PATCH v2][Aarch64] Add vectorized mersenne twister

This is the second version of a patch for Aarc64 to add a vectorized mersenne twister to libstdc++. The first version used intrinsics and included "arm_neon.h". After feedback from the community this version uses only GCC vector extensions and Aarch64 simd data types. This patch adds an

Re: Killing old dead bugs

On 07/17/2017 10:33 PM, NightStrike wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> you did for the bugs below is ideal. Adding a test case if one >> doesn't exist in the test suite is also very useful, though quite >> a bit more work. > > Isn't a testcase

Re: Killing old dead bugs

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > you did for the bugs below is ideal. Adding a test case if one > doesn't exist in the test suite is also very useful, though quite > a bit more work. Isn't a testcase always required?

Re: [PATCH] Fix pr80044, -static and -pie insanity, and pr81170

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 06:01:47AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 06:32:40AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > >> > PR80044 notes that -static

[PING] [PATCH] enhance overflow and truncation detection in strncpy and strncat (PR 81117)

Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00411.html On 07/08/2017 02:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: PR 81117 asks for improved detection of common misuses(*) of strncpy and strncat. The attached patch is my solution. It consists of three related sets of changes: 1) Adds a new

[PING #2] [PATCH] enhance -Wrestrict for sprintf %s arguments

Ping #2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00036.html On 07/02/2017 02:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: The attached patch enhances the -Wrestrict warning to detect more than just trivial instances of overlapping copying by sprintf and related functions. The meat of the patch is

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 07/08

On 07/17/2017 04:42 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Jeff Law wrote: >> On 07/17/2017 05:27 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > >>> A minimum guard size of 64KB seems reasonable even on systems with >>> 4KB pages. However whatever the chosen guard size, you cannot defend >>> against hostile code. An OS

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 07/08

Jeff Law wrote:  > On 07/17/2017 05:27 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > > A minimum guard size of 64KB seems reasonable even on systems with > > 4KB pages. However whatever the chosen guard size, you cannot defend > > against hostile code. An OS can of course increase the guard size well > >

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Carl, please revert the patch until you have time to investigate. This will cause havoc every time we vectorize with these patterns.

Re: [PING^4] {C++ PATCH] Fix-it hints for wrong usage of 'friend' and 'auto'

On 17 Jul, David Malcolm wrote: > On Sun, 2017-07-16 at 12:13 +0200, Volker Reichelt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> this is PING^4 for a C++ patch that adds fix-it hints for wrong usage >> of 'friend' and 'auto': >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg01575.html > > I notice that the patch

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 --- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- So here is comparing 249423 (works) with 249424 (fails): seurer@genoa:~/gcc/build/gcc-test2$ svn info $GCC_SRC . . . Revision: 249423 . . . seurer@genoa:~/gcc/build/gcc-test2$

[PATCH, alpha]: Fix bootstrap

2017-07-17 Uros Bizjak * config/alpha/alpha.c: Include predict.h. Bootstrapped on alphaev68-linux-gnu, committed to mainline SVN. Uros. Index: config/alpha/alpha.c === --- config/alpha/alpha.c

[PATCH] PR libstdc++/81064 fix versioned namespace

Hi Here is the patch to fix libstdc++ versioned namespace. Now versioned namespace is only at std and __gnu_cxx levels, not anymore in nested namespaces. PR libstdc++/81064 * include/bits/algorithmfwd.h: Reorganize versioned namespace. * include/bits/basic_string.h:

Re: [PATCH] match.pd: reassociate multiplications with constants

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Marc Glisse wrote: > > +/* Combine successive multiplications. Similar to above, but handling > > + overflow is different. */ > > +(simplify > > + (mult (mult @0 INTEGER_CST@1) INTEGER_CST@2) > > + (with { > > + bool overflow_p; > > + wide_int mul = wi::mul (@1, @2,

[Bug target/81471] [5/6/7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3495

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ra | Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/81471] internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3495

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471 --- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Gian-Carlo Pascutto from comment #4) > Further reduced testcase: > > #include > > uint64_t f(uint64_t x) { > return ((uint32_t)x << 55) | ((uint32_t)x >> -23); > } > > This makes it more

[Bug target/81471] internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3495

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

Re: [patch] RFC: Hook for insn costs?

