Re: [committed] libstdc++: Format Python code according to PEP8

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 7:46 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Tested x86_64-linux. Pushed to trunk. > > -- >8 -- > > These files were filtered through autopep8 to reformat them more > conventionally. > Thanks for this; I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to do likewise for other

Re: [PATH] [CLEANUP] Remove trailing whitespace characters

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 9:43 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 09:27:48AM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 16:36 +0200, Guillaume Gomez wrote: > > > When going through the code, I saw a lot of trailing whitespace > > >

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Reduce output of 'make check'

On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:32 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 03:16, Eric Gallager wrote: > > > > Maybe use $(AM_V_at) instead? That would allow it to be controlled by > > the --enable-silent-rules flag to configure, as well as make V=1 vs. > > make V=0 too. > > I see two

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Reduce output of 'make check'

Maybe use $(AM_V_at) instead? That would allow it to be controlled by the --enable-silent-rules flag to configure, as well as make V=1 vs. make V=0 too. On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:32 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Any objections to this change? > > -- >8 -- > > This removes the 39

Re: RFC: Top level configure: Require a minimum version 6.8 texinfo

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:23 AM Nick Clifton via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Currently the top level configure.ac file sets the minimum required > version of texinfo to be 4.7. I would like to propose changing this > to 6.8. > > The reason for the change is that the bfd

Re: [PATCH] improve error for when /usr/include isn't found [PR90835]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:38 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 4:05 PM Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > thanks for working on this. > > > > > On 17 Aug 2023, at 20:35, Eric Gallager wrote: > > > > > > This is a pretty simple patch that ought to help Darwin users

Re: [PATCH] improve error when /usr/include isn't found [PR90835]

gone through properly...) On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 4:11 PM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 8/17/23 12:59, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Subject: > > [PATCH] improve error when /usr/include isn't found [PR90835] > > From: > > Eric Gallager via Gcc-p

[PATCH] improve error when /usr/include isn't found [PR90835]

This is a pretty simple patch that ought to help Darwin users understand better why their build is failing when they forget to pass the --with-sysroot= flag to configure. gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/90835 * Makefile.in: improve error message when /usr/include is missing ---

[PATCH] improve error when /usr/include isn't found [PR90835]

This is a pretty simple patch that ought to help Darwin users understand better why their build is failing when they forget to pass the --with-sysroot= flag to configure. gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/90835 * Makefile.in: improve error message when /usr/include is missing ---

[PATCH] improve error for when /usr/include isn't found [PR90835]

This is a pretty simple patch that ought to help Darwin users understand better why their build is failing when they forget to pass the --with-sysroot= flag to configure. gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/90835 * Makefile.in: improve error message when /usr/include is missing

[PING] Re: [PATCH v2] Re: [WIP] Have -Wpointer-sign be enabled by -Wextra, too [PR109836]

PING On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 8:17 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 5:42 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > > > PR109836 is a request to have -Wpointer-sign enabled by default. There > > were points of disagreement raised in the bug report, so I figured > > that maybe as a compromise,

[PATCH v2] Re: [WIP] Have -Wpointer-sign be enabled by -Wextra, too [PR109836]

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 5:42 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > PR109836 is a request to have -Wpointer-sign enabled by default. There > were points of disagreement raised in the bug report, so I figured > that maybe as a compromise, the warning could just be enabled by > -Wextra, as well (I have in

Re: [PATCH 06/24] toplevel: Recover tilegx/tilepro targets

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 1:43 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 8/7/23 04:32, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-patches wrote: > > These are still supported in Binutils. > > > > ChangeLog: > > > > * configure: Regenerate. > > * configure.ac: Recover tilegx/tilepro targets. > OK. Good

Re: [PATCH 03/24] gcc-4.5 build fixes

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:22 AM Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-patches wrote: > > From: Alan Modra > > Trying to build binutils with an older gcc currently fails. Working > around these gcc bugs is not onerous so let's fix them. > > include/ChangeLog: > > * xtensa-dynconfig.h

