Hello All,
I have a few clarification with the PPC floating point compiler options.
I am working with v4.4.1 (e500mc) but i think it applies to 4.6 as well.
1. -msingle-float:
With this option, i get a compiler warning: -msingle-float option
equivalent to -mhard-float which means both the
Hi,
I haven't used my gnu.org account for a long time, h...@gnu.org. I can't log in
nor my email forward doesn't work either.
--
H.J.
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
I haven't used my gnu.org account for a long time, h...@gnu.org. I can't log
in
nor my email forward doesn't work either.
You are asking about gnu.org, not gcc.gnu.org, right? I think you have
to ask sysad...@gnu.org about that.
Normally you should be
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
I haven't used my gnu.org account for a long time, h...@gnu.org. I can't
log in
nor my email forward doesn't work either.
You are asking about gnu.org, not gcc.gnu.org, right? I think you have
to ask
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
I haven't used my gnu.org account for a long time, h...@gnu.org. I can't
log in
nor my email forward doesn't work either.
You are
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org
wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
I haven't used my gnu.org account for a long time, h...@gnu.org. I can't
log in
nor my email
I've written up a status update on the gcc-python-plugin on my blog
here:
http://dmalcolm.livejournal.com/6560.html
Summarizing that blog post, I've revamped the internals of how my
checker script so that it can detect various kinds of CPython reference
count bug, and it can now render bug
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20110715 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20110715/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
-- Forwarded message --
From: selma leathem soleat...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM
Subject: Interested In Doing Documentation Project
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Hello,
I am interested in doing the front end documentation project. How do I
sign up for that, or learn what
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 09:07:46PM -0600, selma leathem wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: selma leathem soleat...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM
Subject: Interested In Doing Documentation Project
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Hello,
I am interested in doing the
On 16 July 2011 04:07, selma leathem soleat...@gmail.com wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: selma leathem soleat...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM
Subject: Interested In Doing Documentation Project
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Hello,
I am interested in doing the
Hello,
I have an IPA pass (implemented as a plugin) which executes after all IPA
passes. My pass transforms functions by adding code and also modifying the
function prototypes. I have had this work on a per-function basis, via a
GIMPLE_PASS, which calls update_ssa verify_ssa and cleanup_cfg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
Summary: Let gcc warn about all uninitialized variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
URL: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705160#c1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
06:26:17 UTC ---
Instruction 2 and 24 refer to the same location, but have different offset
relative to FP because the call to y changes FP. DSE doesn't (and can not, if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-15 07:08:46
UTC ---
Results with a patched compiler [1], no regressions.
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-07/msg01678.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48711
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #4 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
07:39:01 UTC ---
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:34:46 +, sje at cup dot hp.com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
Steve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49755
Summary: ALLOCATE with STAT= produces invalid code for already
allocated vars
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #5 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
08:34:49 UTC ---
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:07:10 +, dave.anglin at bell dot net
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
08:36:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
== Expected Results ==
foo.c: In function ‘foo’:
foo.c:2:?: warning: ‘x’ is used uninitialized in this function
It should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49643
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
09:31:05 UTC ---
Here's the libgomp testsuite part of the patch. It should apply to both
mainline and 4.6 branch. I've lightly tested the approach by checking one of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
09:30:09 UTC ---
Here's the 4.6 backport of the sol2.h patch. Could you please give it a try
on
Solaris 8 on bare metal? I've bootstrapped it without regressions on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Yeleighton giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl
2011-07-15 09:35:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
(In reply to comment #0)
== Expected Results ==
foo.c: In function ‘foo’:
foo.c:2:?: warning: ‘x’ is used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15 09:39:43
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Fri Jul 15 09:39:41 2011
New Revision: 176309
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176309
Log:
Backport from mainline:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
09:56:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Since (x) is uninitialized, so is (x.i).
But what if x.i gets initialized, is x still uninitialized?
struct X { int i; };
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-07-15
10:11:45 UTC ---
I've uploaded gcc-4.5.3 bootstrap binaries and my gcc-4.5.3 m68k patches to
http://user.it.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/m68k-ada/.
A gcc-4.6.1 bootstrap is in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
10:16:12 UTC ---
Just to be clear - I completely agree that uninit'd warnings need improving,
I'm not objecting to that. But in my experience (mostly C++) I'd prefer to
have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-07-15
10:24:15 UTC ---
By the way, Jakub, correct me if I'm wrong and/or remember incorrectly what we
decided here at the time, but as far as I can see there is no risk with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49756
Summary: g++ ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
10:47:46 UTC ---
Then you probably could use _GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS as the macro to avoid
including unistd.h and assuming that _POSIX_TIMEOUT is defined.
Though perhaps better
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-07-15
10:53:11 UTC ---
Indeed, I was having the same thought... _GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS is a bit
stricter though (doesn't allow 0), but would do. And I agree that in that case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-07-15
10:55:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
Created attachment 24772 [details]
Patch to use --zadditional_options instead of --tool_opts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Yeleighton giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl
2011-07-15 11:00:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Since (x) is uninitialized, so is (x.i).
