https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85530
Bug ID: 85530
Summary: [X86] _mm512_mullox_epi64 and _mm512_mask_mullox_epi64
not implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Dne sreda, 25. april 2018 ob 19:53:08 CEST je Andreas Schwab napisal(a):
> On Apr 25 2018, Matija Skala wrote:
> > diff --git a/libvtv/configure.ac b/libvtv/configure.ac
> > index ba3009ee3fb..878ba02a2e2 100644
> > --- a/libvtv/configure.ac
> > +++ b/libvtv/configure.ac
> > @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
Bug ID: 85529
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85528
Bug ID: 85528
Summary: ICE in code_motion_process_successors, at
sel-sched.c:6403
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:39 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
When address of packed member of struct or union is taken, it may result
in an unaligned pointer value. This patch adds -Waddress-of-packed-member
to check alignment at pointer assignment and warn unaligned address as
well as unaligned pointer:
$ cat x.i
struct pair_t
{
char c;
int i;
}
Jakub and Richi,
GCC 8.1 is experiencing the same bootstrap failure with GCC 8.1 RC1 as
we saw previously.
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/function-tests.o differs
And the same reason: unique, static symbol that includes a random timestamp.
1949c1949
< [1936]m 0x0060 1
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 03:49:01 +0100
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
The patches enabling ASAN for MIPS (32-bit) have now been
committed, on trunk for gcc-9. I didn't persist pinging release
maintainers for gcc-8, but I'd certainly like to backport them,
if so allowed.
brgds, H-P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:33:34PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> The code compiles with 6.4.0 and 7.3.0, but not with 6.4.1, 7.3.1,
> 8.0.1 and trunk (9.0). This is likely r258347 for gcc8,
Vincent Forbes has invited you to join Nextdoor.
Nextdoor is a private social network that helps neighbors connect with each
other to build stronger communities.
To accept your invitation, follow the link below:
https://nextdoor.com/invitation/?i=ggkkfghlzxggthdsqdslstage=2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
[moving from gcc to gcc-patches mailing list]
On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 15:12 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 04/24/2018 06:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 16:45 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Some time ago, I investigated quite new feature of clang which
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
Snapshot gcc-6-20180425 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20180425/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6
2018-04-25 Catherine Moore
* MAINTAINERS (mips): Remove myself as MIPS maintainer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85527
Bug ID: 85527
Summary: [openacc] atomic_capture-1.{c,f90} undefined behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Hi all,
I need to resign as maintainer for the MIPS port. My work commitments have
taken me in a different direction and as a result I haven't been able to
actively participate over the last year. I don't see that changing anytime
soon. I hope that someone with the interest and the time is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #7 from Tom Ritter ---
I'm compiling some AVX code with MinGW+gcc. I'm afraid it's difficult to
create a test case, but I think there's an alignment issue here.
Registers at crash site:
rbp is 0x00 % 20
> 0:000> r
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #6 from Tom Ritter ---
Created attachment 44020
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44020=edit
Disassembly of affected function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
Bug ID: 85526
Summary: [6.4 regression] calling a (pure) function from inside
another pure function may cause segmentation fault
during compilation
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #5 from Tom Ritter ---
./x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/builds/worker/workspace/build/src/mingw32/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/6.4.0/lto-wrapper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #4 from Tom Ritter ---
Created attachment 44018
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44018=edit
Preprocessed source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #2 from Tom Ritter ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> What exact target is this on?
Sorry, this is x64 if that's what you mean?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
On 04/25/2018 05:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.0.1-RC-20180425/
The first release candidate for GCC 8.1 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.0.1-RC-20180425
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 259636.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
Bug ID: 85525
Summary: Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #48 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #47)
> Believe it or not, but the rs6000 port maintainers *care* about older
> systems.
Then why is something that is still working and being used
Hi all,
I'm going to commit this patch to all active branches as soon as the
branch status permits.
Built and tested on native armv5 FreeBSD12.
Thanks,
Andreas
2018-04-25 Andreas Tobler
Maryse Levavasseur
PR
In function minmax_replacement in tree-ssa-phiopt.c, MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR
are substituted for when the following condition is false - (HONOR_NANS
(type) || HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)). So for FP mode, this is false when
_both_ of the following conditions are fulfilled : 1. flag_signed_zeros
is
* doc/invoke.texi (-Wreturn-type): Document default status for C++.
OK for trunk and gcc-8-branch?
commit 20357a8ded851a3376b7e8978c77e7c56b1a273e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Wed Apr 25 19:51:10 2018 +0100
Document that -Wreturn-type is enabled by default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #12 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #11)
> > The problem is that #4 has an earlier capture, making it impossible to see
> > that it is left undefined later.
>
> I wouldn't say it's impossible. libc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #11 from Tim Shen ---
> The problem is that #4 has an earlier capture, making it impossible to see
> that it is left undefined later.
I wouldn't say it's impossible. libc++ implements it correctly at a cost.
Specifically, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #10 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #9)
> Ah with the example it's clear, thanks!
You are welcome.
> > The last line gives for #1 the sub-string "z" , and for #2 "aacbbbcac".
