https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94532
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC|
Hi.
We've got one another sneaky test-case (thank you Marc ;) ):
$ cat pr94314-array.C
#include
#include
int count = 0;
__attribute__((malloc, noinline)) void* operator new[](unsigned long sz) {
++count;
return ::operator new(sz);
}
void operator delete[](void* ptr) noexcept {
On 4/8/20 5:52 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This PR points out that we are rejecting valid code in C++20. The
problem is that we were surreptitiously transforming
T& t(e)
into
T& t{e}
which is wrong, because the type of e had a conversion function to T,
while aggregate initialization of t
I noticed g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr93940.C was giving an error on nios2-elf due
to lack of support for the -pthread option on this bare-metal target. I
cut and pasted this fix from other existing testcases. Committed as
obvious.
-Sandra
commit fe1837143f1bf1d6b072a3973b00576ee17c30a9
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94079
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94023
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7c4084d11b957d925ba586f86db2f346fb3bfe0
commit r10-7646-ge7c4084d11b957d925ba586f86db2f346fb3bfe0
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Wed Apr 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #22 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My nios2-elf test results look good now with this patch. Thanks!
--
Sender:Richard Biener
Sent At:2020 Mar. 20 (Fri.) 18:12
Recipient:bin.cheng
Cc:Andrew Pinski ; GCC Patches
Subject:Re: [PATCH PR93674]Avoid introducing IV of enumeral type in case of
-fstrict-enums
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Simpler runtime testcase:
$ cat testcase.C
struct A { A *p = this; int m = 1; };
A
foo()
{
return {};
}
int
main()
{
A a = foo();
a.p->m++;
if (a.m != 2)
__builtin_abort ();
}
$ g++
When evaluating the initializer of 'a' in the following example
struct A { A *p = this; };
constexpr A foo() { return {}; }
constexpr A a = foo();
the PLACEHOLDER_EXPR for 'this' in the aggregate initializer returned by foo
gets resolved to the RESULT_DECL of foo. But due to guaranteed
Hi Claudiu,
For glibc needs can this be backported to gcc-9 please !
Thx,
-Vineet
On 3/31/20 3:06 AM, Claudiu Zissulescu Ianculescu wrote:
> Pushed.
>
> Thank you,
> Claudiu
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:05 AM Vineet Gupta via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>> Enable big-endian suffixed dynamic linker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91804
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
We also reject a constexpr version of the testcase:
$ cat testcase.C
struct A { A *p = this-1; int n = p->n; };
constexpr A
foo()
{
return {};
}
constexpr A a[2] = { {nullptr, 5}, foo() };
Hi,
As GDCFLAGS is overriden by the top-level make file with '-O2 -g',
libphobos ends up always being built with all contracts, invariants, and
asserts compiled in. This adds a new configurable that defaults to omit
compiling any run-time checks into the library using '-frelease'.
Other choices
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94305
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94305
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0dbfbd763ad77d6beaa345ce94afc93e193236e
commit r10-7644-gc0dbfbd763ad77d6beaa345ce94afc93e193236e
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Thu
Hi,
This is another old option that doesn't make sense as a configurable.
So the option has been removed, and the check for AC_SEARCH_LIBS moved
into the main configure.ac file.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, and committed to
mainline.
Regards
Iain.
---
This PR points out that we are rejecting valid code in C++20. The
problem is that we were surreptitiously transforming
T& t(e)
into
T& t{e}
which is wrong, because the type of e had a conversion function to T,
while aggregate initialization of t from e doesn't work. Therefore, I
was
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:06 AM Anton Youdkevitch
wrote:
>
> Here is the patch introducing thunderxt311 maching model
> for the scheduler. A name for the new chip was added to the
> list of the names to be recognized as a valid parameter for mcpu
> and mtune flags. The TX2 cost model was reused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Fred, the author of the paper, usually tests a number of compilers. In the
paper referenced from n2322 he mentions a bunch:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1911.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537
Bug ID: 94537
Summary: Possibly wrong code with mandatory copy elision and
'this' pointer arithmetic inside an NSDMI
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #10 from Alisdair Meredith ---
And double-checking the C++ Standard again, I think I have wording in favor of
my report and contradicting the recommended best practice for the pending C
standard:
[cpp.line]p2 "The line number of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94536
Bug ID: 94536
Summary: result keyword not working within module function
interface in combination with a module procedure body
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #9 from Alisdair Meredith ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> The following proposal was accepted into C2X last year:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2322.htm
> It seems to me like it's about the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #8 from Alisdair Meredith ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Why not do this:
> static_assert(X == 3 || X == 4);
>
> There that works for both cases.