But what if x.i gets initialized, is x still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-15 12:01:02 UTC ---
The problem is that the testsuite (lib/libgomp.exp) unconditionally
links with -lgomp even for the -fno-openmp testcases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49757
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/tic6x/*.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igodard at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36231
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49757
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
12:11:05 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Jul 15 12:11:00 2011
New Revision: 176313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176313
Log:
PR testsuite/49757
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49545
Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49753
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11320
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
13:20:17 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Jul 15 13:20:10 2011
New Revision: 176315
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176315
Log:
Revert
2003-07-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49643
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
13:40:15 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 15 13:40:09 2011
New Revision: 176316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176316
Log:
PR testsuite/49643
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
--- Comment #18 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
14:02:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Error: Variable 'length' cannot appear in the expression at (1)
That comes from the specification expression check.
If one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 14:41:19 UTC ---
On 7/15/2011 4:37 AM, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #5 from H.Merijn Brandh.m.brand at xs4all dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #7 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
15:17:38 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:41:23 +, dave.anglin at bell dot net
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49624
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
15:31:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
p(10,1:) = A
The problem is that 10 is parsed as DIMEN_ELEMENT such that ar.start is set
and ar.end is not. Thus, for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #8 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
15:50:12 UTC ---
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:34:46 +, sje at cup dot hp.com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
Steve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2011-07-15 16:03:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Using the 4.2.4 I had available, I got gcc-4.6.1 installed.
Still doesn't pass perl build:
CCCMD = gcc64 -DPERL_CORE -c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #11 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
16:09:42 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:41:23 +, dave.anglin at bell dot net
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
If you get a working compiler going, it would be great if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 16:09:28 UTC ---
On 7/15/2011 11:18 AM, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl wrote:
I will make it available when it is done, but I'll still advice against
using it when it doesn't pass the perl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 16:18:11 UTC ---
On 7/15/2011 11:51 AM, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #8 from H.Merijn Brandh.m.brand at xs4all dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #12 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
16:17:40 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:10:35 +, dave.anglin at bell dot net
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
One issue may be thread support. I always configure with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #14 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
16:26:49 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:04:04 +, sje at cup dot hp.com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Would it help to re-build binutils with gcc-4.6.1?
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #15 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
16:29:50 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:18:57 +, dave.anglin at bell dot net
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Would it help to re-build binutils with gcc-4.6.1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49753
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48220
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
17:10:00 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Jul 15 17:09:56 2011
New Revision: 176318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176318
Log:
PR target/48220
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 17:15:17 UTC ---
On 7/15/2011 12:27 PM, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #14 from H.Merijn Brandh.m.brand at xs4all dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #17 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
17:36:59 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:16:14 +, dave.anglin at bell dot net
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~prosup/pp.s
Would you please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 17:42:45 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #17 from H.Merijn Brandh.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-15
17:36:59 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49723
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
18:11:23 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Jul 15 18:11:18 2011
New Revision: 176319
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176319
Log:
PR target/49723
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49723
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
18:13:16 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Jul 15 18:13:13 2011
New Revision: 176320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176320
Log:
PR target/49723
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49723
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
18:15:19 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Jul 15 18:15:16 2011
New Revision: 176321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176321
Log:
PR target/49723
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35634
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 19:15:06 UTC ---
I think the attached change will fix the bug.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49309
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
19:48:50 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 15 19:48:46 2011
New Revision: 176327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176327
Log:
PR testsuite/49753
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49753
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
19:48:51 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 15 19:48:46 2011
New Revision: 176327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176327
Log:
PR testsuite/49753
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49753
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
19:54:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 15 19:53:58 2011
New Revision: 176328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176328
Log:
PR testsuite/49753
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49309
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
19:54:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 15 19:53:58 2011
New Revision: 176328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176328
Log:
PR testsuite/49753
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
20:15:09 UTC ---
We ran some experiments attempting to restore the r161839 behavior, either by
lowering the rank of memory references or raising the rank of phi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
20:19:21 UTC ---
Our experiments didn't distinguish between loop-carried PHIs and other join
points, so that might be another avenue of attack.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15
21:30:00 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 15 21:29:57 2011
New Revision: 176332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176332
Log:
PR testsuite/49741
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49753
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #19 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-15 21:52:14 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jul 15 21:52:06 2011
New Revision: 176335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176335
Log:
/gcc
2011-07-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49743
--- Comment #2 from nenadv at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-16 01:06:53 UTC ---
Author: nenadv
Date: Sat Jul 16 01:06:51 2011
New Revision: 176348
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176348
Log:
2011-07-15 Nenad Vukicevic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #20 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-16
03:59:31 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:15:28 +, dave.anglin at bell dot net
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
I think the attached change will fix the bug.
