Re: [PATCH]: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_{,M}1{,U} some more

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jul 19, 2016, at 5:46 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >> The result of exercises with sed in gcc/ directory. >> >> 2016-07-19 Uros Bizjak >> >>* builtins.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_1

[Patch, testsuite, tentative] Explicitly disable pointer <-> int cast warnings for avr?

Hi, The patch fixes a couple of testsuite failures that show up for the avr target because it has different sizes for longs and pointers (4 bytes versus 2), by explicitly disabling the warning for avr. Does this make sense? Skipping the test by requiring ptr32plus would have worked,

[Bug c++/67164] ICE: tree check: expected class ‘expression’, have ‘exceptional’ (argument_pack_select) in tree_operand_check, at tree.h:3356

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164 --- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Wed Jul 20 05:06:52 2016 New Revision: 238507 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238507=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/67164 - clean up dead code * pt.c

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/67164 (error with variadic templates)

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > When we instantiate an element of a pack expansion, we replace the argument > pack in the template argument vec with an ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT which > indicates the desired element of the vec. If the args have been used to >

[Bug c/71939] New: sole flexible array member in an anonymous structure rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71939 Bug ID: 71939 Summary: sole flexible array member in an anonymous structure rejected Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[VRP] Use alloc-pool and obstack for value_range and vr->equiv allocations

Hi Richard, As discussed in IPA-VRP discussion, this patch makes tree-vrp allocations use alloc-pool and obstack for value_range and vr->equiv respectively. Other allocations are rare and left as it is. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86-64-linux with no new regressions. Is this OK

Re: [PATCH] Avoid invoking ranlib on libbackend.a

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 06:35:11AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> > Or,

ubsan and Dejagnu not having a big enough buffer in some cases

Hi, I noticed that ubsan testsuite sometimes has failures due to dejagnu buffer gets full and we no longer match on the output any more. As you can see from the .log file: /data1/jenkins/workspace/BuildThunderX_native_gcc_6/gcc/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c:88:3:

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/19/16 19:30, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 07/19/16 18:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:20:55PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> As discussed at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71876, >>> we have a _very_ old hack in gcc, that recognizes certain functions by

Re: gcc/libcpp: non-UTF-8 source or execution encodings?

David Edelsohn writes: > GCC on the system is not self-hosting -- I believe that GCC only is > used as a cross-compiler. I can confirm this - GCC for TPF is always a cross compiler, it never runs *on* a TPF system.

Re: gcc/libcpp: non-UTF-8 source or execution encodings?

Hi, David I don't believe that hardware easily is available. We probably could arrange for access, if it is necessary, but it is not accessible through the IBM Community Development system for Linux on z Systems because this isn't Linux-based. GCC on the system is not self-hosting -- I believe

[Bug bootstrap/66319] [6 Regression] gcov-tool.c:84:65: error: invalid conversion from 'int (*)(const c har*, const stat*, int, FTW*)' to 'int (*)(const char*, const stat*, int, FTW)'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319 --- Comment #21 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2016-07-19, at 1:23 PM, bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319 > > --- Comment #20 from The Written Word com> --- > (In reply

Re: gcc/libcpp: non-UTF-8 source or execution encodings?

On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 12:24 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:05 PM, David Malcolm > wrote: > > libcpp/charset.c has a helpful introductory comment > > describingcharacter > > sets, including the source and execution character sets. > > > > libcpp

gcc-5-20160719 is now available

Snapshot gcc-5-20160719 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20160719/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5

[Bug libstdc++/71856] [6/7 Regression] _GLIBCXX_DEBUG-mode breaks GNU parallel extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71856 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Jul 19 22:16:23 2016 New Revision: 238498 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238498=gcc=rev Log: Do not define _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS in Parallel Mode PR libstdc++/71856

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++/71856 Define _GLIBCXX_PARALLEL_ASSERTIONS