Re: [PATCH 00/24] Sync shared build infrastructure with binutils-gdb

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:19 AM Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hello, > > This patch set, combined with a sibling patch set sent on the binutils > and GDB MLs, bring up the shared infrastructure between the two projects > in sync again. > > It largely consists of cherry-picks from

Re: [PATCH] c++: provide #include hint for missing includes [PR110164]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 8:29 PM David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote: > > PR c++/110164 notes that in cases where we have a forward decl > of a std library type such as: > > std::array x; > > we omit this diagnostic: > > error: aggregate ‘std::array x’ has incomplete type and cannot be > defined

Re: [RFC] Add stdckdint.h header for C23

On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 6:38 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi! > > The following patch is an attempt to implement the C23 stdckdint.h > header on top of our GNU extension - __builtin_{add,sub,mul}_overflow > builtins. > > I have looked at gnulib stdckdint.h and they are full of

[WIP] Have -Wpointer-sign be enabled by -Wextra, too [PR109836]

PR109836 is a request to have -Wpointer-sign enabled by default. There were points of disagreement raised in the bug report, so I figured that maybe as a compromise, the warning could just be enabled by -Wextra, as well (I have in fact seen some projects that enable -Wextra but not -Wall). This

Re: [PATCH][stage1] Remove conditionals around free()

On 3/4/23, Janne Blomqvist via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 11:31 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran > wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> Mere cosmetics. >> >> - if (foo != NULL) >> free (foo); >> >> With the caveat that coccinelle ruins replacement whitespace or i'm >> uneducated

[PATCH] Silence some -Wnarrowing errors

I tried turning -Wnarrowing back on earlier this year, but unfortunately it didn't work due to triggering a bunch of new errors. This patch silences at least some of them, but there will still be more left even after applying it. (When compiling with clang, technically the warning flag is

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR59447: include "(or later)" in documentation of --with-dwarf2 configure flag

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 12:30 AM Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > On 12/1/22 20:29, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches wrote: > > A pretty simple patch; borrowed from Andrew Pinski on bugzilla: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59447 > > Tested by doing `./conf

[PATCH] Fix PR59447: include "(or later)" in documentation of --with-dwarf2 configure flag

A pretty simple patch; borrowed from Andrew Pinski on bugzilla: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59447 Tested by doing `./configure --help` in the gcc subdirectory and noting that the "(or later)" made it into the output. OK for trunk? gcc/ChangeLog: PR bootstrap/59447 *

Re: [PATCH] docs: document sanitizers can trigger warnings

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 7:09 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > PR sanitizer/107298 > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * doc/invoke.texi: Document sanitizers can trigger warnings. > --- > gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] doc: -falign-functions is ignored under -Os

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 5:03 PM Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > This is implicitly mentioned in the docs, but there were some questions > in a recent patch. This makes it more exlicit that -falign-functions is > meant to be ignored under -Os. > > gcc/doc/ChangeLog > > * invoke.texi

Re: [PATCH] Add --without-makeinfo

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 11:22 AM Tom de Vries via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, > > Currently, we cannot build gdb without makeinfo installed. > > It would be convenient to work around this by using the configure flag > MAKEINFO=/usr/bin/true or some such, but that doesn't work because top-level >

Re: [PATCH] configure: respect --with-build-time-tools [PR43301]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 11:33 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2022, Eric Gallager wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 1:24 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > >> -elif test -x as$build_exeext; then > >> +elif test -x as$build_exeext \ > >> + && { test "x$build_exeext" != "x" \ > >> +

Re: [PATCH] configure: respect --with-build-time-tools [PR43301]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 1:24 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Hello, Eric, > > Thanks for looking into this. > > On Aug 1, 2022, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > >> This just reassigns the value that was retrieved a couple of lines > >> above fro

Re: [PATCH] configure: respect --with-build-time-tools [PR43301]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 3:54 AM Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Jul 31 2022, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > It just makes the configure script respect the --with-build-time-tools > > flag. > > Why does it make any difference? > See the original bug report

[PATCH] configure: respect --with-build-time-tools [PR43301]

Hi, there's been a patch sitting in bug 43301 for over a decade that I think still makes sense to apply, so I rebased it against current trunk and found that it still applies. It just makes the configure script respect the --with-build-time-tools flag. OK to commit? ChangeLog: PR

