https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86716
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
With the C front-end this is accepted. I suspect C99 feature is not
implemented in the C++ front-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86717
Bug ID: 86717
Summary: Unexpected error in dynamic allocation of an array of
function pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86716
Bug ID: 86716
Summary: use of parameter outside function body before ‘++’
token
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 08:47:33PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jul 28 2018, sly...@inbox.ru wrote:
>
> > From: Sergei Trofimovich
> >
> > Cc: Ian Lance Taylor
> > Cc: Jeff Law
> > Cc: Andreas Schwab
> > Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich
> > ---
> > libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S | 19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86715
Bug ID: 86715
Summary: ICE passing too large argument on stack
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693
--- Comment #3 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> The reason why this works for sub/add is that x86 has xadd instruction, so
> we expand it as xadd and later on during combine find out we are actually
>
When I was looking at what needed to be done to the web page information
for the new C-SKY port, I noticed that the Nios II had some problems
too; there was no link to the processor documentation, and the entry in
the backend table was obsolete (the port now uses LRA, and there is
simulator
Primili smo vau poruku i odgovoriemo to pre.
Prijatan dan
Puno poljubaca,
Adminka
http://upoznavanje.net;>Upoznavanje.net
--
Our mailing address is:
upoznavanje.net Durmitorska 15. Sremska mitrovica 22000 Serbia
This
From: Sergei Trofimovich
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor
Cc: Jeff Law
Cc: Andreas Schwab
Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich
---
libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S b/libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S
index 325a7c17d9b..d5240d4aa55
On 7/28/18, Bruce Korb wrote:
> ../../autoopts/makeshell.c: In function ‘text_to_var’:
> ../../autoopts/makeshell.c:324:14: error: this statement may fall
> through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
> (*(opts->pUsageProc))(opts, EXIT_SUCCESS);
>
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:48 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> You don't need to use configure for this, something like:
> #ifdef __has_attribute
> #if __has_attribute(__noreturn__)
> #define NORETURN __attribute__((__noreturn__))
> #endif
OK. Thanks. It _will_ be a bit more complicated because
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:56:24AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> > NOTREACHED means something different, and I don't think we want to add
> > support for this when we already support a way (including a standard way) to
> > mark function pointers noreturn (noreturn attribute, _Noreturn in C).
> > Or
On Jul 28 2018, sly...@inbox.ru wrote:
> From: Sergei Trofimovich
>
> Cc: Ian Lance Taylor
> Cc: Jeff Law
> Cc: Andreas Schwab
> Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich
> ---
> libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S | 19 ++-
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86481
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:44 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:22:35AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> > ../../autoopts/makeshell.c: In function ‘text_to_var’:
> > ../../autoopts/makeshell.c:324:14: error: this statement may fall
> > through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86481
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:22:35AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> ../../autoopts/makeshell.c: In function ‘text_to_var’:
> ../../autoopts/makeshell.c:324:14: error: this statement may fall
> through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
> (*(opts->pUsageProc))(opts, EXIT_SUCCESS);
>
../../autoopts/makeshell.c: In function ‘text_to_var’:
../../autoopts/makeshell.c:324:14: error: this statement may fall
through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
(*(opts->pUsageProc))(opts, EXIT_SUCCESS);
~^~~~
This warning goes away if
Hi!
> great that you managed to solve this one! The patch looks very good to
> me, but I'm afraid two details may be missing:
>
> 1) If the type has allocatable components, those need to be freed first.
> …
PR86481?
Cheers
Dominique
On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 10:55 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Joseph Myers m> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Michael Matz wrote:
> >
> > > Using any python scripts as part of generally building GCC (i.e.
> > > where the
> > > generated files aren't
Hi Paul,
2018-07-28 9:32 GMT+02:00 Paul Richard Thomas :
> Several attempts, including mine, were made to fix this bug since it
> was posted. They were all attacking the wrong place. Instead of
> providing the free of the class _data as part of the call to
> 'add_a_type' it should be included in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86713
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vladimir Bashkirtsev from comment #2)
> Would happy oblige but GNU coding standards say "Please keep the length of
> source lines to 79 characters or less, for maximum readability
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86224
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Sent https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg01791.html for review.
I went by hidden symbols as they generate roughly the same code as before and
don't require GOT/PCREL setup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86713
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Bashkirtsev ---
Would happy oblige but GNU coding standards say "Please keep the length of
source lines to 79 characters or less, for maximum readability in the widest
range of environments." and this bug is caused
From: Sergei Trofimovich
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor
Cc: Jeff Law
Cc: Andreas Schwab
Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich
---
libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S | 19 ++-
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86713
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86714
Bug ID: 86714
Summary: tree-ssa-forwprop.c confused by too long initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 64095, which changed state.
Bug 64095 Summary: [C++14] Ellipsis at end of generic lambda
parameter-declaration-clause should be parsed as a parameter pack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64095
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64095
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86706
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Started with r260782 aka PR85815 fix.
> GCC 7 doesn't seem to ICE, eventhough PR85815 has been backported to it.
The GCC 7 fix for 85815 was more conservative.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693
--- Comment #2 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
Also may be (partially) related the following cases:
1.