On 13/07/16 18:26 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: This fixes a conflict between how Parallel Mode has always used the _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS macro and the new meaning we gave it for GCC 6 (enabling the lightweight debug checks). It doesn't make sense for Parallel Mode to own that macro, and it might

[Bug target/70568] [4.9/5/6/7 regression] PowerPC64: union of floating and fixed doesn't use POWER8 GPR/VSR moves

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568 --- Comment #4 from Pat Haugen --- (In reply to acsawdey from comment #3) > Tracked this back to 210824, and in particular this change: > > @@ -860,10 +897,15 @@ > } > } > > - /* If

[Bug fortran/71935] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] ICE is_c_interoperable(): gfc_simplify_expr failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Likely r197053.

[Bug c++/71937] [4.9.3] failure in cc1plus on very large fuction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71937 --- Comment #4 from Jean-Michel Dubois --- Created attachment 38937 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38937=edit preprocessed files Here are the processed files. I will try with gcc 5.4 to morrow morning.

[Bug fortran/71935] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] ICE is_c_interoperable(): gfc_simplify_expr failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Index: check.c === --- check.c (revision 238385) +++ check.c (working copy) @@ -4278,7 +4278,7 @@ is_c_interoperable

[Bug c++/71937] [4.9.3] failure in cc1plus on very large fuction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71937 --- Comment #3 from Jean-Michel Dubois --- The virtual machine has 4 Gb. [jmd@localhost src]$ free totalusedfree shared buff/cache available Mem:3866920 618400 28506083260

[Bug c++/71937] [4.9.3] failure in cc1plus on very large fuction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71937 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 71938 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/71938] [4.9.3] failure in cc1plus on very large fuction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71938 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/71937] [4.9.3] failure in cc1plus on very large fuction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71937 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||memory-hog Severity|major

[Bug fortran/71902] [5/6 Regression] Unneeded temporary on reallocatable character assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71902 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] Unneeded |[5/6 Regression] Unneeded

[Bug c++/71938] New: [4.9.3] failure in cc1plus on very large fuction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71938 Bug ID: 71938 Summary: [4.9.3] failure in cc1plus on very large fuction Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3

[Bug c++/71937] New: [4.9.3] failure in cc1plus on very large fuction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71937 Bug ID: 71937 Summary: [4.9.3] failure in cc1plus on very large fuction Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3

Re: [patch, Fortran] Fix some string temporaries

Hi Mikael, Then handle the GFC_DEP_ERROR here. Or initialize fin_dep with GFC_DEP_NODEP at the beginning, as you prefer. OK with either (and the unreachable assertions). Here is the pacth the way I committed it. Thanks for the review and the comments. Regards Thomas 2016-07-19

Re: [RFC][IPA-VRP] Add support for IPA VRP in ipa-cp/ipa-prop

Hi Martin, On 19/07/16 18:22, kugan wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks for the review. I have revised the patch based on the review. Please see the comments below. Maybe it is better to separate value range and alignment summary writing/reading to different functions. Here is another updated

[Bug fortran/71902] [5/6/7 Regression] Unneeded temporary on reallocatable character assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71902 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Tue Jul 19 21:25:33 2016 New Revision: 238497 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238497=gcc=rev Log: 2016-07-19 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/71902

Re: [PATCH] Giant concepts patch

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: > I did find another bug building cmcstl2, hence the attached > disable-opt patch. For some reason, the memoization of concept > satisfaction is giving momoized results for concept + args that have > not yet been

Re: [PATCH, DOC] Enhance documentation of -fipa-ra option.