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] config: use $EGREP instead of egrep

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 2:07 AM Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote: > > egrep has been deprecated in favor of grep -E for a long time, and the > next GNU grep release (3.8 or 4.0) will print a warning if egrep is used. > Unfortunately, old hosts with non-GNU grep may lack the support for -E >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] fixincludes: use grep instead of egrep/fgrep

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 2:10 AM Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote: > > egrep/fgrep has been deprecated in favor of grep -E/-F for a long time, > and the next grep release (3.8 or 4.0) will print a warning if egrep or > fgrep is used. Stop using egrep and fgrep so we won't see the warning. > > But,

Re: [PATCH] gcc/configure.ac: fix --enable-fixed-point enablement [PR34422]

Hi, I'd like to ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596654.html (cc-ing the build machinery maintainers listed in MAINTAINERS this time) On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 3:51 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > So, in investigating PR target/34422, I discovered that the gcc >

Re: [PATCH] c: Extend the -Wpadded message with actual padding size

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 3:37 PM Vit Kabele wrote: > > When the compiler warns about padding struct to alignment boundary, it > now also informs the user about the size of the alignment that needs to > be added to get rid of the warning. Hi, thanks for taking the time to improve -Wpadded; I have

[PATCH] gcc/configure.ac: fix --enable-fixed-point enablement [PR34422]

So, in investigating PR target/34422, I discovered that the gcc subdirectory's configure script had an instance of AC_ARG_ENABLE with 3rd and 4th its arguments reversed: the one where it warns that the --enable-fixed-point flag is being ignored is the one where that flag hasn't even been passed in

Re: [PATCH][WIP] have configure probe prefix for gmp/mpfr/mpc [PR44425]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 7:02 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 5:54 PM Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > > > So, I'm working on fixing PR bootstrap/44425, and have this patch to > > have the top-level configure script check in the value pas

Re: [PING][PATCH][WIP] have configure probe prefix for gmp/mpfr/mpc [PR44425]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 7:22 AM Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 16:04 -0400, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, I'd like to ping this patch: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596126.html > > (cc-ing the build machinery maintaine

[PING][PATCH][WIP] have configure probe prefix for gmp/mpfr/mpc [PR44425]

Hi, I'd like to ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596126.html (cc-ing the build machinery maintainers listed in MAINTAINERS this time) On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 11:53 AM Eric Gallager wrote: > > So, I'm working on fixing PR bootstrap/44425, and have this patch to

[PATCH][WIP] have configure probe prefix for gmp/mpfr/mpc [PR44425]

So, I'm working on fixing PR bootstrap/44425, and have this patch to have the top-level configure script check in the value passed to `--prefix=` when looking for gmp/mpfr/mpc. It "works" (in that configuring with just `--prefix=` and none of `--with-gmp=`/`--with-mpfr=`/`--with-mpc=` now works

Re: [PATCH] sourcebuild.texi: Document new toplevel directories [PR82383]

On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 2:30 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 5/24/2022 11:32 AM, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This patch adds entries for the c++tools, gotools, libbacktrace, > > libcc1, libcody, liboffloadmic, and libsanitizer directories into the > > li

Re: [PATCH] Add divide by zero side effect.

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 3:57 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 5/27/22 15:33, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches writes: > >> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc > >> b/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc > >> index 2c8c77dc569..548e4bea313 100644 > >> ---

Re: libiberty: Would it be reasonable to add support for GnuCOBOL function name demangling?

