OK.
Jason
Hi,
this old issue is about default arguments not rejected for function
typedefs. We have got infrastructure for that - parser->default_arg_ok_p
- and it seems to me that we can safely set the flag to false in
cp_parser_init_declarator when the decl_specifier has ds_typedef set.
Tested x86_64
On 13-07-05 8:43 AM, Yvan Roux wrote:
Hi,
for AArch64 it is also needed to take into account SIGN_EXTRACT in the
set_address_base and set_address_index routines, as we acan encounter
that kind of insn for instance :
(insn 29 27 5 7 (set (mem:SI (plus:DI (sign_extract:DI (mult:DI
(subreg:DI (reg
Patch applied.
I also found the number of template parameters painful. Isolating a part
of the _Hashtable in a base class is a good idea and seems to be the
solution indeed, I will have a try.
François
On 07/05/2013 12:28 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 4 July 2013 21:54, François Dumont wro
The following patch fixes PR55342:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342
To solve the problem, new transformations called *optional reloads*
and undoing them have been implemented.
Here is an example of what the patch does
Before After
Ping!
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01503.html
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've created a new branch, called ubsan for work being done for
> Undefined Behavior Sanitizer.
>
> Marek
Great!
-- Gaby
Hi!
This code dates back to 1994, and as the testcase shows, is broken
if mask contains some bits outside of mode (as ASHIFTRT is signed,
I think it is fine if it is sign extended from mode to the HWI).
On this particular testcase, mode is SImode, trueop1 is (const_int 2),
count is 31, so we get
Hi,
Jason Merrill ha scritto:
>I wouldn't mind mentioning dynamic_cast, along the lines that Gaby
>suggested in the PR.
Sure, but let me think about it, because isn't immediately obvious (to me at
least!) *when* that would really help.
Paolo
On 07/05/2013 08:36 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I still consider talk of 'static_cast' in this context a non-starter.
However, maybe just saying "convert" would be OK -- though clearly
giving hints of dynamic_cast is much better.
I wouldn't mind mentioning dynamic_cast, along the lines that Gab
On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>* gcc.dg/pr57518.c: Adjust scan-rtl-dump-not pattern.
[ If you want a review or need an approval, be sure to ask Ok? Just in case
you forgot... ] Ok.
Thanks.
Hi,
On 07/05/2013 05:36 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Paolo Carlini writes:
| Hi,
|
| this issue dates back to 2004 and got stalled pretty soon. Essentially
| Gaby wanted to see *dynamic_cast* explicitly mentioned in this kind of
| diagnostic (we used to explicitly talk about static_cast), where
Paolo Carlini writes:
| Hi,
|
| this issue dates back to 2004 and got stalled pretty soon. Essentially
| Gaby wanted to see *dynamic_cast* explicitly mentioned in this kind of
| diagnostic (we used to explicitly talk about static_cast), whereas
| Mark found the current status an improvement over
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, we need to cpp_avoid_paste during preprocessing
after non-udlit stirng literals if udlits are enabled, because if
next token starts with a-zA-Z_ characters, then when actually parsing
the preprocessed output we'd read those as user defined literals when
in the source co
Hi!
I've noticed that if we preprocess source with multi-line raw-string
literals (or -save-temps compile), the lines can be off if the multi-line
raw-string literal contains just a few lines (under the threshold to emit
#line directive); we already have a function for that for CPP_COMMENT
tokens
Hi!
When adding lex_raw_stirng, I've struggled with the fetching of
new lines, cpp_get_fresh_line can't be called under all circumstances,
and thus for some conditions I just gave up with error.
Seems for deferred_pragmas it just works and for parsing of arguments
also if there is something in the
Hi!
Kai has reported his type demotion patches lead to a regression, which can
be seen also without his patches by doing the type demotion by hand.
test1 is optimized using *jcc_bt_mask instruction (combiner detects
this), but test2 isn't. In that case combiner first merges the and with
shift int
Hi!
Attached are two versions of a patch to teach VRP about the int bitop
builtins. Both patches are identical for all builtins but
__builtin_c[lt]z*, which are the only two from these that are documented
to have undefined behavior on some argument (0).
The first version is strict, it assumes __
Hi,
this issue dates back to 2004 and got stalled pretty soon. Essentially
Gaby wanted to see *dynamic_cast* explicitly mentioned in this kind of
diagnostic (we used to explicitly talk about static_cast), whereas Mark
found the current status an improvement over the past, proposed some
furthe
This patch adds creating and passing the arguments for the ubsan
library. So, we can finally make use of the ubsan library. We
currently sanitize only divisions by zero and shifts. What it can do
now is e.g. for:
int main (void) { long int a = 4; int b = 113; return a << b; }
it at runtime says:
Hi!
I've created a new branch, called ubsan for work being done for
Undefined Behavior Sanitizer.