On 07/19/2016 08:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 07/19/2016 03:46 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote: So I decided to also mention this alias. Thoughts? I'd like the new ipa-ra text to go in, but perhaps you should consider leaving out option aliases out of this patch, especially given that it's

[Bug fortran/71936] [6/7 Regression] ICE in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1487

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71936 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vehre at gmx dot de --- Comment #4 from

[Bug fortran/71936] [6/7 Regression] ICE in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1487

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71936 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

Re: [PATCH PR71503/PR71683]Fix ICE in tree-if-conv.c

On 07/19/2016 07:39 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 07/14/2016 10:12 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: Hi, This is a simple patch fixing ICE in tree-if-conv.c. Existing code does not setup a variable (cond) when predicate of basic block is true

Re: [RFC][IPA-VRP] Early VRP Implementation

On 07/19/2016 12:35 PM, Richard Biener wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing tree-vrp broken down a little -- it's quite large and there's at least 4 distinct things going on in that file. 1. ASSERT_EXPR handling. 2. Arithmetic on ranges 3. Propagation engine setup, callbacks, etc 4. Range

[Bug fortran/71935] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] ICE is_c_interoperable(): gfc_simplify_expr failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug rtl-optimization/71916] [6/7 Regression] ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "maybe_record_trace_start"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug pch/71934] pch cannot be disabled so gcc cannot be position independent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71934 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

Re: [gimplefe] hacking pass manager

On 19 July 2016 at 11:04, Richard Biener wrote: > On July 18, 2016 11:05:58 PM GMT+02:00, David Malcolm > wrote: >>On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 00:52 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote: >>> On 19 July 2016 at 00:25, Richard Biener

[Bug rtl-optimization/71916] [6/7 Regression] ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "maybe_record_trace_start"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jul 19 19:55:54 2016 New Revision: 238491 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238491=gcc=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/71916 * cfgrtl.c (contains_no_active_insn_p):

[Bug rtl-optimization/71916] [6/7 Regression] ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "maybe_record_trace_start"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jul 19 19:54:49 2016 New Revision: 238490 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238490=gcc=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/71916 * cfgrtl.c (contains_no_active_insn_p):

[Bug c++/71912] [6/7 regression] flexible array in struct in union rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||69698 Severity|normal

[Bug debug/71855] duplicate unspecified_parameters DIE in DWARF for functions with variable arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/71855] duplicate unspecified_parameters DIE in DWARF for functions with variable arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855 --- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez --- Author: aldyh Date: Tue Jul 19 19:31:24 2016 New Revision: 238489 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238489=gcc=rev Log: PR debug/71855 * dwarf2out.c (gen_subprogram_die): Only call

[Bug debug/71855] duplicate unspecified_parameters DIE in DWARF for functions with variable arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855 --- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez --- Author: aldyh Date: Tue Jul 19 19:29:42 2016 New Revision: 238488 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238488=gcc=rev Log: PR debug/71855 * dwarf2out.c (gen_subprogram_die): Only call

Re: [PR debug/71855] avoid emitting DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters twice

On July 19, 2016 9:01:07 PM GMT+02:00, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >Hi folks. > >Ben brought this bug to my attention which was causing a failure in >libabigail. > >The problem is that varargs functions are getting two >DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters DIEs, because they are being

[Bug fortran/71936] ICE in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1487

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71936 --- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- To get the whole picture it's necessary to take a look at four analogous cases with "type" instead of "class". They compile without an error (v6/v7), but

[Bug fortran/71936] ICE in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1487

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71936 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- These other two cases produce an related ICE : $ cat z3.f90 program p type t end type class(t), pointer :: x(:) allocate (x, mold=f()) deallocate

[Bug libstdc++/71899] An internal BooleanTestable trait should be provided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2) [..] > I'm also not a fan of the name boolean_testable Note that no-one yet has made an improved name suggestion for this thingee that is discussed in LWG

[Bug fortran/71936] New: ICE in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1487

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71936 Bug ID: 71936 Summary: ICE in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1487 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

Re: RFA: new pass to warn on questionable uses of alloca() and VLAs

On 07/19/2016 01:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 07/17/2016 09:52 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: + if (is_vla) +gcc_assert (warn_vla_limit > 0); + if (!is_vla) +gcc_assert (warn_alloca_limit > 0); if-else ? Or perhaps: Shouldn't really matter, except perhaps in a -O0 compilation. Though

