https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/

Hi! As I learned from Twitter the other day, , we now have patchwork set up on sourceware, tracking : . As I'm generally supportive of such "automatism" (if feasible), I wonder: are we going to

Re: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/

On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 11:04, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Hi! > > As I learned from Twitter the other day, > , we now have > patchwork set up on sourceware, tracking : > . I learnt from Segher

Re: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/

On 9/29/21 07:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 11:04, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: >> Also, we'll need some user guide: web page, or wiki page, or, >> preferably?, on itself. >> How are we using the different states, archived, bundle

Re: [TCWG CI] 471.omnetpp slowed down by 8% after gcc: Avoid invalid loop transformations in jump threading registry.

> On 27 Sep 2021, at 19:02, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > On 9/27/21 11:39 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov via Gcc wrote: >>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 16:52, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>> >>> [CCing Jeff and list for broader audience] >>> >>> On 9/27/21 2:53 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: Hi Aldy, Your patch seems

Re: [TCWG CI] 471.omnetpp slowed down by 8% after gcc: Avoid invalid loop transformations in jump threading registry.

On 9/29/21 7:59 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: Does it run like once a day/some-time-period, and if you note a regression, narrow it down? Configurations that track master branches have 3-day intervals. Configurations that track release branches — 6 days. If a regression is detected it is n

Re: Can gcc itself be tested with ubsan? If so, how?

Toon, I assume the final compiler built this way has ubsan? I ask because I'm trying to spot a bug in a new optimization so I want to run it on a specific test case with the new optimization enabled. Thanks, Gary From: Toon Moene Sent: Monday, September 27, 202

Shadow data member

Should GCC report shadowing on 'valid' for this code? Nick struct S1{bool valid;}; struct S2 : public S1{bool valid;}; struct S3 : public S2{bool valid;};

Re: Shadow data member

On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 21:34, Nick Savoiu via Gcc wrote: > > Should GCC report shadowing on 'valid' for this code? > Nick > > struct S1{bool valid;}; > struct S2 : public S1{bool valid;}; > struct S3 : public S2{bool valid;}; This question belongs on the gcc-help list, not here. IMH

Re: Shadow data member

Ok, sorry. I'll ask it on gcc-help. Nick On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:35 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 21:34, Nick Savoiu via Gcc wrote: > > Should GCC report shadowing on 'valid' for this code? > Nick > > struct S1{    bool valid;}; > struct S2 : public S1{    bool val

S390 should change the meaning of -m31

m31 is semantically the same as the m32 option. The m31 option allows for 32 bit addressing and that is confusing since the m31 option in S390 would mean 2 GiB space addressing but it allows for 32 bit addressing, this is awkward, not only because the option is misleading but is also incorrec

Re: s390 port

We have fait accompli now: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-September/237456.html Simply switching off optimization made the negative indexes go away, allowing more than 2 GiB to be addressed in standard z/Arch, with "-m31". The above request is to add "-m32" as an alias for "-m31", but I

Re: s390 port

"Simply switching off optimization made the negative indexes go away, allowing more than 2 GiB to be addressed in standard z/Arch, with "-m31". Prove it on real hardware, not hercules. Hercules doesnt count. Joe On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 7:09 PM Paul Edwards via Gcc wrote: > We have fait accompl