfb2698d
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Thu
On 2 November 2023 11:25:47 CET, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 10:23, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 02 2023, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> > Git tags are cheap, but I can imagine a concern about hundreds of new
>> > tags "littering" the output of 'git tag -l'. I don't _think_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112357
Bug ID: 112357
Summary: Documentation for vect-max-peeling-for-alignment
references -1 but -1 does not work
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97245
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ASSOCIATE intrinsic does|ASSOCIATED intrinsic does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #11 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #10)
> As a general remark: Some of those are present on other backends as well,
> some have been introduced by recent common-code changes and some are bogus
> test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112356
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is we can't use `(match min_value` here but rather we need to
change it from:
```
(for eqne (eq ne)
(simplify
(bit_and:c (gt:c@2 @0 @1) (eqne @0 min_value))
```
to:
```
(for eqne (eq ne)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112356
Bug ID: 112356
Summary: `x == MIN & x > y` is not optimized to 0 if x was
casted to signed from unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 19:58, Ben Sherman wrote:
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, please let me know if there's anything
> else needed. I haven't contributed before and don't have write access, so
> apologies if I've missed anything.
This was https://gcc.gnu.org/PR109703 (and several
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109740
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Goomenuk ---
Created attachment 56495
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56495=edit
Overloaded virtual testcase
Another relevant issue with gcc (GCC) 13.2.1 20231011 (Red Hat 13.2.1-4) and
Hello All:
Currently code sinking heuristics are based on profile data like
basic block count and sink frequency threshold. We have removed
such heuristics and added register pressure heuristics based on
live-in and live-out of early blocks and immediate dominator of
use blocks of the same loop
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 8:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 12:52:50PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> What I meant is to emit
>>> tmp_4 = .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE ([0], , (typeof ()) 0);
>>> p_5 = _4[2];
>>> i.e. don't associate the pointer with a value of the size, but with
>>>
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 7:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:40 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Or, if we want to pay further price, .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE could take as one of
the arguments not the size
Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
If I understand correctly, the major question we need to answer is:
For the following example: (Jakub mentioned this in an early message)
1 struct S { int a; char b __attribute__((counted_by (a))) []; };
2 struct S s;
3 s.a = 5;
4 char *p = [2];
Hi Paul,
Am 02.11.23 um 19:18 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas:
Hi Harald,
I was overthinking the problem. The rejected cases led me to a fix that can
only be described as a considerable simplification compared with the first
patch!
this patch is *much* simpler, makes more sense, and works here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112301
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae07265381d934ee97fb1ce8915731158c91babc
commit r14-5086-gae07265381d934ee97fb1ce8915731158c91babc
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102191
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae07265381d934ee97fb1ce8915731158c91babc
commit r14-5086-gae07265381d934ee97fb1ce8915731158c91babc
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112301
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae07265381d934ee97fb1ce8915731158c91babc
commit r14-5086-gae07265381d934ee97fb1ce8915731158c91babc
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
-- 8< --
I noticed we were using a hash_table directly here instead of the simpler
hash_set interface. Also, let's check for the variable itself and repeats
earlier, since they should happen more often than any of the other cases.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
-- 8< --
In r12-6333 for PR33799, I fixed the example in [except.ctor]/2. In that
testcase, the exception is caught and the function returns again,
successfully.
In this testcase, however, the exception is rethrown, and hits two separate
cleanups:
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, please let me know if there's anything
else needed. I haven't contributed before and don't have write access, so
apologies if I've missed anything.
-- >8 --
The basic_string input iterator constructor incrementally reads data and
allocates the internal buffer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No spills on rv64 either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
For last 2 weeks I pushed several patches for better dealing with equivalences
in RA.
It seems the patches solves the current PR. I checked the test code generation
for loongarch and aarch64 and did
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112350
Bug ID: 112350
Summary: gcc is not triggering a dangling reference indicating
stack use after return
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jose Dapena Paz from comment #2)
> In any case, the failing test is actually passing -1, my understanding is
> that that one should always assert no matter what we are passing as const
>
Testcases in gfortran.dg/vect/vect.exp rely on
check_vect_support_and_set_flags to set dg-do-what-default and avoid
running vector tests on non-vector targets. The three testcases in this
patch overwrite the default with dg-do run which causes issues
for non-vector targets.
Removing the dg-do run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106849
--- Comment #3 from David Stone ---
Oh, as per https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112355#c3 it's just
that the 13.2 build isn't checked, so it's not a new bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106849
--- Comment #2 from David Stone ---
Looks like it works in 13.2 but fails in trunk.
13.2: https://godbolt.org/z/d54ToW7zW
trunk: https://godbolt.org/z/eej9d7ccM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112355
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Stone from comment #1)
> Looks like this is a new bug in trunk. Works in 13.2
It is not, just extra checking is enabled by default when compiling the trunk
(unless you use the configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 112355, which changed state.
Bug 112355 Summary: Internal compiler error when exporting using declaration of
function template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112355
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112355
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106849
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidfromonline at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112355
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidfromonline at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112355
Bug ID: 112355
Summary: Internal compiler error when exporting using
declaration of function template
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102138
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is the generic solution to what was done to fix PR 104639.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Sam James wrote:
> maintainer-scripts/
> * gcc_release: Cleanup whitespace.