[Bug fortran/71935] New: ICE is_c_interoperable(): gfc_simplify_expr failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935 Bug ID: 71935 Summary: ICE is_c_interoperable(): gfc_simplify_expr failed Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

Re: RFA: new pass to warn on questionable uses of alloca() and VLAs

On 07/19/2016 01:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 07/19/2016 05:03 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: (Same thing with alloca). There should be no warning for VLAs, and for alloca, the warning should say "use of variable-length array within a loop." The VRP dump suggests the range information is available

[PR debug/71855] avoid emitting DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters twice

Hi folks. Ben brought this bug to my attention which was causing a failure in libabigail. The problem is that varargs functions are getting two DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters DIEs, because they are being emitted in early debug and again in late debug. This problem appears in GCC 6 and in

Re: [Fortran, Patch] First patch for coarray FAILED IMAGES (TS 18508)

Hello, this is mostly good in general, but is lacking tests. Especially, tests for successfull matching, and tests for every error you are adding in the patch (except maybe the -fcoarray= one). Also tests that the code executes successfullly with -fcoarray=single, and that it produces the

Re: [PATCH] Don't consider zero succs empty blocks as forwarders (PR rtl-optimization/71916)

On July 19, 2016 7:27:30 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >Normally empty blocks without successors (result of >__builtin_unreachable () >somewhere in RTL) aren't considered as forwarder_block_p, because they >don't satisfy single_succ_p. But e.g. during cross-jumping

Re: [PATCH]: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_{,M}1{,U} some more

On Jul 19, 2016, at 5:46 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > The result of exercises with sed in gcc/ directory. > > 2016-07-19 Uros Bizjak > >* builtins.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_1 instead of (HOST_WIDE_INT) 1, >HOST_WIDE_INT_1U instead of (unsigned

Re: [RFC][IPA-VRP] Early VRP Implementation

On July 19, 2016 6:19:23 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote: >On 07/14/2016 10:52 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:45 PM, kugan >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> This patch adds a very simple early vrp implementation. This

[v3 PATCH] Implement std::string_view and P0254r2, Integrating std::string_view and std::string.

Tested on Linux-x64. I'm quite sure there are cosmetic issues left in this patch, like in the section references of the tests. I will send it out for review now anyway. 2016-07-19 Ville Voutilainen Implement std::string_view and P0254r2, Integrating

[PATCH] nvptx: do not implicitly enable -ftoplevel-reorder

Hi, I've recently committed a middle-end patch that adds handling of undefined variables (that the nvptx backend needs) under -fno-toplevel-reorder (svn rev. 238371). With that change, it's no longer necessary to implicitly enable -ftoplevel-reorder in the backend, and the following patch

Re: RFA: new pass to warn on questionable uses of alloca() and VLAs

On 19 July 2016 at 18:47, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/17/2016 09:52 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> >> + if (is_vla) >> +gcc_assert (warn_vla_limit > 0); >> + if (!is_vla) >> +gcc_assert (warn_alloca_limit > 0); >> >> if-else ? Or perhaps: > > Shouldn't really matter,

Re: RFA: new pass to warn on questionable uses of alloca() and VLAs

On 07/19/2016 05:03 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: (Same thing with alloca). There should be no warning for VLAs, and for alloca, the warning should say "use of variable-length array within a loop." The VRP dump suggests the range information is available within the loop. Is the get_range_info()

[Bug pch/71934] pch cannot be disabled so gcc cannot be position independent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71934 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Now having PCH around might not be useful anyways. Someone would have to check to see if anyone uses PCH still.

