On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Xiangfu Liu xian...@openmobilefree.net wrote:
Hi
can you send me the copyright assignment forms.
it should be an assignment for all future changes, right?
thanks for reply
On 09/01/2011 11:32 AM, Liu wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Xiangfu
Hi,
Fortran 2008 has a do concurrent construct, where the programmer
guarantees that the result is independent of the order; e.g.
do concurrent (i = 1:10:2) ! from, to, step/stride
A(i) = sin(B(i))
end do
can be run as i = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9; in any permutation or in parallel.
The plan
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Hi,
Fortran 2008 has a do concurrent construct, where the programmer guarantees
that the result is independent of the order; e.g.
do concurrent (i = 1:10:2) ! from, to, step/stride
A(i) = sin(B(i))
end do
can be
Hi!
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:27:46 -0400, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 02:52, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
2011-07-15 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com
* configure.ac: Add --enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx. If set,
make C++
This problem still persists.
viewcvs works, e.g. for gcc.h but fails for gcc.c:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/gcc.c?view=markup
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/gcc.h?view=markup
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Hi, I'm getting the following error in viewvc for several days now:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de wrote:
Hi, I'm getting the following error in viewvc for several days now:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/dse.c?view=markup
An Exception Has Occurred
Python Traceback
RuntimeError: maximum recursion limit exceeded
I
Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de writes:
The plan is to translate it as normal loop; however, it would be
useful if this non-order-dependence could be used by the middle end
(general optimization or at least for -floop-parallelize-all /
-ftree-parallelize-loops). Is there a way to tell the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50284
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50287
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50208
--- Comment #5 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04 09:22:42 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Sun Sep 4 09:22:38 2011
New Revision: 178508
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178508
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50208
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04 10:49:18 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Sep 4 10:49:13 2011
New Revision: 178509
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178509
Log:
2011-09-04 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50208
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
--- Comment #33 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-09-04
11:03:41 UTC ---
And if you don't like errors saying that X can't be converted to X, you'll need
something like the below. I don't think I'll go much further anytime
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04 11:18:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
bootstrapped with your amended change to rs6000.c
./gcc/xgcc -Bgcc ../tests/hello.c -o hc -fstack-check -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04
13:02:15 UTC ---
for a smaller frame ... and the asm looks sensible...
Great, thanks.
Defining STACK_CHECK_STATIC_BUILTIN to 1 for Darwin would be a separate thing.
In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50279
Steffen Möller steffen_moeller at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50023
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04 15:28:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Defining STACK_CHECK_STATIC_BUILTIN to 1 for Darwin would be a separate thing.
In particular, you'd need to test Ada to validate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #14 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-09-04
17:29:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Created attachment 25177 [details]
import-export.diff
Just the import/export changes, i.e. outside libgo directory.
This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804
leopardboy2 at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leopardboy2 at yahoo dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50285
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #15 from Anders F Björklund afb at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-09-04 18:14:48 UTC ---
The whole patch is Darwin-centric, in that it's only applied on Darwin.
You are right that it first needs to be conditionalized to go upstream.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04
18:45:24 UTC ---
The problem is is your code, not gcc
The type of T4::f is void(T2::*)() not void(T4::*)() so when you cast the
pointer to void(T4::*)() you are not casting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
Bug #: 50288
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49901
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04 18:50:13
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Sep 4 18:50:09 2011
New Revision: 178510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178510
Log:
PR debug/49901
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49901
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50278
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-09-04
19:18:00 UTC ---
I think I understand what's happening, although I don't know how to fix it:
(1) gfortran.dg/class_45a.f03 is compiled and generate g_nodes.mod,
(2)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49594
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04 19:17:29
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Sep 4 19:17:25 2011
New Revision: 178511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178511
Log:
PR libffi/49594
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49594
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04 19:19:43
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Sep 4 19:19:39 2011
New Revision: 178512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178512
Log:
PR libffi/49594
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49594
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46333
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-09-04
20:35:36 UTC ---
An evil trick would be the following, which causes a run once: ...
It works, but I think if this trick is used, it should be documented as in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04
21:19:31 UTC ---
I think one problem is that
! { dg-additional-sources class_45a.f03 }
compiles the additional source *after* the main file. That's not trivially
fixable as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50281
--- Comment #10 from NickParker at Eaton dot com 2011-09-04 21:22:30 UTC ---
Richard, 'bogus' isnt a technical term I'm familiar with - I'm not entirely
sure
what you mean, however, I have found the problem with my ASM code.
If you'll notice I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50256
--- Comment #4 from NickParker at Eaton dot com 2011-09-04 21:27:43 UTC ---
Hi,
Thanks for your input and sorry to make a mess of reporting this.
The arithmetic is fine and the code gives the results I expect.
However, I have since discovered and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50256
--- Comment #5 from NickParker at Eaton dot com 2011-09-04 21:29:40 UTC ---
Thanks, also was able to add a few movws to save cycles.
Nick.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50289
Bug #: 50289
Summary: [avr]: call-prologues saveing/restoring global
register variables
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50289
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50256
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-04
22:19:53 UTC ---
You don't need R20: Simply use %D0 which is cleared, anyway. As %0 is early
clobber, it's not an input and you can clear is at the beginning.