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 3:17 AM Simon Sobisch via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi fellow hackers, > > first of all: I'm not sure if this is the correct mailing list for this > question, but I did not found a separate one and > gnu.org/software/libiberty redirects to >

Re: [PATCH 00/10] Add 'final' and 'override' where missing

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:32 PM David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote: > > With C++11 we can add "final" and "override" to the decls of vfuncs > in derived classes, which documents to both human and automated readers > of the code that a decl is intended to override a vfunc in a base class, > and

[PATCH] sourcebuild.texi: Document new toplevel directories [PR82383]

This patch adds entries for the c++tools, gotools, libbacktrace, libcc1, libcody, liboffloadmic, and libsanitizer directories into the list of toplevel source directories in sourcebuild.texi. I also removed the entry for boehm-gc (which is no longer in-tree), and fixed the alphabetization for

Re: [PATCH] configure: cache result of "sys/sdt.h" header check

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:27 AM David Seifert via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 18:38 +0100, David Seifert wrote: > > Use AC_CACHE_CHECK to store the result of the header check for > > systemtap's "sys/sdt.h", which is similar in spirit to libstdc++'s > > AC_CACHE_CHECK(...,

Re: [PATCH] gcc: add --enable-systemtap switch [PR61257]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:13 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 09:26:57AM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Thanks for the patch. > > > > The new configure option needs documenting in doc/install.texi, and > > configure > > needs to be

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] Document ASAN changes for GCC 13.

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 8:42 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > Ready to be installed? > > Thanks, > Martin > > --- > htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html > index 6c5b2a37..f7f6866d 100644 > ---

Re: [PATCH] Fold GCC_VERSION >= $old_version to TRUE, otherwise to FALSE.

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:26 PM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 5/5/22 14:24, Richard Biener wrote: > > Hmm, but we support C++11 host compilers that are not GCC but > > may claim to be, with GCC_VERSION 4.2.x for example. Are we sure > > all those liars implement what we guard with the version

Re: [PATCH] Use more ARRAY_SIZE.

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 9:53 AM David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-05-05 at 14:16 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression > > tests. > > > > Ready to be installed? > > I looked over the changes to: > > gcc/analyzer/*.cc >

Re: [PATCH] libiberty: stop using PTR macro.

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 5:37 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > Hi. > > As noticed by Alan, we can stop using the non-ANSI C specific macro (PTR). > Let's removed its usafe in libiberty. > > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. > > Ready to be installed? > Thanks, >

Re: [committed] jit: further doc fixes

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:28 AM David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Further jit doc fixes, which fix links to > gcc_jit_function_type_get_param_type and gcc_jit_struct_get_field. > > I also regenerated libgccjit.texi (not included in the diff below). > > Tested with "make html" and with a

Re: [PATCH] c : Changed warning message for -Wstrict-prototypes [PR92209]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 3:55 PM Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2022, Krishna Narayanan via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > Hello, > > The following is a patch for the PR92209,which gives a warning when > > the function prototype does not specify its argument type.In this > > patch there has been

Re: [PATCH] Make `-Werror` optional in libatomic/libbacktrace/libgomp/libitm/libsanitizer

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 3:05 PM David Seifert via Gcc-patches wrote: > > * `-Werror` can cause issues when a more recent version of GCC compiles > an older version: > - https://bugs.gentoo.org/229059 > - https://bugs.gentoo.org/475350 > - https://bugs.gentoo.org/667104 > --- >

Re: [RFC] Port git gcc-descr to Python

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:18 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 1/19/22 13:49, Martin Jambor wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Jan 19 2022, Martin Liška wrote: > >> On 10/18/21 11:01, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> On 10/12/21 10:59, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > There's a complete patch

Re: [PATCH] PR target/32803: Add -Oz option for improved clang compatibility.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:33 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2021 5:27 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > This is missing an invoke.texi update for the new option. > And that update should probably note that -Oz turns on O2. OK with that > change. > > jeff A news entry for the new

Re: [PATCH] c++: Avoid narrowing in make_char_string_pack

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:59 PM Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This fixes > > gcc/cp/parser.c:4618:41: warning: narrowing conversion of '(char)(*(str + > ((sizetype)i)))' from 'char' to 'unsigned char' [-Wnarrowing] > 4618 | unsigned char s[3] = { '\'', str[i], '\'' }; > |

Re: [PATCH] config.gcc: Obsolete m32c-rtems target

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Joel Sherrill wrote: > > --- > gcc/config.gcc | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc > index c8824367b13..fe93a72a16c 100644 > --- a/gcc/config.gcc > +++ b/gcc/config.gcc > @@ -252,6 +252,7 @@ case ${target} in >