OK.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Sam James wrote:
> maintainer-scripts/
> * gcc_release: Use HTTPS for links.
OK.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #11 from Martin Uecker ---
In this case this is by design because the size of an element should be second
argument to calloc. ("The calloc function allocates space for an array of nmemb
objects, each of whose size is size.")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102138
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
When this patch was tested, did that include a build of libgfortran ?
I am getting some strange new warnings:
../../../trunk.year/libgfortran/io/async.c:265:24: warning: allocation of
insufficient size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112335
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #10 from Robin Dapp ---
As a general remark: Some of those are present on other backends as well, some
have been introduced by recent common-code changes and some are bogus test
prerequisites or checks. I'm not saying we are in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112337
--- Comment #4 from Stam Markianos-Wright ---
Bisected to f55cdce3f8dd8503e080e35be59c5f5390f6d95e
Attached preprocessed source and a creduced-reproducer of it
On 2 November 2023 18:06:54 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov
wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 2023, at 21:02, rep.dot@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi Maxim!
>>
>> Many thanks for the patch! Quick question below..
>>
>> On 2 November 2023 13:48:55 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov
>> wrote:
>>> ... to restore compatability with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112096
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase:
```
int f(int a, int b, int d)
{
bool t = a == 0;
bool t1 = d == 0;
int c = a + b;
if (t & t1) return b;
return c;
}
int f1(int a, int b, int d)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jose Dapena Paz from comment #5)
> - The length is less than the possible pointer difference (checked with
> numeric_limits).
That seems too lenient to me, because for wchar_t, char16_t and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112353
Bug ID: 112353
Summary: asan-enabled, aarch64-gcc cross-compiled elf
executables fail ro run in qemu-user on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112354
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110116
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE |[12/13 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #8 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Updated regression list using r14-5070-g4ea36076d66 on rv64gcv:
=== gcc: Unexpected fails for rv64gcv lp64d medlow ===
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/memset-3.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112353
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/1470
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112354
Bug ID: 112354
Summary: mismatched types 'B' and 'B&' for generic
lambda noexcept-specifier referencing enclosing
function parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112349
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112350
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
With optimization enabled and without -fsanitize=address we get:
: In function 'const int& foo1()':
:12:18: warning: using a dangling pointer to 'x' [-Wdangling-pointer=]
12 | return s.get();
Hi Harald,
I was overthinking the problem. The rejected cases led me to a fix that can
only be described as a considerable simplification compared with the first
patch!
The testcase now reflects the requirements of the standard and
regtests without failures.
OK for mainline?
Thanks
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 56494
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56494=edit
Check [ptr,end) and [ptr,ptr+n) ranges with _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
With this change we could add:
rep.dot@gmail.com writes:
> On 2 November 2023 18:06:54 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov
> wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 2023, at 21:02, rep.dot@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Maxim!
>>>
>>> Many thanks for the patch! Quick question below..
>>>
>>> On 2 November 2023 13:48:55 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov
>>> wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112316
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #5 from Jose Dapena Paz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jose Dapena Paz from comment #2)
> > In any case, the failing test is actually passing -1, my understanding is
> > that that one should always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #9 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #8)
> Updated regression list using r14-5070-g4ea36076d66 on rv64gcv:
>
> Failure list from:
> https://github.com/patrick-rivos/gcc-postcommit-ci/issues/109
And
In implementing the ACLE read/write system register builtins it was
observed that leaving argument type checking to be done at expand-time
meant that poorly-formed function calls were being "fixed" by certain
optimization passes, meaning bad code wasn't being properly picked up
in checking.
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 21:02, rep.dot@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Maxim!
>
> Many thanks for the patch! Quick question below..
>
> On 2 November 2023 13:48:55 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov
> wrote:
>> ... to restore compatability with validate_failures.py .
>> The testsuite script validate_failures.py
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> Note the semantic of __builtin_clz is _not_ altered by
> CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO, the behavior
> of __builtin_clz (x) is that is has undefined result for x == 0.
Note also the discussion in bug 111309 of possible future type-generic
versions
Hi Maxim!
Many thanks for the patch! Quick question below..
On 2 November 2023 13:48:55 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov
wrote:
>... to restore compatability with validate_failures.py .
>The testsuite script validate_failures.py expects
>"Running ..." to extract values,
>and gotools.sum provided "Running
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 04:44:30PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Note the semantic of __builtin_clz is _not_ altered by
> > CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO, the behavior
> > of __builtin_clz (x) is that is has undefined result for x == 0.
>
> Note
Implement the aarch64 intrinsics for reading and writing system
registers with the following signatures:
uint32_t __arm_rsr(const char *special_register);
uint64_t __arm_rsr64(const char *special_register);
void* __arm_rsrp(const char *special_register);
float
Add a build-time test to check whether system register data, as
imported from `aarch64-sys-reg.def' has any duplicate entries.
Duplicate entries are defined as any two SYSREG entries in the .def
file which share the same encoding values (as specified by its `CPENC'
field) and where the
Implement changes resulting from upstream discussion about the
implementation as presented in V2 of this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/633458.html
Note that patch 4/7 of the previous iteration of this series (Add
basic target_print_operand support for
1 - 100 of 264 matches
Mail list logo