[Bug pch/71934] pch cannot be disabled so gcc cannot be position independent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71934 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Actually you could exactly what is done for darwin targets to get it working on PIE. Also what do you mean by disabled? Do you mean not doing a PCH for libstdc++ (there is already an option for that; can't

Re: RFA: new pass to warn on questionable uses of alloca() and VLAs

On 07/17/2016 09:52 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: + if (is_vla) +gcc_assert (warn_vla_limit > 0); + if (!is_vla) +gcc_assert (warn_alloca_limit > 0); if-else ? Or perhaps: Shouldn't really matter, except perhaps in a -O0 compilation. Though I think else-if makes it slightly

[Bug middle-end/71874] [4.9 Regression] memmove works wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71874 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jul 19 17:42:26 2016 New Revision: 238487 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238487=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/71874 * builtins.c (fold_builtin_memory_op): Use

[Bug middle-end/71874] [4.9 Regression] memmove works wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71874 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jul 19 17:39:26 2016 New Revision: 238486 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238486=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/71874 * gimple-fold.c (fold_builtin_memory_op): Use

[Bug middle-end/71874] [4.9 Regression] memmove works wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71874 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jul 19 17:33:58 2016 New Revision: 238485 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238485=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/71874 * gimple-fold.c (fold_builtin_memory_op): Use

[Bug libstdc++/71320] filesystem::permissions does not respect add_perms/remove_perms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71320 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/19/16 18:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:20:55PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> As discussed at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71876, >> we have a _very_ old hack in gcc, that recognizes certain functions by >> name, and inserts in some cases unsafe

[Bug pch/71934] New: pch cannot be disabled so gcc cannot be position independent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71934 Bug ID: 71934 Summary: pch cannot be disabled so gcc cannot be position independent Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/71874] [4.9 Regression] memmove works wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71874 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jul 19 17:30:05 2016 New Revision: 238484 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238484=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/71874 * gimple-fold.c (fold_builtin_memory_op): Use

[PATCH] Don't consider zero succs empty blocks as forwarders (PR rtl-optimization/71916)

Hi! Normally empty blocks without successors (result of __builtin_unreachable () somewhere in RTL) aren't considered as forwarder_block_p, because they don't satisfy single_succ_p. But e.g. during cross-jumping fake edges to exit are added and then they suddenly satisfy this predicate, which

[llvm-dev] LLVM Cauldron 2016 (Sep 8th, Hebden Bridge, UK) registration and call for papers now open

We are pleased to announce the first LLVM Cauldron, to be held on Thursday September 8th 2016 in Hebden Bridge, UK. This is the day before the GNU Tools Cauldron being held at the same venue, so we hope to take advantage of the high concentration of compiler enthusiasts and to encourage lots of

[Bug bootstrap/66319] [6 Regression] gcov-tool.c:84:65: error: invalid conversion from 'int (*)(const c har*, const stat*, int, FTW*)' to 'int (*)(const char*, const stat*, int, FTW)'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319 --- Comment #20 from The Written Word --- (In reply to dave.anglin from comment #17) > On 2016-07-12, at 12:36 PM, bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote: > > >> don't have any ia64 hardware and I also don't have an 11.31 box. So, > >>

Re: [PATCH] Fix memmove to memcpy folding (PR middle-end/71874)

On July 19, 2016 6:52:55 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >As mentioned in the PR and discussed on IRC, get_ref_base_and_extent >can return size != maxsize or maxsize -1 and then we really can't trust >the offset for the purposes we want. So this patch instead uses a

[Bug libstdc++/71320] filesystem::permissions does not respect add_perms/remove_perms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71320 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Jul 19 17:17:05 2016 New Revision: 238483 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238483=gcc=rev Log: libstdc++/71320 Add or remove file permissions correctly Backport from mainline

[Bug c/71932] internal compiler error: in push_reload, at reload.c:1360

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71932 --- Comment #3 from Richard Falk --- Created attachment 38936 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38936=edit Slightly simpler pre-processed C file that demonstrates bug Slightly simpler in that only one parameter is needed in

Re: [patch,avr] Slightly better memory accesses on avr_tiny

2016-07-19 13:31 GMT+03:00 Georg-Johann Lay : > This patch tries to improve the bloated code we are currently generating for > AVR_TINY. It's mostly about printing the memory loads and stores and more > usage of reg_unused_after to print shorter instruction sequences in some >

[PATCH] Fix memmove to memcpy folding (PR middle-end/71874)