On 07/17/2017 12:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Segher Boessenkool Now what should it take as input? An rtx_insn, or just the pattern (as insn_rtx_cost does)? Is there any useful info on the other operands of an rtx_insn? If not then passing in the pattern (a

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 07/08

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:51:40AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/16/2017 12:36 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > >>> On the other hand if probing is fast enough that it can be on by default > >>> in gcc there should be much less of it. Even if you did change the ABI > >>> to require probing it seems

Re: Killing old dead bugs

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 07/17/2017 02:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote: >> >> Hi Mikhail, >> >> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Mikhail Maltsev >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi. Yes, bug maintenance is appreciated. See this message and replies

Re: std::forward_list optim for always equal allocator

2017-07-17 22:10 GMT+02:00 François Dumont : > Hi > > Here is the patch to implement the always equal alloc optimization for > forward_list. With this version there is no abi issue. > > I also prefer to implement the _Fwd_list_node_base move operator for > consistency

std::forward_list optim for always equal allocator

Hi Here is the patch to implement the always equal alloc optimization for forward_list. With this version there is no abi issue. I also prefer to implement the _Fwd_list_node_base move operator for consistency with the move constructor and used it where applicable. *

Re: [PATCH] match.pd: reassociate multiplications with constants

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017, Alexander Monakov wrote: On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Marc Glisse wrote: X*big*big where abs(big*big)>abs(INT_MIN) can be optimized to 0 I'm not sure that would be a win, eliminating X prevents the compiler from deducing that X must be zero (if overflow invokes undefined

[Bug target/81471] internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3495

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471 --- Comment #4 from Gian-Carlo Pascutto --- Further reduced testcase: #include uint64_t f(uint64_t x) { return ((uint32_t)x << 55) | ((uint32_t)x >> -23); } This makes it more clear the code is UB, but AFAIK a compiler ICE doesn't fall

Backports to 7.x

Hi! I've bootstrapped/regtested and committed following 5 backports from mainline to 7.x. Jakub 2017-07-17 Jakub Jelinek Backported from mainline 2017-06-30 Jakub Jelinek PR target/81225 * config/i386/sse.md

[Bug target/81471] internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3495

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471 --- Comment #3 from Gian-Carlo Pascutto --- Note the flags, -march=native in this case was Intel Haswell. -O3 -march=haswell is required to trigger this.

[Bug tree-optimization/81428] [7/8 Regression] ICE: in build_one_cst, at tree.c:2079 with -O2. Fixed point division.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81428 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 17 19:45:59 2017 New Revision: 250289 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250289=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/81428 * match.pd (X / X -> one): Don't

[Bug target/81471] internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3495

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471 --- Comment #2 from Gian-Carlo Pascutto --- #include inline uint32_t rotl(const uint32_t x, const int k) { return (x << k) | (x >> (32 - k)); } uint64_t s[2]; uint64_t random(void) { const uint64_t s0 = s[0]; uint64_t s1 = s[1];

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- Doesn't reproduce for powerpc64le. I'll have to build a cross.