Re: [PATCH] gcc/diagnostic.c: make -Werror message more helpful

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:33 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 1:17 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > > > On 12/12/21 3:13 AM, Andrea Monaco via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > > > > I propose to make that message more verbose. It sure would have

Re: [PATCH] gcc/diagnostic.c: make -Werror message more helpful

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 1:17 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 12/12/21 3:13 AM, Andrea Monaco via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > > > I propose to make that message more verbose. It sure would have helped > > me once. You don't always have a Web search available :) > >

Re: [PATCH] pch: Add support for relocation of the PCH data [PR71934]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:10 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > On 12/7/2021 2:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > The following patch adds support for relocation of the PCH blob on PCH > > restore if we don't manage to get the preferred map slot for it. > > The GTY stuff knows

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] Update section on enormous source files in htdocs/projects/beginner.html

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:54 AM Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2021, Eric Gallager wrote: > > This next patch does more than just removing old stuff: it adds an > > extra sentence to describe a shell command used to generate a list, so > > to verify that I've got the shell

PING [PATCH][wwwdocs] Update section on enormous source files in htdocs/projects/beginner.html

Hi, I'd like to ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585294.html On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 2:11 AM Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 6:27 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:14 AM Eric Gallager wrote: > > > > > > On Fri,

Re: [PATCH] Make the path to etags used in the build system configurable [PR103021]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 9:48 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 11/28/2021 6:34 PM, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches wrote: > > The attached patch allows users to specify a path to their `etags` > > executable for use when doing `make tags`, which is meant to close PR

[PATCH] Make the path to etags used in the build system configurable [PR103021]

The attached patch allows users to specify a path to their `etags` executable for use when doing `make tags`, which is meant to close PR other/103021: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103021 I based this patch off of this one from upstream automake:

Re: [PATCH][RFC] middle-end/46476 - resurrect -Wunreachable-code

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This resurrects -Wunreachable-code and implements a warning for > trivially unreachable code as of CFG construction. Most problematic > with this is the C/C++ frontend added 'return 0;' stmt in main > which the patch

[PATCH][wwwdocs] Update section on enormous source files in htdocs/projects/beginner.html

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 6:27 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:14 AM Eric Gallager wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:48 AM Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > > > > Cool, thank you! > > > > > > Please feel free to commit patches like this without asking for > > > approval

[committed][wwwdocs] Remove section on traditional C from htdocs/projects/beginner.html

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:14 AM Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:48 AM Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > > Cool, thank you! > > > > Please feel free to commit patches like this without asking for > > approval (though I'm happy to review and approve). > > > > Gerald > > > > OK thanks;

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] remove references to java in htdocs/projects/beginner.html

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:48 AM Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2021, Eric Gallager wrote: > > I'd find it easier to just edit the page linked to in wwwdocs instead, > > so I'm going to start seeing what I can do to update it. I figured I'd > > start by removing the references to Java in

[PATCH][wwwdocs] remove references to java in htdocs/projects/beginner.html

So, on the wiki page for EasyHacks , it says: "There is also a non-wiki list of beginner projects at http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/beginner.html, however, it is very outdated and the projects are not that easy." Since I don't have an account on the wiki (since

Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: don't assume getcwd() can handle NULL argument

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:50 AM Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote: > > POSIX says: > > On some implementations, if buf is a null pointer, getcwd() may obtain > size bytes of memory using malloc(). In this case, the pointer returned > by getcwd() may be used as the argument in a

Re: [PATCH 2/2] add -Wdangling-pointer [PR #63272]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 6:20 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Patch 2 in this series adds support for detecting the uses of > dangling pointers: those to auto objects that have gone out of > scope. Like patch 1, to minimize false positives this detection > is very simplistic. However,

Re: [PATCH 1/2] add -Wuse-after-free

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 6:18 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Patch 1 in the series detects a small subset of uses of pointers > made indeterminate by calls to deallocation functions like free > or C++ operator delete. To control the conditions the warnings > are issued under the new

Re: [PATCH] x86: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or newer

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:49 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote: > > PR target/98667 > * doc/invoke.texi: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or > new. > --- > gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH] attribs: Allow optional second arg for attr deprecated [PR102049]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:19 AM Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Any thoughts? I think it's a good idea, but then again I can't approve it, so... well, who can, then? > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:16:36PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Clang implements something we