Apparently
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #21 from H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl 2011-07-16
04:05:53 UTC ---
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 04:00:16 +, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
---
PING 3: For review
Hi,
Please review the attached patch and you can view the
explanations for the earlier communication below.
NOTE: From now on , Jayant (jayant.so...@kpitcummins.com) will be
posting the patches related to CR16. Please feel free to contact him
if you need any information
Hello,
This patch removes from tree-vrp the use of TRUTH-bitwise expression codes. Also
it merges the handling for boolean compatible and non-boolean typed
bitwise-binary
expressions.
Additional it adds primitive checks for bitwise-not expression on
boolean-compatible
types.
In
On 07/14/2011 08:40 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
I've got a preliminary NetWare removal patch ready (yet untested), but
have a couple of questions:
* Given that there's a considerable amount of NetWare support still in
src, toplevel support has to stay. On the other hand, the reference
in
On 07/14/2011 11:40 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
(look how the vectorizer
for example uses new target hooks instead of generating vectorized RTL
and then using rtx_cost).
But wouldn't we then end up with just a bunch of special purpose tree_cost
functions
again?! Then we would again be doomed
On 07/11/2011 08:16 PM, Daniel Carrera wrote:
This patch improves support for the ALLOCATE statement when using the
coarray library. Specifically, it adds support for the stat= and
errmsg= attributes:
Thanks for the patch - and sorry for the slow review.
Some comments below.
Index:
Steve,
I have successfully bootstrapped and tested the toplevel libgcc patch on
IA64 HP-UX. When trying to build IA64 Linux the bootstrap failed with:
great, thanks.
/bin/sh /wsp/sje/gcc_git/src/gcc/libgcc/../mkinstalldirs
Hi!
If lock contention is high, but all locks are held for relatively short time
and no threads actually goes into futex_wait, we still completely
unnecessarily do lots of futex_wake syscalls.
On Linux with futex, our mutexes have 3 states:
0 - unlocked
1 - locked, uncontended
2 - locked,
Rainer Orth r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de writes:
Installed on mainline, will backport to the 4.6 branch after testing.
Here's the 4.6 branch version I've just installed after
i386-pc-solaris2.8 and sparc-sun-solaris2.8 testing by Eric and myself.
Rainer
2011-07-15 Rainer Orth
On 05/10/11 17:51, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
This contains the testsuite changes for the C6X port.
Committed this version. No one commented about the changes outside
gcc.target/tic6x, but I think they are reasonably obvious. I'm open to
suggestions for other names for the check_effective_target
On 07/15/2011 11:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
While __sync_lock_test_and_set isn't a full barrier on all targets,
I hope it doesn't matter, because the inline caller has already done one
__sync_val_compare_and_swap which is a full barrier.
Why not take the occasion to add the __sync_swap
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:02:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/15/2011 11:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
While __sync_lock_test_and_set isn't a full barrier on all targets,
I hope it doesn't matter, because the inline caller has already done one
__sync_val_compare_and_swap which is a full
On 07/15/2011 10:03 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
+ /* ERRMSG= */
+ errmsg = null_pointer_node;
+ errlen = build_int_cst (gfc_charlen_type_node, 0);
+ if (code-expr2)
+ {
[...]
+ errlen = gfc_get_expr_charlen (code-expr2);
+ errmsg = gfc_build_addr_expr (pchar_type_node, se.expr);
+ }
While
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 05/10/11 17:51, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
This contains the testsuite changes for the C6X port.
Committed this version. No one commented about the changes outside
gcc.target/tic6x, but I think they are reasonably
On 07/15/11 14:06, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 05/10/11 17:51, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
This contains the testsuite changes for the C6X port.
Committed this version. No one commented about the changes outside
gcc.target/tic6x,
On 07/15/2011 12:58 PM, Daniel Carrera wrote:
+ label_errmsg = gfc_build_label_decl (NULL_TREE);
+ label_finish = gfc_build_label_decl (NULL_TREE);
There seems to be a goto missing.
This is strange. The problem is definitely in the following if branch
in gfc_trans_array:
if (code-expr1
Hi,
this is what I did in terms of implementing Jon's and Jakub's
suggestions: many thanks to both of you!
The patch should be in general quite conservative and safe, in
particular, the gthr-posix.h changes, which I cannot approve myself,
touch bits only used by libstdc++-v3 + the macro
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:20 AM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode. That means base and index parts
of x86 address operand in x32 mode may be in ptr_mode. This patch
supports 32bit base and index parts in x32 mode. OK for trunk?
Thanks.
H.J.
Ira Rosen wrote:
* gcc.dg/vect/pr49038.c: New test.
Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr49038.c
===
--- testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr49038.c (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr49038.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:28:32PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Well, technically they survive until after inlining (because of
indirect inlining which also derives information from the lattices
corresponding to node-inlined_to node. Results of arithmetic
functions are not going to
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:20 AM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode. That means base and index parts
of x86 address operand in x32 mode may be in ptr_mode. This patch
supports 32bit
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