The code example was intended to the be smallest reproducible
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:50:51PM +, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Earlier versions of Mainman2 had some issues which might accidentally
> > change some headers. But the latest fixes make this possible. It is how
> > the FSF handles DMARC for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
Hi,
This patch removes --enable-unix, an old option that predates the D2
library, and now is not useful on its own as all posix modules require
the compiler to predefine version(Posix) anyway. So the option has been
removed, and the logic moved into DRUNTIME_OS_SOURCES, where the
conditional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why not do this:
static_assert(X == 3 || X == 4);
There that works for both cases.
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why not do this:
static_assert(X == 3 || X == 4);
There that works for both cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94522
--- Comment #5 from Linus Torvalds ---
Btw, Nick (who is doing this on the clang side, tells me that the tcmalloc
people are looking at using the asm goto with outputs too, so it's not just the
kernel.
If somebody wants to play with it, I do
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:50:38PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 4/7/20 4:58 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> I wonder if it would be helpful to have
> >>
> >> (uoverflow_plus x y carry)
> >> (soverflow_plus x y carry)
> >>
> >> etc.
> >
> > Those have three operands, which is nasty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #4 from Alisdair Meredith ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I miss-remembered the issue, the issue was only with preprocessor directives
> inside macro functions (this changed in GCC 3.3 and above really).
>
> But I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>There is no multiline "macro function" here, there is an invocation of a
>macro, and the invocation spans multiple lines.
I miss-remembered the issue, the issue was only with preprocessor directives
On 4/8/20 12:43 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 4/7/20 2:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Among the numerous regressions introduced by the change committed
to GCC 9 to allow string literals as template arguments is a failure
to recognize the C++ nullptr and GCC's __null constants as pointers.
For one, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #2 from Alisdair Meredith ---
Thanks for the speedy response, really appreciated!
I believe this is well-defined behavior, but can accept that the value of
__LINE__ may be unspecified - I do struggle with pre-processor wording.
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 12:09 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Merge top-level configury changes from gdb
>
> We recently rearranged the gdb source tree to move a common library
> and gdbserver to the top-level. This made the build more uniform and
> also a bit faster (due to sharing of built objects).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94522
Linus Torvalds changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torvalds@linux-foundation.o
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 19:47 +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Add a start/end file specification if the -qrtems option is present.
> Allow targets to customize it.
>
> Support the standard -nodefaultlibs option.
>
> gcc/
>
> * config/rtems.h (RTEMS_STARTFILE_SPEC): Define if undefined.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Both values are valid I think.
Even rejecting the code is valid too; multiline macro functions are undefined
IIRC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
Bug ID: 94535
Summary: __LINE__ value changed for macro invocations spanning
multiple lines
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94534
Bug ID: 94534
Summary: ICE declaring unnamed nested struct as friend
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Hi,
Please take a look at the attached patch and let me know your comments.
Thanks.
Qing
gcc/ChangeLog:
2020-04-03 qing zhao
* common.opt: Add -flocation-ranges.
* doc/invoke.texi: Document it.
* toplev.c (process_options): set line_table->default_range_bits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The wrong-code issue is now fixed, keeping open for the missed-optimization
part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] wrong |[8/9 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94526
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0cc1b79b39994c917abb23f71064bb39eedcc70
commit r10-7640-gd0cc1b79b39994c917abb23f71064bb39eedcc70
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94524
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f52eb4f988992d393c69ee4ab76f236dced80e36
commit r10-7639-gf52eb4f988992d393c69ee4ab76f236dced80e36
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
On 4/7/20 11:44 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 5:34 PM Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:07 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:18 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
If it helps, I could push a branch to users/iains/ on the
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 20:23 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase ICEs on m68k (and another one Jeff mailed me
> privately on microblaze).