>
> This is not what ECMAScript
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Note to self: this came out of this ML thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-04/msg00168.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Note to self: test coverage should also verify += and so on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85524
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85524
Bug ID: 85524
Summary: Strange cbrt() result on linux in C
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
On Apr 25 2018, Matija Skala wrote:
> diff --git a/libvtv/configure.ac b/libvtv/configure.ac
> index ba3009ee3fb..878ba02a2e2 100644
> --- a/libvtv/configure.ac
> +++ b/libvtv/configure.ac
> @@ -115,6 +115,9 @@ AC_CHECK_FUNCS([__secure_getenv])
> AC_GNU_SOURCE
>
On 25/04/18 13:13 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 04/25/2018 12:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
@@ -15869,6 +15851,12 @@ finish_function (bool inline_p)
{
warning (OPT_Wreturn_type,
"no return statement in function returning non-void");
+ if (DECL_NAME (fndecl) ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 44017
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44017=edit
Proof-of-concept patch to add fix-it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
Bug ID: 85523
Summary: Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in
assignment operators
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #9 from Tim Shen ---
Ah with the example it's clear, thanks!
> The last line gives for #1 the sub-string "z" , and for #2 "aacbbbcac".
This is not what ECMAScript produces either. for capture #2, ECMAScriptn
produces "ac", the last
On Mon, 2018-04-16 at 09:41 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:34:17AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * dwarf2out.c (file_info_cmp): Sort longer dir prefixes before
> > shorter ones.
>
> Ok, thanks.
Pushed now that trunk is in stage 1 again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Apr 25 17:31:20 2018
New Revision: 259654
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259654=gcc=rev
Log:
x86: Correct movdir64b builtin function
gcc/ChangeLog:
Backport
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:11 PM, Kyrill Tkachov
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This PR shows that we get the load/store_lanes logic wrong for arm big-endian.
> It is tricky to get right. Aarch64 does it by adding the appropriate
> lane-swapping
> operations during
On 04/25/2018 12:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
@@ -15869,6 +15851,12 @@ finish_function (bool inline_p)
{
warning (OPT_Wreturn_type,
"no return statement in function returning non-void");
+ if (DECL_NAME (fndecl) == assign_op_identifier)
IDENTIFIER_ASSIGN_OP_P
On 04/25/2018 11:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Jason Turner's video C++ Weekly - Ep 112 - GCC's Leaky Abstractions shows
two issues where g++ offers suggestions about implementation details:
For the lambda capture case, there are multiple members:
$9 =
These names have a space at the end,
On 25/04/18 12:22 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 16:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/04/18 16:30 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill
Thank you for the prompt review and careful feedback. I didn't notice
your message until this morning. At this point, I'll wait a few days before
committing these changes as I understand we are still in the "RC phase of GCC
8".
On 4/24/18 4:45 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue,
On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 16:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25/04/18 16:30 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > > The warning by default seems
On 25/04/18 16:30 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
The warning by default seems sufficient to me.
Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25/04/18 14:53 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the
>>> extension will get warnings even without
Ville is going to prepare something for the new -Wclass-memacess and
-Wcatch-value warnings. Suggestions for other gotchas to document are
welcome.
Committed to CVS.
Index: htdocs/gcc-8/porting_to.html
===
RCS file:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:41:51AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> @@ -1224,9 +1225,19 @@ lookup_field_fuzzy_info::fuzzy_lookup_field (tree type)
>
>for (tree field = TYPE_FIELDS (type); field; field = DECL_CHAIN (field))
> {
> - if (!m_want_type_p || DECL_DECLARES_TYPE_P (field))
>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 08:31:33AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Peryt, Sebastian
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Patch has been updated and tested. Now I don't see any
Jason Turner's video C++ Weekly - Ep 112 - GCC's Leaky Abstractions shows
two issues where g++ offers suggestions about implementation details:
Example 1:
int main ()
{
auto lambda = [val = 2](){};
lambda.val;
}
: In function 'int main()':
:5:10: error: 'struct main()::' has no
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Peryt, Sebastian
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Patch has been updated and tested. Now I don't see any new regressions.
>>
>> Changelog stays the same.
>>
>> Is it ok for
On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> The warning by default seems sufficient to me.
>>
>> Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious crashes.
>> I'm not sure it even makes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85517
Matt Calabrese changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||metaprogrammingtheworld@gma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85517
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Managed to reach a state where nothing is spilled on the stack for Thumb-1
either. I want to do 3 more changes before I start full testing:
- put some compiler barrier between address computation and
On 25/04/18 14:53 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the
extension will get warnings even without -Wall now. Users might want
to use -Werror=return-type to ensure they aren't bitten by the new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85509
--- Comment #5 from ASA ---
> > I would expect this is likely true for any non-const static duration
> > function pointer, not just the case when the auto type specifier is used,
> > but I have not confirmed it.