[Bug tree-optimization/81365] [7/8 Regression] GCC miscompiles swap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81365 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 17 19:42:37 2017 New Revision: 250288 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250288=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/81365 * tree-ssa-phiprop.c

[Bug sanitizer/81066] sanitizer_stoptheworld_linux_libcdep.cc:276:22: error: aggregate ‘sigaltstack handler_stack’ has incomplete type and cannot be defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81066 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 17 19:41:08 2017 New Revision: 250287 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250287=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2017-07-14 Jakub Jelinek

[Bug c++/81258] [7/8 Regression] ICE on C++1z code with invalid decomposition declaration: in cp_finish_decl, at cp/decl.c:6760

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81258 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 17 19:39:23 2017 New Revision: 250286 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250286=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2017-07-04 Jakub Jelinek

[Bug target/81225] [6/7 Regression] ICE with -mavx512ifma -O3 -ffloat-store

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81225 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 17 19:38:29 2017 New Revision: 250285 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250285=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2017-06-30 Jakub Jelinek

[Bug target/81471] internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3495

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Gian-Carlo Pascutto from comment #0) > In another module there is: Please provide a compilable source file (preferably minimized) that triggers the ICE, as instructed in [1]. [1]

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- The code is being vectorized in the "fails" dump and not being vectorized in the "works" dump. This cannot be due to r249424, which does gimple folding on some Power-specific built-ins, for this is a generic

Re: [PATCH] prevent -Wall from resetting -Wstringop-overflow=2 to 1 (pr 81345)

On 07/10/2017 05:27 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: On 07/07/2017 10:58 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: This patch is OK. Thanks. Committed in r250104. Do you have any comments on or concerns with changing how LangEnabledBy interprets the opt argument as I

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 --- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Looking at the difference in generated code. The more recent (failing) builds are generating a whole bunch of vector ops where the old (working) code did not. < failing code (r250280) > last

[PATCH, rs6000] Rev 2, 1/2 Add x86 MMX <mmintrin,h> intrinsics to GCC PPC64LE target

Correct the problems Segher found in review and added a changes to deal with the fallout from the __builtin_cpu_supports warning for older distros. Tested on P8 LE and P6/P7/P8 BE. No new tests failures. ./gcc/ChangeLog: 2017-07-17 Steven Munroe * config.gcc

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 --- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 41777 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41777=edit Assembler for works

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 41776 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41776=edit Assembler for fails

[Bug libstdc++/81468] is_constructible gives the wrong answer for time_point construction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81468 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler --- It seems that the implementation simply forgot to constrain overload resolution, since this is the complete definition of the affected constructor: template constexpr time_point(const time_point

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 --- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Jul 17 19:12:11 2017 New Revision: 250284 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250284=gcc=rev Log: 2017-07-17 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug other/81345] -Wall resets -Wstringop-overflow to 1 from the default 2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81345 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|7.1.0 |8.0 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor

Re: PING: [PATCH v2 0/2] [testsuite, libgcc] PR80759 Fix FAILs on Solaris and Darwin

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Daniel Santos wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00025.html > > Uros, > Can you review changes for i386 please? x86 part is OK, so considering that Mike is OK with the Darwin part, if there are no comments from Ian,

[Bug libstdc++/81469] std::uncaught_exception should be marked as deprecated for C++1z

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81469 emi_cuenca at hotmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||emi_cuenca at hotmail dot

Re: Complex multiplication in gcc

Ah OK, thank you, I wasn't aware of that particular mechanism. If I run the code and break on __mulsc3 it disassembles as I'd expect. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:51:21AM -0600, Sean McAllister wrote: >> When generating

[Bug c/81471] New: internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3495

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81471 Bug ID: 81471 Summary: internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3495 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

Re: Complex multiplication in gcc

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:51:21AM -0600, Sean McAllister wrote: > When generating code for a simple inner loop (instantiated with > std::complex) > > template > void __attribute__((noinline)) benchcore(const cx* __restrict__ aa, > const cx* __restrict__ bb, const cx* __restrict__ cc, cx*

[Bug bootstrap/81470] New: [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failures in gcc/ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470 Bug ID: 81470 Summary: [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failures in gcc/ada Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[PATCH rs6000] Fix up BMI/BMI2 intrinsic DG tests

After a resent GCC change the previously submitted BMI/BMI2 intrinsic test started to fail with the following warning/error. ppc_cpu_supports_hw_available122373.c: In function 'main': ppc_cpu_supports_hw_available122373.c:9:10: warning: __builtin_cpu_supports need s GLIBC (2.23 and newer) that