> The problem is that reload creates two DEBUG_INSNs with the same
> value of (plus:P (reg:P sp) (const_int 0)), we compute correctly
On April 8, 2020 8:34:08 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Jambor wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Apr 08 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> On April 7, 2020 6:25:26 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Jambor
> wrote:
>>> >Hi,
>>> >
>>> >On Tue, Apr 07 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> >> On
On April 8, 2020 8:14:56 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>The first testcase below is miscompiled, because for the division part
>of the lowering we canonicalize negative divisors to their absolute
>value
>(similarly how expmed.c canonicalizes it), but when multiplying the
>division
On 4/7/20 2:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Among the numerous regressions introduced by the change committed
to GCC 9 to allow string literals as template arguments is a failure
to recognize the C++ nullptr and GCC's __null constants as pointers.
For one, I didn't realize that nullptr, being a null
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 08 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On April 7, 2020 6:25:26 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >On Tue, Apr 07 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>>
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:48, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While checking Martin's fix for PR ipa/94445, he made me realize that
> > the cmse-15.c testcase still fails at -Os because ICF means that we
> > generate
> > nonsecure2:
> >
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs on m68k (and another one Jeff mailed me
privately on microblaze).
The problem is that reload creates two DEBUG_INSNs with the same
value of (plus:P (reg:P sp) (const_int 0)), we compute correctly the
same hash value for them, but then don't find them in the cselib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94342
Corey Tabaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eieio at google dot com
--- Comment #11
There was a glitch in the test case (location + dg-error),
already fixed by Jakub (thanks!)
in commit r10-7637-g08d1e7a5aabcf7eeac48bfd99deb80451b8f9974
Sorry,
Tobias
On 4/8/20 7:13 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:55 AM Tobias Burnus wrote:
I have now committed this patch
as
Hi!
The first testcase below is miscompiled, because for the division part
of the lowering we canonicalize negative divisors to their absolute value
(similarly how expmed.c canonicalizes it), but when multiplying the division
result back by the VECTOR_CST, we use the original constant, which can
Merge top-level configury changes from gdb
We recently rearranged the gdb source tree to move a common library
and gdbserver to the top-level. This made the build more uniform and
also a bit faster (due to sharing of built objects).
This patch re-syncs these changes the top-level configury back
Here is the patch introducing thunderxt311 maching model
for the scheduler. A name for the new chip was added to the
list of the names to be recognized as a valid parameter for mcpu
and mtune flags. The TX2 cost model was reused for TX3.
Bootstrapped on AArch64.
2020-04-08 Anton Youdkevitch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c9a711575d8fdf9e75f01d7a0e84d558600df40
commit r10-7638-g6c9a711575d8fdf9e75f01d7a0e84d558600df40
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 02:28:44PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> gcc/testsuite/
> PR middle-end/94120
> * c-c++-common/goacc/declare-pr94120.c: New.
> * g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C: New.
This test has been put in a wrong directory, where OpenACC tests aren't
tested with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08d1e7a5aabcf7eeac48bfd99deb80451b8f9974
commit r10-7637-g08d1e7a5aabcf7eeac48bfd99deb80451b8f9974
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94120
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08d1e7a5aabcf7eeac48bfd99deb80451b8f9974
commit r10-7637-g08d1e7a5aabcf7eeac48bfd99deb80451b8f9974
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
Add a start/end file specification if the -qrtems option is present.
Allow targets to customize it.
Support the standard -nodefaultlibs option.
gcc/
* config/rtems.h (RTEMS_STARTFILE_SPEC): Define if undefined.
(RTEMS_ENDFILE_SPEC): Likewise.
(STARTFILE_SPEC): Update
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94507
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|errors in new test case |errors in new test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94507
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77d6dfc929832a542a25fc455b90f1a4bc83229c
commit r10-7636-g77d6dfc929832a542a25fc455b90f1a4bc83229c
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94533
Bug ID: 94533
Summary: errors in new test case g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C in
r10-7632
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On 4/8/20 9:44 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:55:08AM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 4/6/20 9:05 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
While reducing something else I noticed that we ICE on the following
invalid code. In tsubst_lambda_expr, tsubst_template_decl has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94532
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd9ca9d770a18ce4b16d867f49fef3293b483ff5
commit r10-7635-gdd9ca9d770a18ce4b16d867f49fef3293b483ff5
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
On 4/7/20 3:36 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 02:46:52PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/7/20 1:50 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:50:48PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Among the numerous regressions introduced by the change committed
to GCC
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:55 AM Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> I have now committed this patch
> as r10-7614-g13e41d8b9d3d7598c72c38acc86a3d97046c8373,
On Linux/x86, I got
FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C -std=c++17 (test for excess
ping
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:33 PM Kito Cheng wrote:
>
> - The alignment for local variable was adjust during
> estimate_stack_frame_size,
>however it seems wrong spot to adjust that, expand phase will adjust that
>but it little too late to some gimple optimization, which rely on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94532
Bug ID: 94532
Summary: ICE while compiling speccpu2017 blender
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94417
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94417
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c5f379653964a1d2c7037b2de3e947a48370a198
commit r10-7633-gc5f379653964a1d2c7037b2de3e947a48370a198
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Apr 8
t IEEE or, if not,
> UNSUPPORTED).