#include
#include
void func2();
void func(_Atomic(unsigned long) * obj, void * obj2)
{
if (atomic_fetch_sub(obj, 1) == 1 && obj2)
OK.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 8:02 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> This makes it easier to compare cp_printer with gcc_cxxdiag_char_table
> in c-format.c.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> * error.c (cp_printer): In the leading comment, move "%H" and "I"
> into
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c: XFAIL on pru.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-33.c: Ditto.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-34.c: Ditto.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-35.c: Ditto.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-36.c:
The floating point support has been borrowed from C6X libgcc port
to help with TI PRU toolchain ABI compatibility.
libgcc/ChangeLog:
2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov
* config.host: Add PRU target.
* config/pru/asri.c: New file.
* config/pru/eqd.c: New file.
*
For variadic functions, the last named and all anonymous arguments
are passed on stack. Regular functions pass arguments in registers.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov
* gcc.dg/builtin-apply2.c: Skip for PRU.
* gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/builtin-apply-2.c:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov
* g++.old-deja/g++.abi/ptrmem.C: Add PRU to list.
Signed-off-by: Dimitar Dimitrov
---
gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.abi/ptrmem.C | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c: Define DO_TEST to 0 for PRU.
* gcc.dg/20020312-2.c: No PIC register for PRU.
Signed-off-by: Dimitar Dimitrov
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c | 3 +++
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov
* gcc.target/pru/abi-arg-struct.c: New test.
* gcc.target/pru/ashiftrt.c: New test.
* gcc.target/pru/builtins-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/pru/builtins-error.c: New test.
* gcc.target/pru/clearbit.c:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov
* gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c: Define PRU stack usage.
Signed-off-by: Dimitar Dimitrov
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c
Hi,
This patch series adds support for the TI PRU I/O processor to GCC. All
comments from v1 [1] should be addressed in this second patch revision.
Test results can be downloaded from here:
http://dinux.eu/gnupru/testresults/20180727-e6562f4b/
I'm working to bringup a testbot sending results
Not all C language features are supported when -mabi=ti option is
used for PRU target.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov
* lib/gcc-dg.exp: Filter unsupported features in PRU's TI ABI mode.
* lib/target-utils.exp: Ditto.
* lib/target-supports.exp
PRU architecture supports maximum 256k program memory (IMEM). Some GCC
test cases manage to produce executables bigger than that.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov
* lib/gcc-dg.exp: Bail on region overflow for tiny targets.
* lib/target-utils.exp: Ditto.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86713
Bug ID: 86713
Summary: 'nofp', 'nosimd', 'nocrypto' and 'nofp16' feature
modifiers for Aarch64 fail to build
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
From: Sergei Trofimovich
Cc: Andreas Schwab
Cc: Torvald Riegel
Cc: Alexandre Oliva
Cc: Oleg Endo
Cc: Kaz Kojima
Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich
---
libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S
On Jul 28 2018, "slyfox.inbox.ru via gcc-patches"
wrote:
> diff --git a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S b/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S
> index 043f36749be..80a810d8360 100644
> --- a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S
> +++ b/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ _ITM_beginTransaction:
> #else
>
Please don't cross-post to this list and to gcc-help, this question is
off-topic here
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 at 04:01, Vladimir Reshetnikov
wrote:
>
> I'm trying to understand why gcc rejects the dynamic array allocation in
> the initializer of e (introducing an alias or additional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86711
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 44458
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44458=edit
untestted patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86472
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Yes indeed with respect to the declaration of 't'. However, since the
> submodule
> is a separate compilation unit, I believe that it also must contain
> an 'implicit none' to pick up the
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Michael Matz wrote:
>
>> Using any python scripts as part of generally building GCC (i.e. where the
>> generated files aren't prepackaged) will introduce a python dependency for
>> distro packages. And for those distros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86712
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #1)
> This fix seems to be enough to not encode absolute address into
> _ITM_beginTransaction:
Sent the above as
From: Sergei Trofimovich
Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich
---
libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S b/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S
index 043f36749be..80a810d8360 100644
--- a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86472
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86712
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
This fix seems to be enough to not encode absolute address into
_ITM_beginTransaction:
diff --git a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S b/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S
index 043f36749be..80a810d8360 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86712
Bug ID: 86712
Summary: libitm produces libitm.so with TEXTREL on SuperH (sh4)
in _ITM_beginTransaction
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86472
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59616
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
> This patch adds a speculation barrier for x86, based on my
> understanding of the required mitigation for that CPU, which is to use
> an lfence instruction.
>
> This patch needs some review by an x86 expert and if adjustments are
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86711
Bug ID: 86711
Summary: wrong folding of memchr
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86710
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
This kind of transformation needs to be protected by some unsafe math flag, and
by a single_use (aka :s) check on the logs. No :c in the output. The third
transformation has nothing to do with logs, you are
> This is precisely what I found so confusing about the original text. To
> me, "custom" implies that the back end is *customized* to have its own
> descriptor implementation to conform to target-specific ABI standards,
> not that it uses a generic implementation in common code.
To me, "custom"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Several attempts, including mine, were made to fix this bug since it
was posted. They were all attacking the wrong place. Instead of
providing the free of the class _data as part of the call to
'add_a_type' it should be included in the post block of the argument
processing in the call to
On 07/27/2018 11:51 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
DJ, did you ever run the testsuite with a configuration that has LTO
enabled? I don't see any djgpp results posted to gcc-testresults.
Quick googling doesn't yield anything useful with regarding on how to
do actual testing with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86710
Bug ID: 86710
Summary: 3 missing logarithm optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
67 matches
Mail list logo