[Bug libstdc++/81469] New: std::uncaught_exception should be marked as deprecated for C++1z

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81469 Bug ID: 81469 Summary: std::uncaught_exception should be marked as deprecated for C++1z Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/81468] New: is_constructible gives the wrong answer for time_point construction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81468 Bug ID: 81468 Summary: is_constructible gives the wrong answer for time_point construction Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 02/08

On 07/13/2017 04:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/12/2017 07:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> I don't really see why this is so complicated, and why the rs6000 >> target changes (a later patch) are so big. Why isn't it just simple >> patches to allocate_stack (and the prologue thing), that

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 03/08

On 07/17/2017 10:28 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi, > > Just some typos: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:20:38PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> +/* If debugging dumps are requested, dump infomation about how the > > Typo ("information"). > >> + target handled -fstack-check=clash for the

Re: [PATCH, PR81030] Call compute_outgoing_frequencies at expand

Hi, thanks for looking into this issue. It is quite weird indeed. > Commenting out this bit makes the compilation succeed. so my understanding is that RTL expansions confuses itself and redistributes probabilities to two jumps while immediately optimizing out the second... I think in such case

[Bug go/81393] Bootstrap failure on s390x-linux while building libgo against recent glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c/81467] New: AVX-512 support for inline assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81467 Bug ID: 81467 Summary: AVX-512 support for inline assembly Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

Re: [PATCH] gcc/doc: list what version each attribute was introduced in

On 07/06/2017 07:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: There are several hundred named attribute keys that have been introduced over many GCC releases. Applications typically need to be compilable with multiple GCC versions, so it is important for developers to know when GCC introduced support for

[Bug target/81456] [7/8 Regression] x86-64 optimizer makes wrong decision when optimizing for size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81456 --- Comment #2 from James Greenhalgh --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > Confirmed, started with r238594. The cost model relies on the target giving a reasonable approximation for an instruction size through ix86_rtx_costs. The

[C++ PATCH] ctor privacy

While futzing around with ctor lookup I discovered this warning about overly-private classes. Originally we'd allow a public copy-ctor to be sufficiently public, but as the comment says, you need an already-constructed object for that to work. so this implements that check -- public copy or

Complex multiplication in gcc

When generating code for a simple inner loop (instantiated with std::complex) template void __attribute__((noinline)) benchcore(const cx* __restrict__ aa, const cx* __restrict__ bb, const cx* __restrict__ cc, cx* __restrict__ dd, cx uu, cx vv, size_t nn) { for (ssize_t ii=0; ii < nn; ii++) {

[Bug other/52992] Incorrect sprintf format in fixincludes/fixincl.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52992 Andris Pavenis changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

Re: PING: [PATCH v2 0/2] [testsuite, libgcc] PR80759 Fix FAILs on Solaris and Darwin

On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Daniel Santos wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00025.html > Mike or Iain, > Can one of you review changes for Darwin please? Ok.

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 03/08

Hi, Just some typos: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:20:38PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > +/* If debugging dumps are requested, dump infomation about how the Typo ("information"). > + target handled -fstack-check=clash for the prologue. > + > + PROBES describes what if any probes were emitted. > +

Re: [PATCH, GCC/ARM, ping] Remove ARMv8-M code for D17-D31

My bad, found an off-by-one error in the sizing of bitmaps. Please find fixed patch in attachment. ChangeLog entry is unchanged: *** gcc/ChangeLog *** 2017-06-13 Thomas Preud'homme * config/arm/arm.c (arm_option_override): Forbid ARMv8-M Security

[Bug middle-end/70140] Inefficient expansion of __builtin_mempcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140 --- Comment #7 from Wilco --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6) > Created attachment 41772 [details] > Patch candidate > > I'm going to prepare some test-cases for that. Does it look good? Yes, it now inlines small constant sizes.

