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
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,
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
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
>
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
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
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,
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:
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Likely r197053.
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.
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
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
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. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
Severity|major
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71936
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
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
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
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
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
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):
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):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||69698
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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()
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.
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
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
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
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
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71320
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
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
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
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
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
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
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,
> >>
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
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
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
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
>
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;
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
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Aldy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64945
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64945
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
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.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
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
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
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. ***
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68889
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 - 100 of 254 matches
Mail list logo