Hi!
Between e4b851a364..130ab9aafd (= r209457..r209513), most probably
with 65b0537f9e (= r209482), I see failures for eg. sh64-linux (though
only when built with config-list.mk):
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W
Hi,
There was a comment in parse_c_expr, mentioning to use obstack to
build c-code string. I have attached patch for the same.
OK to commit ?
* genmatch.c (parse_c_expr): Use obstack to build c code string.
Thanks and Regards,
Prathamesh
Index: gcc/genmatch.c
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:24:37PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Hi!
Between e4b851a364..130ab9aafd (= r209457..r209513), most probably
with 65b0537f9e (= r209482), I see failures for eg. sh64-linux (though
only when built with config-list.mk):
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC
Hi Trevor!
On Thu, 2014-04-24 11:39:17 -0400, Trevor Saunders tsaund...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:24:37PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Between e4b851a364..130ab9aafd (= r209457..r209513), most probably
with 65b0537f9e (= r209482), I see failures for eg. sh64-linux
Hi!
I want to uninline some basic blocks to a separate function to aid slp
vectorization.
The new pass runs just before the slp vectorization pass.
As a first try I create an new and empty function.
Which in turn will be filled with some copies of basic blocks from the original
function.
As an
Hi!
Seems the new cost model for Cortex A8 is missing two initializer
fields:
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual
On 02/28/14 08:21, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
up with two years ago. All in all I think it might be worth to
express folding-patterns in a more abstract way. So the md-like Lisp
syntax for this seems to be just stringent. We make use
On 03/03/14 07:05, Kai Tietz wrote:
[the possibility to use offline verification tools for the
transforms comes to my mind as well]
This is actually a pretty interesting idea. As it would allow us to
do testing for this area without side-effects by high-level passes,
target-properties, etc
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140424 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140424/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
*
Call for Topics and Sponsors
Workshop on Open Source Development Tools 2014 (i.e. HelloGCC Workshop)
Beijing, China
Sep. 13rd, 2014 (TBD)
HelloGCC Work Group (www.hellogcc.org)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60946
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=60949
Bug ID: 60949
Summary: Thumb2 LRA ICE for case pr34856.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60949
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60933
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60941
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59328
--- Comment #1 from Maxime van Noppen maxime.van.noppen at gmail dot com ---
Just to confirm this still happens on the the released gcc 4.9.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the problem is that we look at expressions in 'long unsigned int'
but a base_cand of type 'int'. That is, the bug in the computation is
that ctype is unsigned long but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60833
--- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Confirmed with GNU C++ 4.10.0 20140417 (experimental). GCC doesn't emit the
typedef for tbase because it is unused. It will emit the typedef for tbase when
it is used for a variable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54670
Arseny Solokha asolokha at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60950
Bug ID: 60950
Summary: powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe: ICE in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2202
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60911
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: gcc/passes.c
===
--- gcc/passes.c(revision 209742)
+++ gcc/passes.c(working copy)
@@ -2194,8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
--- Comment #7 from YuFan yufan8.chen at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
Please provide preprocessed source of pcm_native.c
Hi, Please check the attachment: kernel source code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
--- Comment #9 from YuFan yufan8.chen at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32674
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32674action=edit
pcm_native.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60912
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, the issue here is that Bar::Bar()s -callers is empty even though it is
called by main.
main/7 (int main()) @0x76daea40
Type: function definition analyzed
Visibility:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de ---
I had to go back a bit to find a problematic commit:
3983036a8b6b2710c5194f21507819a73553 is the first bad commit
commit 3983036a8b6b2710c5194f21507819a73553
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60951
Bug ID: 60951
Summary: [4.9 Regression][C++11] ICE with braced-init-list
assignment and constexpr constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60951
radiantstatue at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60951
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60952
Bug ID: 60952
Summary: Problem using end as a type bound procedure and
contained procedures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
--- Comment #20 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Apr 24 13:58:36 2014
New Revision: 209748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209748root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-04-24 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60953
Bug ID: 60953
Summary: configure: error: GNU Fortran is not working
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60951
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=60953
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=60915
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01556.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Richi,
What you suggest won't quite work, as the ctype just represents the type of the
base expression and not necessarily the type of the result. (We're doing a
pure-forward
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32664|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Er, guess there was no SLSR in 4.7, so if this test is failing on 4.7 that must
be something else. I will assume that's a typo, though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60954
Bug ID: 60954
Summary: gcc-plugin.h should set default visibility
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57958
--- Comment #4 from dinar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dinar
Date: Thu Apr 24 18:51:29 2014
New Revision: 209757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209757root=gccview=rev
Log:
add recored to gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog for PR c++/57958
Modified:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
Bug ID: 60955
Summary: Erroneous warning about taking address of register
with std=c++1y
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
--- Comment #1 from Matt Godbolt matt at godbolt dot org ---
The previous snippet wasn't quite as minimal as it could be. This single line
also reproduces it:
unsigned int erroneous_warning(register int a) { return (a); }
Jonathan Wakely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60956
Bug ID: 60956
Summary: error reading (and writing) large text files in
gfortran
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60957
Bug ID: 60957
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] Bogus error: array subscript is
above array bounds [-Werror=array-bounds]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58689
Eduardo Abinader eduardo.abinader at openbossa dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60957
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60957
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60957
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What source does this come from?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60822
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Apr 24 20:45:10 2014
New Revision: 209759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209759root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-04-24 Segher Boessenkool
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60958
Bug ID: 60958
Summary: Initialization of arrays in tr1/regex ill-formed or
with undefined behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58689
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eduardo Abinader from comment #5)
This new macro ATTRIBUTE_RETURNS_NONNULL should work ok for gcc 4.8.2?
Yes. Probably you are picking up a wrong ansidecl.h, maybe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60957
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
What source does this come from?
This comes from a real application.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60822
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58689
--- Comment #7 from Eduardo Abinader eduardo.abinader at openbossa dot org ---
Thanks for the feedback.
I just realized that bfd.h is referring /usr/include/ansidecl.h and not
/usr/include/libiberty/ansidecl.h.
Changed this path in bfd.h and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60896
--- Comment #4 from Cong Hou congh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: congh
Date: Fri Apr 25 00:20:44 2014
New Revision: 209773
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209773root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-04-24 Cong Hou co...@google.com
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60931
Anton Blanchard anton at samba dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32669|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60959
Bug ID: 60959
Summary: Does “cout(char*)NULL” doing “close(1)” ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60959
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60959
--- Comment #2 from Sreenath U S sree.gooogle at gmail dot com ---
sets the badbit on the stream which causes nothing to be printed after that.;
So this is a defined behavior or it varies on compiler to compiler?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60959
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sreenath U S from comment #2)
sets the badbit on the stream which causes nothing to be printed after
that.; So this is a defined behavior or it varies on compiler to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60959
--- Comment #4 from Sreenath U S sree.gooogle at gmail dot com ---
Okay Thanks. One more thing, Is there any way to make the remaining cout
statements to get printed in gcc without removing the faulty
cout(char*)NULL;?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60931
--- Comment #8 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 25 04:28:48 2014
New Revision: 209776
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209776root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/60931
runtime: Fix garbage collector
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60931
--- Comment #9 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 25 04:29:07 2014
New Revision: 209777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209777root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/60931
runtime: Fix garbage collector
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60931
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Jerry DeLisle wrote:
The attached patch fixes namelist read/write and list directed read/write to
support UTF-8. I have attached a preliminary test case to use to experiment
with this. I will
need to set it up for the testsuite still.
Regression tested on x86-64-linux-gnu.
OK for trunk or
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
(Adding an i386 maintainer in Cc)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00620.html
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
some people like having a macro to test if a type is available
Ping ...
BR,
Terry
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Terry Guo
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 3:36 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Richard Earnshaw; Ramana Radhakrishnan
Subject: [Patch, GCC/Thumb1] Improve
On 23-04-14 17:10, Richard Sandiford wrote:
FWIW I think this should be a plain bool rather than a function,
like delay_sched2 etc.
Vladimir,
I've reimplemented the hook using DEFHOOKPOD instead of DEFHOOK, to make it a
plain bool.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
- Tom
2013-04-29 Radovan
There is a minor typo in zh_CN.po, should change '-pic' to '-fpic'.
Best wishes,
Jincheng Miao
Index: gcc/po/zh_CN.po
===
--- gcc/po/zh_CN.po (revision 209734)
+++ gcc/po/zh_CN.po (working copy)
@@ -24308,7 +24308,7 @@ msgstr
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Terry Guo flame...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
I find the GCC function simplify_subreg fails to simplify rtx (subreg:SI
(and:DI (reg/v:DI 115 [ a ]) (const_int 4294967295 [0x])) 4) to zero
On 16 April 2014 09:12, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
On 15/04/14 18:45, Eric Christopher wrote:
Testcase weirdness?
for (i 0; i N; ++i)
{
arr[i] = i;
expect[i] = __builtin_bswap64 (i);
if (y) /* Avoid vectorisation. */
abort ();
}
i
Hi all,
I'd like to ping the two patches at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00490.html
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00315.html
They fix a bug in aarch64 and I think they should go into the release branches.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 28 March 2014 15:31, Alan Lawrence alan.lawre...@arm.com wrote:
This adds DejaGNU tests of the existing AArch64 vuzp_* intrinsics, both
checking
the assembler output and the runtime results. Test bodies are in separate
files
ready to reuse for ARM in the third patch.
Putting these in a
On 28 March 2014 15:36, Alan Lawrence alan.lawre...@arm.com wrote:
This patch replaces the temporary inline assembler for vtrn[q]_* in
arm_neon.h with equivalent calls to __builtin_shuffle. These are matched by
existing patterns in aarch64.c (aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1), outputting
the
On 7 April 2014 14:46, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
2014-04-04 Kyrylo Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com
* config/aarch64/aarch64.h (TARGET_CPU_CPP_BUILTINS): Check
TARGET_SIMD rather than TARGET_GENERAL_REGS_ONLY.
(TARGET_SIMD): Take AARCH64_ISA_SIMD
The GMP people complained that we advertise outdated versions
in our install instructions. I tried to address that by not
explicitely listing a good version but only mention the version
that is the minimum requirement. I also added a reference to
contrib/download_prerequesites as the
On 10 April 2014 12:05, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
This is the 4.8 version of the patch posted at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00315.html
TARGET_CRYPTO was not defined in 4.8 therefore that hunk is removed.
Ok for the 4.8 branch?
Thanks,
Kyrill
Hi all,
Pinging this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01276.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:15:31AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
We probably should try to bump the versions used by that script
to something more recent though (should we do that for the 4.9
branch even?). Any idea what to choose here? I'd say mpc
1.0.2 is fine, so is mpfr 3.1.2, but should
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
The more aggressive threading across loop backedges requires invalidating
equivalences that do not hold across all iterations of a loop.
At first glance, invaliding at PHI nodes should be sufficient as any
statement which
-Original Message-
From: Mike Stump [mailto:mikest...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 11:39 PM
To: Joey Ye
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [patch, testsuite] Fix fragile case nsdmi-union5
On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Joey Ye joey...@arm.com wrote:
Resulting
Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de writes:
The GMP people complained that we advertise outdated versions
in our install instructions. I tried to address that by not
explicitely listing a good version but only mention the version
that is the minimum requirement. I also added a reference to
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/14 15:13, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 15:04 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/14 10:56, David Malcolm wrote:
This updates all of the gimple_bind_* accessors in gimple.h from taking
a
plain gimple to
Recent versions of the Solaris/x86 assembler are gaining support for cfi
directives. gcc/configure failed to detect this since it used a
gas-only option for 64-bit code generation. This patch fixes it.
Tested on a wide range of assembler/linker configurations on
i386-pc-solaris2.1[01],
On Fri, 2014-04-18 at 10:03 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Samuel Thibault, le Thu 17 Apr 2014 00:03:45 +0200, a écrit :
Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 09 Apr 2014 09:36:42 +0200, a écrit :
Well, the first step is to verify that TARGET_THREAD_SPLIT_STACK_OFFSET
and similar configury is correct
Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu with no testsuite regression. Also did a
arm-none-eabi cross build with no regression after running testsuite via
qemu
Forgot to ask if it's ok for trunk. Same question for part 1 and 3.
Best regards,
Thomas
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Rainer Orth wrote:
Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de writes:
The GMP people complained that we advertise outdated versions
in our install instructions. I tried to address that by not
explicitely listing a good version but only mention the version
that is the
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:15:31AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
We probably should try to bump the versions used by that script
to something more recent though (should we do that for the 4.9
branch even?). Any idea what to choose here? I'd say
On 23/04/14 21:35, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 04/23/2014 12:43 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Any c++ compilation aborts at
That's surprising, the code I touched is only ever supposed to run while
compiling one file in libsupc++, if I understand correctly.
Ah, well, perhaps it's one of the first
Currently, Solaris/x86 uses a private version of
ASM_PREFERRED_EH_DATA_FORMAT since older versions of the Solaris
assembler couldn't calculate the difference between labels in different
sections. This restriction has been lifted in Solaris 10 patch
119961-07 from May 2010. Since the redefinition
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:38:38AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Is there a reason why you have lowered the minimum versions (4.3.2 - 4.2.3,
2.4.2 - 2.4.0, 0.8.1 - 0.8.0)?
As I say will not work I checked what we reject at configure time
(for the oldest versions that work we'll complain
Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de writes:
I'd strongly advise against it: in the past we've had serious problems
with versions newer than advertised in install.texi on some platforms.
Until we have positive evidence that specific newer versions work on a
wide range of platforms, we shouldn't
Meanwhile is does the patch look ok?
No, the current wording is just fine and yours doesn't bring anything (even
the contrary, since you're listing known problematic versions). This will
also break http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#sparc-x-x
I don't see why we should special case GMP,
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Meanwhile is does the patch look ok?
No, the current wording is just fine and yours doesn't bring anything (even
the contrary, since you're listing known problematic versions). This will
also break
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Meanwhile is does the patch look ok?
No, the current wording is just fine and yours doesn't bring anything (even
the contrary, since you're listing known problematic versions). This will
also
On 23 April 2014 20:17, Alan Lawrence alan.lawre...@arm.com wrote:
This adds DejaGNU tests of the existing AArch64 vrev_* intrinsics, both
checking the assembler output and the runtime results. Test bodies are in
separate files ready to reuse for ARM in the third patch.
All tests passing on
On 23 April 2014 20:44, Alan Lawrence alan.lawre...@arm.com wrote:
This patch (borrowing heavily from the ARM backend) makes
aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const output REV instructions when appropriate,
and then implements the vrev_XXX intrinsics in terms of __builtin_shuffle
(which
now produces
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