>
> See r10-7631-gfaa0817311f43e0d4d223d53c816b0c74ec35c4e
> or attachment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tobias
>
> On 4/8/20 5:04 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_math_5.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
> > Excess errors:
> &g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70790
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
--- Comment #8 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> I can see uses that aren't just "frees the memory", e.g. after fclose and
> close any further uses of their argument are probably errors. The close case
> is
On 4/8/20 2:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> I have coded up a proof of concept that implements our needs via a new
>> target hook. The hook is passed a pair of dependent insns and returns if
>> they are a fusion candidate. It is called while removing the forward
>> dependencies of the just
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 09:23 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:16 AM Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 08:11 -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > Since constant_call_address_operand has
> > >
> > > ;; Test for a pc-relative call operand
> > > (define_predicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Here is a rejects-valid testcase caused by the same underlying issue:
$ cat testcase.C
struct A { A *p = this; int n; };
constexpr A
foo()
{
return {};
}
constexpr A
bar()
{
A a = foo();
a.p->n = 5;
Hi Andrea
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Andrea
> Corallo
> Sent: 08 April 2020 15:19
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: nd
> Subject: [PATCH] PR target/48240
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to submit this for PR48240.
>
> Bootstrapped on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE:|[8/9 Regression] ICE:
Andrea Corallo writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to submit this for PR48240.
>
> Bootstrapped on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> Okay for trunk when finished with regression?
OK, but the PR number looks like a typo. Also:
> Andrea
>
> gcc/ChangeLog
>
> 2020-??-?? Andrea Corallo
>
> PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94438
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8bf5faa9c463f0d53ffe835ba03d4502edfb959d
commit r10-7632-g8bf5faa9c463f0d53ffe835ba03d4502edfb959d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:16 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 08:11 -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Since constant_call_address_operand has
> >
> > ;; Test for a pc-relative call operand
> > (define_predicate "constant_call_address_operand"
> > (match_code "symbol_ref")
> >
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 08:11 -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Since constant_call_address_operand has
>
> ;; Test for a pc-relative call operand
> (define_predicate "constant_call_address_operand"
> (match_code "symbol_ref")
> {
> if (ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE || ix86_cmodel ==
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 00:26 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The ix86_get_mask_mode hook uses int mask for 512-bit vectors or 128/256-bit
> vectors with AVX512VL (that is correct), and only for V*[SD][IF]mode if not
> AVX512BW (also correct), but with AVX512BW it would stop checking the
>
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 17:37 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Ping for the doc/sourcebuild.texi and lib/scanasm.exp parts.
>
> Richard Sandiford writes:
> > In g:2171a9207f51bc486ed9c502cb4da706f594615e I'd tried to fix
> > various ILP32 testsuite failures by restricting some tests to LP64.
> >
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 05:46:52PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> I am not quite sure about the offloading done by openMP - I think that
> one produces new decls.
Yes, it does. It copies some FUNCTION_DECL flags over, but only selected
ones (and all attributes but removes a few afterwards).
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:40 AM Craig Blackmore
wrote:
> On 10/12/2019 18:28, Craig Blackmore wrote:
> Thank you for your review. I have posted an updated patch below which I think
> addresses your comments.
>
> Ping
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00712.html
This looks OK.
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 12:27 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2020, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > So, here are some potential fixes:
> > - install the patchlet for fp16-aapcs-3.c above, and be done with it
> > - add an arm_fp16_hw requirement to this test
> > - add to
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