Re: [PATCH] configure, d: Add support for bootstrapping the D front-end

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:38 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > On 10/9/2021 7:32 AM, Iain Buclaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The implementation of the D front-end in GCC is based on the original > > C++ version of the D programming language compiler, which was ported to > > D

Re: [PATCH] libcody: add mostlyclean Makefile target

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 5:47 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 10/25/21 18:10, Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 7:35 AM Martin Liška wrote: > >> > >> Hello. > >> > >> The patch adds missing Makefile mostlyclean. > >> > >> Ready to be installed? > >> Thanks, > >> Martin > >> > > > >

Re: [PATCH] libcody: add mostlyclean Makefile target

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 7:35 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > Hello. > > The patch adds missing Makefile mostlyclean. > > Ready to be installed? > Thanks, > Martin > Generally the way the various "*clean" targets are arranged, in order of cleanliness, from least clean to most clean, is: mostlyclean

Re: (!HELP NEEDED) Where is the doc for the format strings in gcc (for example, %q+D, ...)

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:57 AM Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 03:49:09PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In GCC, there are many utility routines for reporting error, warning, or > > information, for example: > > > > warning (0, "weak

Re: [PATCH][WIP] Add install-dvi Makefile targets

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 10/18/2021 7:30 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:09 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:41 AM Eric Gallager wrote: > >>> Currently the build machinery handles install-pdf and install-html > >>>

Re: [PATCH][WIP] Add install-dvi Makefile targets

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 1:41 AM Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > Hi, I have updated this patch and tested it with more languages now; I > > can now confirm that it works with ada, d, and fortran now. The only > > languages that remain untested now are go (since I'm building on > > darwin

Re: [PATCH][WIP] Add install-dvi Makefile targets

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:09 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:41 AM Eric Gallager wrote: > > > > Currently the build machinery handles install-pdf and install-html > > targets, but no install-dvi target. This patch is a step towards > > fixing that. Note that I have only

Re: [PATCH][WIP] Add install-dvi Makefile targets

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:41 AM Eric Gallager wrote: > > Currently the build machinery handles install-pdf and install-html > targets, but no install-dvi target. This patch is a step towards > fixing that. Note that I have only tested with > --enable-languages=c,c++,lto,objc,obj-c++. Thus, target

Re: [PATCH] Allow `make tags` to work from top-level directory

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:56 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 9:18 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > > > On 10/11/2021 4:05 PM, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:43 PM Eric Gallager > >

Re: [PATCH] Allow `make tags` to work from top-level directory

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 9:18 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 10/11/2021 4:05 PM, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:43 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > >> On 10/13/16, Jeff Law wrote: > >>> On 10/06/2016 07:21 AM, Eric Gallager

Re: [PATCH] libiberty: prevent buffer overflow when decoding user input

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:55 AM Luís Ferreira wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 22:11 +0200, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > Excerpts from Luís Ferreira's message of October 8, 2021 7:08 pm: > > > On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 18:52 +0200, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > > > Excerpts from Luís Ferreira's message of October

Re: [PATCH] Allow `make tags` to work from top-level directory

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:43 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > > On 10/13/16, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 10/06/2016 07:21 AM, Eric Gallager wrote: > >> The libdecnumber, libgcc, and libobjc subdirectories are missing TAGS > >> targets in their Makefiles. The attached patch causes them to be > >> skipped

Re: [PATCH] libiberty: prevent buffer overflow when decoding user input

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:28 PM Luís Ferreira wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 09:00 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > On 10/4/2021 10:52 AM, Luís Ferreira wrote: > > > On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 09:50 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/23/2021 4:16 AM, ibuclaw--- via Gcc-patches wrote: > > >

Re: [PATCH] restore ancient -Waddress for weak symbols [PR33925]

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:43 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > > While resolving the recent -Waddress enhancement request (PR > PR102103) I came across a 2007 problem report about GCC 4 having > stopped warning for using the address of inline functions in > equality comparisons with null.