Marek
Hi,
for AArch64 it is also needed to take into account SIGN_EXTRACT in the
set_address_base and set_address_index routines, as we acan encounter
that kind of insn for instance :
(insn 29 27 5 7 (set (mem:SI (plus:DI (sign_extract:DI (mult:DI
(subreg:DI (reg/v:SI 76 [ elt ]) 0)
...
with the attac
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:32 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> > Given how much trouble I went through to make it the default, I'd
> > rather not revert all that work... especially since the flag is
> > *required* for proper operation of the hardware on many
- Original Message -
From: Graham Stott
To: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2013, 16:25
Subject: Fix ununsed variables before my patch adding missing -Werror
This patch fixes the warnings from array-notation_common.c so that I can
then apply my Makefile missing
[RFC] Allow functions calling mcount before prologue to be leaf functions
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00993.html
[PATCH] PR57377: Fix mnemonic attribute
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01364.html
[PATCH] Doc: Add documentation for the mnemonic attribute
http://gcc.gn
> > I agree, but anyway we need some tests to measure performance - whether
> > these tests are Specs or some others.
> >
> >
> > I attached the updated patch - it's the same as the previous, but
> > without emit-rtl.c changes. Is it ok for trunk?
Yes, this patch is OK (I meant my previous mail as
This patch adds cross-reference information to the formals of an Access_To_
Subprogram type. Previously these formals were classified as objects; now
they are references as (in, out, in-out) parameters.
Here is an example of the new output of the cross-reference utility;
gcc -c params_pkg.a
This patch modifies the analysis of pragmas Contract_Cases, Depends and Global
to allow timely processing when the aspects or pragmas apply to a subprogram
compilation unit.
-- Source --
-- proc_aspects.ads
procedure Proc_Aspects (X : in out Integer) with
Contract_
In the SPARK mode for formal verification, force the instantiation of a
subprogram body, so that the formal verification backend can analyze it.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2013-07-05 Yannick Moy
* sem_ch12.ads, sem_ch12.adb (Need_Subprogram_Instance_Body): Force
On 07/05/2013 11:28 AM, Thomas Quinot wrote:
2013-07-06 Thomas Quinot
gcc/
* tree-complex.c: Fix minor typo in comment
OK to commit?
I think this falls under the "obvious" rule. (But your date in the
changelog is off.)
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
This patch adds documentation for obsolete pragma Propagate_Exceptions,
and also removes the flag and residual junk code in the compiler that
did nothing. No test, since no functional effect (just a cleanup!)
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2013-07-05 Robert Dewar
*
This change adds a missing guard to the SCO generation circuitry that caused
bogus extra SCOs to be generated for loop statements in separate bodies.
The following compilation must produce the indicated SCOs:
$ gcc -c -fdump-scos pak.adb
$ grep "^C" pak.ali
C 3 pak-p.adb
CS F3:8-3:18
CS >S3:8 4:7
On 5 July 2013 16:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:11:00PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> + FOR_BB_INSNS(bb, x)
>
> Just style nits:
> Missing space between (. Also, please don't use uppercase names
> for labels.
>
> Jakub
Thanks for the comments. Update it as
On 07/05/2013 11:28 AM, Thomas Quinot wrote:
2013-07-06 Thomas Quinot
gcc/
* tree-complex.c: Fix minor typo in comment
OK to commit?
In my opinion this qualifies as obvious.
Paolo.
2013-07-06 Thomas Quinot
gcc/
* tree-complex.c: Fix minor typo in comment
OK to commit?
diff --git a/gcc/tree-complex.c b/gcc/tree-complex.c
index c45ba19..acd0169 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-complex.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-complex.c
@@ -1476,7 +1476,7 @@ expand_complex_operations_1 (gimple_stmt_i
This patch adds code to generate two different runtime checks for aliased
parameters depending on whether switch -gnateE is in effect. The default check
raises a normal Program_Error. The detailed version points out the troublesome
formals involved.
-- Source --
-- para
A construct of the form Obj.F (X => Expr) is parsed as a function call because
of the parameter association, before the prefix is analyzed and the construct
possibly rewritten as a call to F with controlling argument Obj. In a generic
context, if such a call appears in a precondition, and given th
Hi,
The patch is updated. If there is no df_live, we still can not
guarantee the correctness. So the new patch just checks the
DF_INSN_DEFS.
Bootstrap and no make check regression on x86-64.
Bootstrap on ARM chrome book.
Is it OK?
Thanks!
-Zhenqiang
Changelog:
2013-07-05 Zhenqiang Chen
Ping.
On 2 July 2013 18:37, Michael Zolotukhin wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Thanks for the review and for your responses - please find my answers
> below.
>
>> Yes, I looked on the patch in detail this week (I am currently on a travel
>> with
>> sporadic internet access and my days before leaving was ext
39 matches
Mail list logo