PING: [PATCH v2 0/2] [testsuite, libgcc] PR80759 Fix FAILs on Solaris and Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00025.html Uros, Can you review changes for i386 please? Mike or Iain, Can one of you review changes for Darwin please? I'm not familiar with the platform, although Rainer tested on Darwin for me. Ian, Can you review changes to libgcc please?

[C++ PATCH] combine move assign/ctor check

We currently have separate 'has-move-assign' and 'has-move-ctor' functions. but they are always called together. so lets just have a single 'has-move-assign-or-move-ctor' function. Applied to trunk. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell 2017-07-17 Nathan Sidwell * class.c

Re: [PATCH][PING] Improve extraction of changed file in contrib/mklog

On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:22 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote: > > Currently mklog will fail to analyze lines like this in patches: > diff -rupN gcc/gcc/testsuite/lib/profopt.exp > gcc-compare-checks/gcc/testsuite/lib/profopt.exp > (it fails with "Error: failed to parse diff for ... and

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 07/08

On 07/16/2017 12:36 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote: >>> On the other hand if probing is fast enough that it can be on by default >>> in gcc there should be much less of it. Even if you did change the ABI >>> to require probing it seems unlikely that code violating that >>> requirement would hit

[Bug preprocessor/71681] header.gcc file lookup is broken for -remap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71681 Andris Pavenis changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/81464] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_omp_for_static_chunk, at omp-expand.c:4236

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81464 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- Minimal example: ... program main implicit none real, dimension(:,:),allocatable :: a, b, c real :: sm allocate (a(2,2), b(2,2), c(2,2)) call random_number(a) call random_number(b) c =

[Bug c/46742] -Wparentheses unexpectedly misses some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46742 --- Comment #5 from Franz Sirl --- Actually, after seeing a large bunch of justified warnings in our codebase with the disabled APPEARS_TO_BE_BOOLEAN_EXPR_P check, I wonder if a new option like -Wbool-bitwise-parentheses (thus not depending on

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 07/08

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:24:27AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > >> While I'm not really comfortable with the 2k/2k split in general, I > >> think I can support it from a Red Hat point of view -- largely because > >> we use 64k pages in RHEL. So our guard is actually 64k. Having a > >> hostile call

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 07/08

On 07/17/2017 05:27 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Jeff Law wrote: > >> So would a half-half (2k caller/2k callee) split like Florian has >> proposed work for you? ie, we simply declare a caller that pushes the >> stack pointer 2k or more into the guard as broken? > > My results show using a 4KB

Re: Killing old dead bugs

On 07/17/2017 02:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote: Hi Mikhail, On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote: Hi. Yes, bug maintenance is appreciated. See this message and replies to it: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-04/msg00258.html . Replies in your link suggest to

[Bug gcov-profile/81442] error: verify_flow_info: REG_BR_PROB is set but cfg probability is not during RTL pass: outof_cfglayout

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81442 --- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to cesar from comment #4) > I posted a patch that fixes this issue on July 13, 2017: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00750.html > > It is pending review. Assuming this is indeed

Re: [PATCH] Increase expect match buffer size

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi, > > > this is to mitigate a race condition in expect 5.45-7 > (which will be fixed in 5.45-8) see this thread for details: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-07/msg00081.html > > By increasing the match buffer size from 2000 to 1 > bytes

Fix inconsistent section flags

Hello, attached patch fixes inconsistent handling of section flags when using the section attribute, i.e.: __attribute__((section("writable1"))) int foo1; __attribute__((section("readonly1"))) const int foo1c; __attribute__((section("writable2"))) int foo2 = 42;

[Bug tree-optimization/81403] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81403 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Kind-of a duplicate of PR80620 as well. Testing a patch.