Hi! As mentioned in the PR and discussed on IRC, get_ref_base_and_extent can return size != maxsize or maxsize -1 and then we really can't trust the offset for the purposes we want. So this patch instead uses a different function that just computes the base and offset if the offset is constant;

[Bug testsuite/71933] New: plugin tests fail when host!=target but tests are run locally

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71933 Bug ID: 71933 Summary: plugin tests fail when host!=target but tests are run locally Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/71734] [7 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/simd4.f90 -O3 -g execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71734 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jul 19 16:47:30 2016 New Revision: 238482 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238482=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/71734 * g++.dg/vect/pr70729.cc: Don't include

[Bug debug/71855] duplicate unspecified_parameters DIE in DWARF for functions with variable arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Aldy

[Bug fortran/64945] Structure constructors and non-NULL-data-targets and polymorphic pointer components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64945 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #4 from

[Bug fortran/64945] Structure constructors and non-NULL-data-targets and polymorphic pointer components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64945 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/64945] Structure constructors and non-NULL-data-targets and polymorphic pointer components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64945 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > A test showing the problem is missing. As such the PR is useless for anyone, > but the reporter. No feedback, closing as INVALID.

[Bug fortran/71027] -fsanitize=address catches out of bounds access on assumed size array only with -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:20:55PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > As discussed at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71876, > we have a _very_ old hack in gcc, that recognizes certain functions by > name, and inserts in some cases unsafe attributes, that don't work for > a freestanding

[Bug libstdc++/71320] filesystem::permissions does not respect add_perms/remove_perms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71320 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Jul 19 16:34:23 2016 New Revision: 238480 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238480=gcc=rev Log: libstdc++/71320 Add or remove file permissions correctly Backport from mainline

[Bug fortran/59438] DWARF: Fortran mishandles ALLOCATABLE/ASSOCIATED in debug output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59438 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- *** Bug 68889 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/24546] [meta-bug] gfortran debugging problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24546 Bug 24546 depends on bug 68889, which changed state. Bug 68889 Summary: Fortran/DWARF: Possible bug in the handling of DW_AT_associated https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68889 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/68889] Fortran/DWARF: Possible bug in the handling of DW_AT_associated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68889 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [PATCH]: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_{,M}1{,U} some more

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:46:46PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> The result of exercises with sed in gcc/ directory. >> >> 2016-07-19 Uros Bizjak >> >> * builtins.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_1 instead of

[Bug debug/71855] duplicate unspecified_parameters DIE in DWARF for functions with variable arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855 --- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez --- Created attachment 38935 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38935=edit patch being tested gen_unspecified_parameters_die() is being called in early dwarf and again for the same parent DIE

Re: gcc/libcpp: non-UTF-8 source or execution encodings?

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:05 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > libcpp/charset.c has a helpful introductory comment describingcharacter > sets, including the source and execution character sets. > > libcpp appears to attempt to support both UTF-8 and UTF-EBCDIC for the > source

[Bug fortran/58667] Add -Wfloat-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58667 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The gfortran documentation says -Wconversion Warn about implicit conversions that are likely to change the value of the expression after conversion. Implied by -Wall. -Wconversion-extra Warn about

[PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

Hi! As discussed at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71876, we have a _very_ old hack in gcc, that recognizes certain functions by name, and inserts in some cases unsafe attributes, that don't work for a freestanding environment. It is unsafe to return ECF_MAY_BE_ALLOCA, ECF_LEAF and

Re: [RFC][IPA-VRP] Early VRP Implementation

On 07/14/2016 10:52 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:45 PM, kugan wrote: Hi, This patch adds a very simple early vrp implementation. This visits the basic blocks in the dominance order and set the Value Ranges (VR) for SSA_NAMEs in the

Re: [PATCH GCC]Improve no-overflow check in SCEV using value range info.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> Scalar evolution needs to prove no-overflow for source variable when >> handling type conversion. This is important because

  1   2   3   >