Re: [PATCH] c: [PR32122] Require pointer types for computed gotos

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 12:15 AM apinski--- via Gcc-patches wrote: > > From: Andrew Pinski > > So GCC has always accepted non-pointer types in computed gotos but > that was wrong based on the documentation: > Any expression of type void * is allowed. > > So this fixes the problem by requiring

Re: [PATCH] libgfortran : Use the libtool macro to determine libm availability.

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:53 AM Tobias Burnus wrote: > > On 20.08.21 09:34, Richard Biener via Fortran wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 10:10 PM Iain Sandoe wrote: > >> libm is not needed on Darwin, and should not be added unconditionally > >> even if that is (mostly) harmless since it is a

Re: [PATCH] Objective-C: don't require redundant -fno-objc-sjlj-exceptions for the NeXT v2 ABI

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:36 PM Matt Jacobson via Gcc-patches wrote: > > As is, an invocation of GCC with -fnext-runtime -fobjc-abi-version=2 crashes, > unless target-specific code adds an implicit -fno-objc-sjlj-exceptions (which > Darwin does). > > This patch makes the general case not crash.

Re: [PATCH] libgcc libiberty: optimize and modernize standard string and memory functions

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:10 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > On 6/3/2021 12:51 PM, Seija K. via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This patch optimizes and simplifies many of the standard string functions. > > > > Since C99, some of the standard string functions have been changed to use > > the

Re: [PATCH] c++: Add new warning options for C++ language mismatches

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This adds new warning flags, enabled by default: -Wc++11-extensions, > -Wc++14-extensions, -Wc++17-extensions, and -Wc++20-extensions. The > names of the flags are copied from Clang, which already has similar > options. >

Re: [PATCH v2] C++ : Add the -stdlib= option.

Hi Iain, could you add a note about this change to the gcc-11/changes.html page? There are probably some people who would be interested in this who could use a note about it. Thanks On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 3:53 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 12/22/20 3:39 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] adjust "partly out of bounds" warning (PR 98503)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:04 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > > The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose > leading offset is in bounds but whose trailing offset is not has > been causing some confusion. When the warning is issued for > an access to an in-bounds

Re: [committed] wwwdocs: Move cilkplus to Inactive branches

On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 6:55 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 27 Dec 2020, Eric Gallager wrote: > > If it's now inactive, maybe also reword the description to change tense > > from present to past? > > i.e.: > > Yes... > > > cilkplus > > This branch was for the development of the now-obsolete

Re: [committed] wwwdocs: Move cilkplus to Inactive branches

On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 1:59 PM Eric Gallager wrote: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 1:50 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > >> Cilk Plus has been deprecated more than two years ago and not seen >> development on the GCC side for a while, too. >> >> The certificate for www.cilkplus.org expired four weeks

Re: [committed] wwwdocs: Move cilkplus to Inactive branches

On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 1:50 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Cilk Plus has been deprecated more than two years ago and not seen > development on the GCC side for a while, too. > > The certificate for www.cilkplus.org expired four weeks ago, so > remove our link there as we move the Cilk Plus entry to

Re: [PATCH 1/8 v4] Dead-field warning in structs at LTO-time

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:58 AM Erick Ochoa < erick.oc...@theobroma-systems.com> wrote: > > This commit includes the following components: > >Type-based escape analysis to determine structs that can be modified at >link-time. >Field access analysis to determine which fields are never

Re: [RFC c-common PATCH] PR c++/40752 - useless -Wconversion with short +=. [wwwdocs]

On 5/10/20, Eric Gallager wrote: > On 1/10/20, Jason Merrill wrote: >> Back in 2009 Manuel sent a patch to avoid useless -Wconversion warnings >> on compound assignment of types that get promoted to int: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00582.html >> >> Joseph argued that

Re: [RFC c-common PATCH] PR c++/40752 - useless -Wconversion with short +=.

On 1/10/20, Jason Merrill wrote: > Back in 2009 Manuel sent a patch to avoid useless -Wconversion warnings > on compound assignment of types that get promoted to int: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00582.html > > Joseph argued that those warnings are sometimes useful, and that

  1   2   >