You don't need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50290
Bug #: 50290
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in distribute_notes, at
combine.c:13282 with -flto -funroll-loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50290
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49267
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50099
Michael Hope michael.hope at linaro dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.hope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50099
--- Comment #7 from Michael Hope michael.hope at linaro dot org 2011-09-05
00:05:23 UTC ---
arm_legitimate_index_p() seems to be wrong. Near the end it has:
/* For ARM v4 we may be doing a sign-extend operation during the
load. */
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50291
Bug #: 50291
Summary: A bug of if-condition optimization in x32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
--- Comment #6 from zhuli imzhuli at vip dot qq.com 2011-09-05 03:12:55 UTC
---
I guess we have some agreement on HOW gcc works. the following are what i got
through the test-cases:
1.simply using T4::f, will only get a value of T2::f, as the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50292
Bug #: 50292
Summary: compiler bug box - pl-io.ads
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50292
--- Comment #1 from Gary Barnes garynot at comcast dot net 2011-09-05
04:09:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 25192
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25192
gnatchop file containing the source
gnatchop format file with the source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50292
--- Comment #2 from Gary Barnes garynot at comcast dot net 2011-09-05
04:10:32 UTC ---
gcc \
-c \
-gnata \
-gnatE \
-fstack-check \
-gnatef \
-gnatf \
-gnatm50 \
-gnatn \
-gnato \
-gnatU \
-gnatwa \
-gnatwe \
-gnatwi \
-gnatwj \
-gnatwK \
-gnatwl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50248
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05
04:33:14 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Sep 5 04:33:08 2011
New Revision: 178518
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178518
Log:
PR c++/50248
Core
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49458
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05
04:33:54 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Sep 5 04:33:48 2011
New Revision: 178520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178520
Log:
PR c++/49267
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49267
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05
04:34:01 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Sep 5 04:33:57 2011
New Revision: 178521
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178521
Log:
PR c++/49267
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49267
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05
04:33:53 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Sep 5 04:33:48 2011
New Revision: 178520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178520
Log:
PR c++/49267
PR
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi,
the patch below improves the comparisons of BINFOs in IPA-CP. The
problem is that we can read different BINFOs for the same type (or a
base type component) from the LTO summaries because BINFOs coming from
different
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi,
we have agreed on this list recently that the versionable flag should
be moved from the inline summary to the local part of struct
cgraph_node because it has nothing to do with inlining and is computed
by ipa-prop and
Hi,
this patch fixes PR50251, which was caused by r178353.
The patch was bootstrapped and reg-tested on i686 and x86_64.
On i686, the test-cases reported failing in PR50251 pass again.
The patch selects the DRAP type stack realignment method in case a stack_restore
is used. If that is not done,
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Tom de Vries vr...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes PR50251, which was caused by r178353.
The patch was bootstrapped and reg-tested on i686 and x86_64.
On i686, the test-cases reported failing in PR50251 pass again.
The patch selects the DRAP
Hi,
While analyzing def stmt in vectorizer pattern detection, we access
its stmt_vec_info which is initialized only for statements inside the
loop being analyzed. Hence if the def stmt is outside the loop, we get
a segfault. This patch checks that a statement is inside the loop
before accessing
On 09/04/2011 11:10 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Tom de Vries vr...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes PR50251, which was caused by r178353.
The patch was bootstrapped and reg-tested on i686 and x86_64.
On i686, the test-cases reported failing in
Hi!
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:27:46 -0400, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 02:52, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
2011-07-15 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com
* configure.ac: Add --enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx. If set,
make C++
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I've been trying for 2 days to replicate this with various
configurations and none have failed.
I configure for i586 with --enable-checking=yes,rtl. And I also have a
comparison failure on x86-64 with the same configure options:
Which version of
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Committed as r178509.
Cheers,
Janus
2011/9/1 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org:
Hi all,
here is a small patch fixing a recent OOP regression. It feels a bit
like it's only fixing the effect instead of the cause (since I
the following was approved on the PR thread.
cheers,
Iain
gcc:
PR debug/49901
* config/darwin.h (DEBUG_MACRO_SECTION): New macro.
Index: gcc/config/darwin.h
===
--- gcc/config/darwin.h (revision 178509)
+++
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Tom de Vries vr...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 09/04/2011 11:10 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Tom de Vries vr...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes PR50251, which was caused by r178353.
The patch was bootstrapped and
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux and powerc-linux, applied on the mainline.
2011-09-04 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com
* gnat.dg/specs/debug1.ads: Tweak pattern.
--
Eric Botcazou
Index: gnat.dg/specs/debug1.ads
===
---
gcc/
2011-09-04 David S. Miller da...@davemloft.net
* config.host: Add driver-sparc.o and sparc/x-sparc on
native sparc*-*-linux* builds.
* config/sparc/driver-sparc.c: Correct Linux strings.
* gcc/config/sparc/linux.h: Add DRIVER_SELF_SPECS.
*
On 09/01/2011 03:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 08/31/11 20:43, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com writes:
This is necessary when adding shrink-wrapping; otherwise dwarf2cfi sees
inconsistent information and aborts.
Tested on mips64-elf together with the rest of
On 09/01/2011 12:13 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Also, for the frame_pointer_required case, it looks like there's a
window between the restoration of the frame pointer and the deallocation
of the stack in which the CFA is still defined in terms of the frame
pointer register. Is that
This provides a framework to optimize for these chips and also
to enable support for several new instructions available on these
processors.
I currently have patches to add VIS2, VIS3, POPC, and FMAF (fused
multiply-add) instruction support. I also plan on adding support for
the HPC
These two PRs have to do with comparing conversion operators that return
lvalue or rvalue references. The fix for 49458 is to consider that
directly when deciding whether the rvalueness matches the target
reference, before an rvalue reference to function has decayed to an
lvalue. Part of
At the Bloomington C++ meeting we discussed some issues with the
constexpr specification that the clang team encountered while trying to
implement it. Among the issues was a problem that also came up recently
for us as BZ 50248: if the constexpr-ness of a template instantiation
depends on its
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
At the Bloomington C++ meeting we discussed some issues with the constexpr
specification that the clang team encountered while trying to implement it.
Among the issues was a problem that also came up recently for us as BZ
77 matches
Mail list logo