[Bug tree-optimization/81403] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81403 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- So this is during partial-PRE insertion where after PRE insertion of Found partial redundancy for expression {bit_not_expr,_13} (0020) Inserted _33 = ~_3; in predecessor 5 (0014) Created phi prephitmp_34

Re: [patch] RFC: Hook for insn costs?

Him On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 03:36:13PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:15:09PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >>the current cost computations in rtlanal.c and maybe other places > >>suffer from the fact that they are hiding parts of the expressions > >>from the

[Bug c/81453] relational expression involving null pointer not diagnosed with -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81453 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/81462] [8 Regression] ICE in estimate_bb_frequencies at gcc/predict.c:3546

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81462 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Re: Could preprocessor warn for unsafe macros and side-effects?

On 7/12/17, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 07/11/2017 11:50 PM, sa...@hederstierna.com wrote: >> Hi >> >> Reading about macro pitfalls and eg duplication side-effects >> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Macro-Pitfalls.html#Macro-Pitfalls >> >> would it be possible to let the

[Bug middle-end/70992] Infinite recursion between fold_build2_stat_loc and fold_binary_loc w/ -fwrapv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70992 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/81443] gcc-7.1.0/MIPS N32: build/genrecog.o: virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443 --- Comment #3 from Joshua Kinard --- It's just build/genrecog.c. I had a stale build environment file that was still sending "-j3" to 'make'. I fixed that and restarted from where it last left off, and it gets to genrecog.c and spent about

[Bug c/46742] -Wparentheses unexpectedly misses some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46742 --- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl --- APPEARS_TO_BE_BOOLEAN_EXPR_P was introduced with r141340 (PR 7543), but I cannot find a discussion on why this suppression makes sense. When I disable it I only see 3 places where it triggers in trunk:

[Bug gcov-profile/81442] error: verify_flow_info: REG_BR_PROB is set but cfg probability is not during RTL pass: outof_cfglayout

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81442 cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/70992] Infinite recursion between fold_build2_stat_loc and fold_binary_loc w/ -fwrapv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70992 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/81426] [SH]: unable to find a register to spill in class 'R0_REGS' when building webkit2gtk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426 --- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5) > This sounds like a different issue. Can you please create another PR for > that with the title "syntax error in @(disp,[Rn, gbr, pc]) when compiling >

[Bug target/81466] [SH]: Error: syntax error in @(disp,[Rn, gbr, pc]) when building with -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81466 --- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Created attachment 41775 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41775=edit Generated assembly for MapPrototype.cpp (gzipped)

[Bug sanitizer/63361] Test case c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c fails on Pentium2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- grep FLT_EVAL_METHOD config/*/* says the only problematic arches are i?86, s390*, m68k*, arm and maybe aarch64. add-ieee-options has just i?86 and m68k (clearly wrong, because it really should not use

[Bug target/81466] New: [SH]: Error: syntax error in @(disp,[Rn, gbr, pc]) when building with -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81466 Bug ID: 81466 Summary: [SH]: Error: syntax error in @(disp,[Rn, gbr, pc]) when building with -mlra Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 URL:

[Bug tree-optimization/81462] [8 Regression] ICE in estimate_bb_frequencies at gcc/predict.c:3546

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81462 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[wwwdocs] Document SPARC changes in upcoming 7.2 release

Applied to the wwwdocs module. -- Eric BotcazouIndex: gcc-7/changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.87 diff -u -r1.87 changes.html --- gcc-7/changes.html 15 Jul 2017 16:51:18

[Bug middle-end/70140] Inefficient expansion of __builtin_mempcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 41772 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41772=edit Patch candidate I'm going to prepare some test-cases for that. Does it look good?

[Bug sanitizer/63361] Test case c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c fails on Pentium2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) > Comment on attachment 41771 [details] > Patch candidate > > I don't think we want to add -ffloat-store unconditionally, only for targets > that really need it.

[Bug c/6906] warn about asserts with side effects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6906 --- Comment #8 from owner at bugs dot debian.org --- Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this Bug report. This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message has been received. Your message is

  1   2   3   >