>
> But it is the case for any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
--- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann ---
The costs are missing for various modes:
(gdb) p (default_target_ira_int->x_ira_register_move_cost)
$6 = {0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x7f7ff7b8c8b0, 0x7f7ff7b8c8b0, 0x0 }
(that is: only HImode and SImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
--- Comment #3 from Martin Husemann ---
Indeed. Digging a bit with gdb (but in our local 6.4 version) shows:
#0 0x009fa7be in allocno_copy_cost_saving (allocno=0x7f7ff679a178,
hard_regno=11)
at
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 03:52:28PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Forcefully setting STAGE3_[CT]FLAGS doesn't have any effect on
> > a checking enabled build but it will disrupt profiledbootstrap
> > on a release build by training with -fchecking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85522
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 03:52:28PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Forcefully setting STAGE3_[CT]FLAGS doesn't have any effect on
> a checking enabled build but it will disrupt profiledbootstrap
> on a release build by training with -fchecking. Suggestions
> welcome - not sure whether adjusting
On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
The warning by default seems sufficient to me.
Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious crashes.
I'm not sure it even makes sense only to be a warning, but I guess
that's up to the
On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> The warning by default seems sufficient to me.
Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious crashes.
I'm not sure it even makes sense only to be a warning, but I guess
that's up to the C++ TC.
--
Andrew Haley
Java Platform Lead
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the
>> extension will get warnings even without -Wall now. Users might want
>> to use -Werror=return-type to
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 19 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Per PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate
> process' that I just filed, we currently have to use "abort" instead of
> "exit" for nvptx offloading, so I have applied the following in trunk
> r259491, where I completed this
On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the
> extension will get warnings even without -Wall now. Users might want
> to use -Werror=return-type to ensure they aren't bitten by the new
> optimizations that assume control never
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following patch improves bootstrap times in general, without
> resorting to file splitting. The observation that stage2 build
> of gimple-match.c improves by 50% when using -fno-checking
> suggests that we avoid doing redundant checking when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51677
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> It should be easy to white-list the main function in the
> -Wsuggest-attribute= checker. At the same time, I'm not sure it's necessary
> or that the problem is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #11)
> Patch posted as https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00468.html
Does this still apply?
> Hi.
>
> Sending GCC 6 branch backports.
> Patches can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests.
> I'm going to install the patches.
>
> Martin
> >From e0d32b1f9e0dd0486e63040e1ab8f5d8e9f0fbd5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: marxin
The following patch improves bootstrap times in general, without
resorting to file splitting. The observation that stage2 build
of gimple-match.c improves by 50% when using -fno-checking
suggests that we avoid doing redundant checking when bootstrapping
and simply disable that when using the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49702
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
On 04/24/2018 06:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> The patch doesn't have tests. There would need to be some way to
> achieve test coverage for the completion code (especially as we start
> to tackle the more interesting cases). I wonder what the best way to
> do that is; perhaps a combination of
On 04/24/2018 06:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 16:45 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Some time ago, I investigated quite new feature of clang which
>> is support of --autocomplete argument. That can be run from bash
>> completion
>> script and one gets more precise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85414
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 25 13:10:01 2018
New Revision: 259649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259649=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85414
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_unary_operation_1) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36941
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #8 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #5)
> I'm not following the meaning of "action number" and "the partial reverse
> NFA is recorded".
>
> How many actions numbers are recorded? for regex_match(s, regex(re)),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37200
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Eric
On 04/25/2018 01:42 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Hi.
Thanks for working on that.
>
> The following patch^Whack splits $subject files into three, one
> for the predicates (due to an implementation detail) and two for
> the rest - for now into similar LOC size files.
>
> I'd like to get help on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473
--- Comment #4 from speryt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: speryt
Date: Wed Apr 25 12:39:57 2018
New Revision: 259648
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259648=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-04-25 Sebastian Peryt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >
> > The following patch^Whack splits $subject files into three, one
> > for the predicates (due to an implementation detail) and two for
> > the rest - for now into similar LOC size files.
> >
> > I'd
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following patch^Whack splits $subject files into three, one
> for the predicates (due to an implementation detail) and two for
> the rest - for now into similar LOC size files.
>
> I'd like to get help on the makefile changes to make them less
G++ allows the 'main' function to be declared without a return type:
$ gcc-8 -x c++ - <<< 'main() { }'
:1:6: warning: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘main’ with no type
[-Wreturn-type]
We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the
extension will get warnings even without
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Peryt, Sebastian
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Patch has been updated and tested. Now I don't see any new regressions.
>
> Changelog stays the same.
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
OK for mainline and gcc-8 backport after a couple of days, the latter
also
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Michael Matz wrote:
> > What is lost here (it wasn't explicit before, but is the case and must
> > continue to work) is that function calls and returns count as needing the
> > observable value in the specified register
It's always been ill-formed to say "return;" in a non-void function,
the change in GCC 8 is when control flows of the end of a function.
This corrects the release notes.
Committed to CVS.
Index: htdocs/gcc-8/changes.html
===
RCS
The following patch^Whack splits $subject files into three, one
for the predicates (due to an implementation detail) and two for
the rest - for now into similar LOC size files.
I'd like to get help on the makefile changes to make them less
verbose, somehow globbing the -[12p] parts.
Also you
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo