New Vietnamese PO file for 'gcc' (version 6.1-b20160131)

Hello, gentle maintainer. This is a message from the Translation Project robot. A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted by the Vietnamese team of translators. The file is available at: http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/vi.po (This file,

[Bug rtl-optimization/69806] [6 Regression][SH] Combine doesn't see constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69806 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Please see PR69671 then, that CSE change is right, so you really need to find some solution at the backend side. Look what fwprop* dumps show etc.

[Bug libstdc++/69881] with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881 --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger --- Something like that might be needed? Index: c_global/cstddef === --- c_global/cstddef(Revision 233574) +++ c_global/cstddef

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix option handling when -std=gnu++14 is not used (PR 69865)

Hi, as almost expected r233572 needs to be back-ported to gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 branches in order to be built by gcc-6. It applies cleanly to both branches. But unfortunately PR 69881 prevents boot-strapping gcc-4.9 in the moment. Boot-strap and regression-test of gcc-5 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK

[Bug libstdc++/69881] with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881 --- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger --- note: back-porting r233572 will still be necessary to build 4.9 with gcc-6 but the build fails earlier than that.

[Bug libstdc++/69881] New: with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881 Bug ID: 69881 Summary: with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug testsuite/68580] FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/pr65400-1.c -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580 --- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Sat Feb 20 05:58:00 2016 New Revision: 233581 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233581=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-20 Bernd Edlinger Backport from

[Bug rtl-optimization/69806] [6 Regression][SH] Combine doesn't see constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69806 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/69743] [5/6 Regression] function overload with variadic arguments - template instantiation depth exceeds maximum (gcc4, clang - no problem)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69743 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69743] [5/6 Regression] function overload with variadic arguments - template instantiation depth exceeds maximum (gcc4, clang - no problem)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69743 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Sat Feb 20 04:31:16 2016 New Revision: 233579 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233579=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/69743 * call.c (remaining_arguments): No longer static.

[Bug rtl-optimization/69806] [6 Regression][SH] Combine doesn't see constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69806 --- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6) > r233159 was reverted in r233356. Does this problem still happen? Yes, problem is still there, because ... (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > I

[Bug c++/69743] [5/6 Regression] function overload with variadic arguments - template instantiation depth exceeds maximum (gcc4, clang - no problem)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69743 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Sat Feb 20 04:31:16 2016 New Revision: 233579 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233579=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/69743 * call.c (remaining_arguments): No longer static.

C++ PATCH for c++/69743 (wrong overload resolution with variadic templates)

My change to tsubst_pack_expansion to handle the special case of T... revealed a latent bug whereby we were considering the trailing "void" when comparing two variadic templates. When we then try to deduce one from the other we get a parameter of type "void", which results in substitution

[Bug lto/69866] lto1: internal compiler error: in add_symbol_to_partition_1, at lto/lto-partition.c:158

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69866 --- Comment #3 from acrsofter at gmail dot com --- reproduce steps: [foo.c] int _umh(int i) { return i+1; } int weaks(int i) __attribute__((weak, alias("_umh"))); int main() { return weaks(10); } [bar.c] int weaks(int i) { return

[Bug c/69880] New: Linking Windows resources + implicit 'default-manifest.o' creates bad .exe

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69880 Bug ID: 69880 Summary: Linking Windows resources + implicit 'default-manifest.o' creates bad .exe Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

better debug info for C++ cdtors, aliases, thunks and other trampolines

Keith Seitz reported we were missing debug information for cdtors. E.g., we emit a specification for the unified ctor and dtor, but then, if we emit one of the in-charge and not-in-charge versions as an alias to the other, from the debug info PoV it's as if one of them didn't exist. If we emit

Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition

There's at least one easy answer in there: > ‎If implementations must support annotation, what form should that annotation take?  P0190R0 recommends the [[carries_dependency]] attribute, but I am not picky as long as it can be (1) applied to all relevant pointer-like

Re: AW: Wonly-top-basic-asm

On 2/13/2016 8:00 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: Fair enough. Committing what we can right now sounds like a good plan. Attached is the doc patch, minus the proposed warning. ChangeLog: 2016-02-19 David Wohlferd Bernd Schmidt *

[Bug libstdc++/57272] node-based containers don't use allocator's pointer type internally

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57272 --- Comment #6 from Phil Bouchard --- Also please make sure the pointer arguments are passed by reference and not by value. This would ensure we could use our own smart pointers.

[Bug c++/69743] [5/6 Regression] function overload with variadic arguments - template instantiation depth exceeds maximum (gcc4, clang - no problem)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69743 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/69865] -trigraphs option broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69865 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [PATCH] 69759 - document __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > > ... Here I'd like to get my updated patch reviewed so that I > > can move on to my other GCC 6 tasks. > > I integrated the documentation update into the coding patch for bug > 69780 - [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align, to > keep

[Bug target/69868] vec_perm built-in is not handled by swap optimization on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69868 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: Manipulating bit fields is behaving inconsistently

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Wink Saville wrote: > The two links in msg00156.html point to single emails and the > formatting is odd, such as in 13560.txt: > > i =3D =5FGeneric(st.bf, > > Is there a way to look at the actual email thread using a browser or > some other means? I'm not aware of any

Re: How to use _Generic with bit-fields

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Wink Saville wrote: > And I've tried to use _Generic to print the type of a bit field but > the compiler fails with: Indeed, bit-field types cannot match any type name, only default. The only conversions applied to the controlling expression are those involved in lvalue

Re: [PATCH PR69052]Check if loop inv can be propagated into mem ref with additional addr expr canonicalization

On 02/16/2016 11:43 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: From: Jeff Law Sent: 11 February 2016 23:26 To: Bin.Cheng Cc: Bin Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd Subject: Re: [PATCH PR69052]Check if loop inv can be propagated into mem ref with additional

[Bug driver/69805] [6 Regression] ICE in greater_than_spec_func, at gcc.c:9722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69865] -trigraphs option broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69865 --- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Fri Feb 19 22:22:04 2016 New Revision: 233574 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233574=gcc=rev Log: gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: 2016-02-19 Bernd Edlinger

[Bug c/69878] GCC produces pessimal assembly for C11 atomic increments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69878 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/68908] inefficient code for _Atomic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matt at bitbashing dot io --- Comment

[Bug driver/69805] [6 Regression] ICE in greater_than_spec_func, at gcc.c:9722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Feb 19 22:18:38 2016 New Revision: 233573 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233573=gcc=rev Log: PR driver/69805 * gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC, GOMP_SELF_SPECS): Use

Re: [PATCH] Fix driver handling of multiple -ftree-parallelize-loops= options (PR driver/69805)

On 02/16/2016 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! As mentioned in the PR, %{ftree-parallelize-loops=*} expands to all -ftree-parallelize-loops= options, not just the last one. So greater_than_spec_func is actually called say for -ftree-parallelize-loops=0 -ftree-parallelize-loops=2 with -

[Bug c++/69826] problem with cilkplus pragma and preprocessor variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69826 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed on the trunk so far.

[Bug c++/69826] problem with cilkplus pragma and preprocessor variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69826 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Feb 19 22:12:54 2016 New Revision: 233571 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233571=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/69826 * c-pragma.c (c_pp_lookup_pragma): Handle

Re: RFA: Prevent an ICE when redeclaring a static function as weak

On 02/17/2016 07:24 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: Hi Guys, Redefining a previously defined static function as both public and weak triggers an ICE in ipa-visibility.c: internal compiler error: in function_and_variable_visibility, at ipa-visibility.c:518 This bug has been discussed and

Fix PR44281 (bad RA with global regs)

In this PR, we generate unnecessarily bad code for code that declares a global register var. Since global regs get added to fixed_regs, IRA never considers them as candidates. However, we do seem to have proper data flow information for them. In the testcase, the global reg dies, some

Re: gnu-gabi group

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:57:34PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> How do I subscribe gnu-abi mailing list? The project page just >> points to the mailing list archive. There is no option to subscribe >> it. > > To subscribe sent

Re: [PATCH][AArch64][v2] Skip gcc.target/aarch64/assembler_arch_1.c if assembler does not support it

On 02/17/2016 09:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, I've thought about this check a bit more and I think we can compactly auto-generate checks for any aarch64 architecture extension support in the assembler. This is done in a similar way we autogenerate the arm_arch_*_ok checks for arm. So

Re: [PATCH] Add configure flag for operator new (std::nothrow)

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 11/10/2015 01:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 06/11/15 09:59 +, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson >>> > The issue is, as I

[Bug libstdc++/69879] New: Create a pointer to the default operator new and delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69879 Bug ID: 69879 Summary: Create a pointer to the default operator new and delete Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

i386: add a variant peephole for decl (mem)

PR 49095 requested the following optimization: - movl-120(%rax), %ecx - leal-1(%rcx), %edx - movl%edx, -120(%rax) - testl %edx, %edx + subl$1, -120(%rax) jne .L92 The PR was fixed by adding a peephole, but it doesn't actually trigger

Re: gnu-gabi group

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:57:34PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> How do I subscribe gnu-abi mailing list? The project page just >> points to the mailing list archive. There is no option to subscribe >> it. > > To subscribe sent

Re: gnu-gabi group

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.02.19 at 12:57 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jose E. Marchesi >> wrote: >> > >> > > Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...] >>

Re: [PATCH] Fix Cilk+ #pragma cilk grainsize preprocessing (PR c++/69826)

On 02/17/2016 10:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! The following testcase works unless -save-temps or ccache is used (or manually performing -E and compilation separately). The problem is that #pragma cilk grainsize is supposed to have macro expansion (except for the grainsize keyword), but we

Re: [PATCH] 19705 - -fno-branch-count-reg doesn't prevent decrement and branch instructions on a count register

On 02/18/2016 08:39 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00809.html On 02/11/2016 02:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: The more than decennnial rtl-optimization/19705 - -fno-branch-count-reg doesn't prevent decrement and branch instructions on a count register

Re: [PATCH] Add configure flag for operator new (std::nothrow)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 06/11/15 09:59 +, Pedro Alves wrote: >> >> On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson >> >> The issue is, as I understand it, to do the actual work of

Re: i386: relax scan-assembler test in lzcnt-1 testcase

On 02/19/2016 02:36 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: I'm working on some IRA cost fixes, and I've had the lzcnt-1.c test fail because the register allocator started making different decisions. In both cases we end up generating two instructions, but with slightly different register assignments. Hence,

i386: relax scan-assembler test in lzcnt-1 testcase

I'm working on some IRA cost fixes, and I've had the lzcnt-1.c test fail because the register allocator started making different decisions. In both cases we end up generating two instructions, but with slightly different register assignments. Hence, this patch, which relaxes the test slightly.

Re: How to use _Generic with bit-fields

On 02/19/2016 11:25 AM, Wink Saville wrote: I'm using gcc 5.3.0: $ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 5.3.0 Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR

Re: Fix/work around PR57676, LRA terminates prematurely

On 02/19/2016 02:32 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: The testcase in this PR causes gcc to abort with internal compiler error: Maximum number of LRA constraint passes is achieved (30) [in theory - I've not managed to reproduce this on my system with any compiler] The abort is premature, allowing LRA

Fix/work around PR57676, LRA terminates prematurely

The testcase in this PR causes gcc to abort with internal compiler error: Maximum number of LRA constraint passes is achieved (30) [in theory - I've not managed to reproduce this on my system with any compiler] The abort is premature, allowing LRA to continue would allow the testcase to

[Bug c/69878] New: GCC produces pessimal assembly for C11 atomic increments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69878 Bug ID: 69878 Summary: GCC produces pessimal assembly for C11 atomic increments Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: gnu-gabi group

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:57:34PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > How do I subscribe gnu-abi mailing list? The project page just > points to the mailing list archive. There is no option to subscribe > it. To subscribe sent email to gnu-abi-subscr...@sourceware.org Or use the subscribe form at

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 02/19/2016 11:56 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> >>> On 02/18/2016 01:25 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:51

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Richard Smith wrote: > >> >> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects >> >> (recursively) are of class, structure, union, or array type. No >> >> memory slot nor register should be

Re: [RFC] [P2] [PR tree-optimization/33562] Lowering more complex assignments.

On 02/18/2016 02:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Just a short quick comment - the above means you only handle partial stores with no interveaning uses. You don't handle, say struct S { struct R { int x; int y; } r; int z; } s; s = { {1, 2}, 3 }; s.r.x = 1; s.r.y = 2; struct R r =

Re: gnu-gabi group

On 2016.02.19 at 12:57 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jose E. Marchesi > wrote: > > > > > Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...] > > > > Done [1] [2]. If y'all need a wiki too, just ask. > > > > [1]

Re: gnu-gabi group

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > > > Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...] > > Done [1] [2]. If y'all need a wiki too, just ask. > > [1] gnu-g...@sourceware.org > [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/ > >

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:45:09PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > I have still another question. > > Why are you adding braces here? > > + || (bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0) > + || (bitpos % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0) These two are not really needed, but I've already committed the

Re: PPC libgcc IEEE128 soft-fp exception/rounding fixes

On 02/17/2016 08:37 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >> +/* A set bit indicates an exception is trapping. */ >> +# define FP_TRAPPING_EXCEPTIONS ((_fpscr.i << 22) & FP_EX_ALL) > > why then a shift here, since FP_EX_* are defined as the actual > register bits? Oh, I see. FP_EX_* are the status bits, and

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

Excuse me, I have still another question. Why are you adding braces here? + || (bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0) + || (bitpos % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0) + || (compare_tree_int (DECL_SIZE (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1)), bitsize) + != 0))) I think everywhere

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

Excuse me, I have still another question. Why are you adding braces here? + || (bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0) + || (bitpos % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0) + || (compare_tree_int (DECL_SIZE (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1)), bitsize) + != 0))) I think everywhere

Re: [patch] Clarify interaction of -Wnarrowing with -std

On 19/02/16 13:17 -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote: On 02/19/2016 12:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/19/2016 07:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: In PR69864 Manu suggests improving the docs to explain that -Wnarrowing sometimes produces errors not warnings. I think the right way to do that is

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

On 19.02.2016 21:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:04:39PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> but you are just adding another term to this expression: >>!(TREE_CODE (exp) == CONSTRUCTOR >> && bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0) > > No. Please read the code again. I'm adding

Re: [patch] Clarify interaction of -Wnarrowing with -std

On 02/19/2016 12:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/19/2016 07:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: In PR69864 Manu suggests improving the docs to explain that -Wnarrowing sometimes produces errors not warnings. I think the right way to do that is clarify how it interacts with -std. Specifically that

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:04:39PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > but you are just adding another term to this expression: > !(TREE_CODE (exp) == CONSTRUCTOR > && bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0) No. Please read the code again. I'm adding another case after this one. > so the result should

[Bug rtl-optimization/69806] [6 Regression][SH] Combine doesn't see constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69806 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

On 19.02.2016 20:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 06:42:32PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >>> --- gcc/expr.c.jj 2016-02-12 00:50:55.0 +0100 >>> +++ gcc/expr.c 2016-02-19 10:43:59.639162531 +0100 >>> @@ -6643,14 +6643,24 @@ store_field (rtx target,

Re: [PATCH] combine: Delete EQ* notes when pseudo mode changes (PR60818)

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:34:03PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > It is not a regression (it is in all open release branches already). > > I can postpone it if you think that is wiser? > > I do think that the combiner is one of those pieces of code that you ought > not > to touch unless you

Re: Need suggestion about bug 68425

On 19 February 2016 at 19:13, David Malcolm wrote: >> 68425.c:3:34: warning: excess elements in array initializer (6 >> elements, >> expected 2) >>const int array[2] = { 1, 2, 3 ,6 ,89 ,193}; >> ^ > > Yes, that would be

Re: [PATCH 4/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: lto-wrapper

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 20:41:58 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 19:14:57 +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > With this patch lto-wrapper performs invocation of mkoffload tool for each > > offload target. This tool [...] > > will compile IR from

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 19 February 2016 at 14:35, Michael Matz wrote: >> struct S { >> S() {something();} >> }; >> >> would be an empty type, and that's not what we want. > > Why not? The default constructor is

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix option handling when -std=gnu++14 is not used (PR 69865)

On 02/19/2016 02:37 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: On 19.02.2016 17:03, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/19/2016 10:51 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: + flag_isoc94 = 0; + flag_isoc99 = 0; Why? These flags are global variables, so they're already zero-initialized. Otherwise the changes look good to me.

Re: [PATCH 4/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: lto-wrapper

Hi! On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 19:14:57 +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > With this patch lto-wrapper performs invocation of mkoffload tool for each > offload target. This tool [...] > will compile IR from .gnu.offload_lto_* sections into offload > target code and embed the resultant code

[Bug libstdc++/69877] Problem with std::basic_ios::setstate()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69877 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Leo Carreon from comment #1) > In addition, if I comment out the line: > > vStream.exceptions(std::ios_base::badbit); > > The executable does not core dump. Yes, obviously. If you don't

[Bug libstdc++/69877] Problem with std::basic_ios::setstate()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69877 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/66145] [5/6 Regression] std::ios_base::failure objects thrown from libstdc++.so use old ABI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lcarreon at bigpond dot net.au ---

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix option handling when -std=gnu++14 is not used (PR 69865)

On 19.02.2016 17:03, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 02/19/2016 10:51 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> + flag_isoc94 = 0; >> + flag_isoc99 = 0; > > Why? These flags are global variables, so they're already > zero-initialized. > > Otherwise the changes look good to me. > > Jason > Hi Jason, This hunk is

[Bug libstdc++/69877] Problem with std::basic_ios::setstate()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69877 --- Comment #1 from Leo Carreon --- In addition, if I comment out the line: vStream.exceptions(std::ios_base::badbit); The executable does not core dump.

Re: [PATCH] combine: Delete EQ* notes when pseudo mode changes (PR60818)

> It is not a regression (it is in all open release branches already). > I can postpone it if you think that is wiser? I do think that the combiner is one of those pieces of code that you ought not to touch unless you really need to. > I misread it as moving the notes from i3 to i2, ugh. It

[Bug c++/69864] Fix various Wnarrowing minor issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69864 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11) > Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01326.html Committed to trunk.

[Bug libstdc++/69877] New: Problem with std::basic_ios::setstate()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69877 Bug ID: 69877 Summary: Problem with std::basic_ios::setstate() Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/68585] [5/6 Regression] c++14 code accepted by 4.9 not accepted by 5 and 6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68585 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/68679] [5/6 Regression] gcc-5.2.1 ICE in C++11 anon union of structs with template fns, OK in gcc <= 4.9.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68679 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69850] [6 Regression] unnecessary -Wnonnull-compare warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69850 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69851] [6 Regression] ICE: in assign_temp, at function.c:961

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69850] [6 Regression] unnecessary -Wnonnull-compare warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69850 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Feb 19 19:16:31 2016 New Revision: 233568 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233568=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/69850 * rtti.c (ifnonnull): Set TREE_NO_WARNING on the

Re: [PATCH] combine: Delete EQ* notes when pseudo mode changes (PR60818)

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 07:39:03PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Not for stage 4 certainly. > > If we go this way, is the bug a regression? If no, why rushing the fix? It is not a regression (it is in all open release branches already). I can postpone it if you think that is wiser? > > That

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR69423 - [6 Regression] Invalid optimization with deferred-length character

With the patch I get an ICE when compiling gfortran.dg/allocate_error_5.f90 (lldb) target create "/opt/gcc/gcc6p-233563p2/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin15.3.0/6.0.0/f951" Current executable set to '/opt/gcc/gcc6p-233563p2/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin15.3.0/6.0.0/f951' (x86_64). (lldb) run

Re: Need suggestion about bug 68425

On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 14:28 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 18/02/16 11:40, Prasad Ghangal wrote: > > Wouldn't it be nice instead of multiple warnings if gcc gives > > single > > warning like : > > > > 68425.c:3:34: warning: excess elements in array initializer (6 > > elements, expected 2)

[Bug c++/69851] [6 Regression] ICE: in assign_temp, at function.c:961

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Feb 19 19:11:58 2016 New Revision: 233566 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233566=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/69851 * expr.c (store_field): Don't use bit-field path if

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

On 02/19/2016 02:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 02:00:07PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/19/2016 01:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 01:30:52PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/19/2016 09:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: As described in the PR, in C++

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix -Wnonnull-compare warning from dynamic_cast <...> (this) (PR c++/69850)

OK. Jason

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 02:00:07PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 02/19/2016 01:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 01:30:52PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > >>On 02/19/2016 09:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>>As described in the PR, in C++ we can have assignments > >>>where

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

On 02/19/2016 11:56 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/18/2016 01:25 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: OK. Is this an approval of the 2nd patch for next

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 06:42:32PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi, > > > > --- gcc/expr.c.jj 2016-02-12 00:50:55.0 +0100 > > +++ gcc/expr.c 2016-02-19 10:43:59.639162531 +0100 > > @@ -6643,14 +6643,24 @@ store_field (rtx target, HOST_WIDE_INT b > > /* Except for

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On 19 February 2016 at 14:35, Michael Matz wrote: > struct S { > S() {something();} > }; > > would be an empty type, and that's not what we want. Why not? The default constructor is never invoked as part of passing such an object around. Its copy constructor is a nop and requires

Re: [patch] Clarify interaction of -Wnarrowing with -std

On 02/19/2016 07:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: In PR69864 Manu suggests improving the docs to explain that -Wnarrowing sometimes produces errors not warnings. I think the right way to do that is clarify how it interacts with -std. Specifically that the effect of -Wnarrowing listed first in the

Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851)

On 02/19/2016 01:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 01:30:52PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/19/2016 09:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: As described in the PR, in C++ we can have assignments where both the lhs and rhs are COMPONENT_REFs with TREE_ADDRESSABLE types, including

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On 19 February 2016 at 16:27, H.J. Lu wrote: > We want to include static member functions and exclude non-static member > functions. There's no reason to disallow non-static member functions in general; they have no impact on being trivially copyable or not, only the

  1   2   3   >