On 15-12-13 04:37, Alan Modra wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 09:14:34PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
I wonder if OUTGOING_REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE makes a difference here.
If OUTGOING_REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE == 0, it is the responsibility of
the callee to allocate the area reserved for arguments passed
>From the revision range 205803:205810 (excluding:including) an
on, my autotester for cris-elf reports a regression:
Running
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-dg/conformance.exp ...
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: 20_util/hash/chi2_quality.cc execution test
This appears
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 09:14:34PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I wonder if OUTGOING_REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE makes a difference here.
>
> If OUTGOING_REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE == 0, it is the responsibility of
> the callee to allocate the area reserved for arguments passed in
> registers. AFAIU, both func
Hi all,
here is a rather simple fix for a problem with the pointer assignment
of an unlimited polymorphic variable. The patch regtests cleanly on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Firstly, I would like to commit to trunk, of course. Ok?
Secondly, the bug reporter asked me (privately) for the possibility
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 08:32:25AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> > "H.J. Lu" writes:
> >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Richard Sandiford
> >> wrote:
> >>> Richard Henderson writes:
> On 12/10/2013 10:44 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote
Hi,
this patch fixes first part of PR58477. Here we miss IPA devirtualization
opurtunity but
produce speculative call. Later during inlining, the standard folders produce
direct call
and we ICE after cgraph_clone_edge messes up the speculative call info.
This patch makes cgraph_clone_edge to d
Hi,
this patch makes stmt_may_be_vtbl_ptr_store to skip clobbers as discussed
previously.
Martin, I do not fully follow the logic of this function. Can't we just
ignore all stores that are not of pointer type that looks like vptr
type? All those tores are compiler generated and we probably can ju
+ vallen = canonize (val, (uvlen + 1) >> 1, prec);
+
+ /* Shift is not always safe to write over one of the
+operands, so we must copy. */
+ HOST_WIDE_INT tval[2 * WIDE_INT_MAX_ELTS];
+ memcpy (tval, val, vallen * CHAR_BIT / HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT);
vallen * size
On 13-12-13 06:43, Jeff Law wrote:
Was this meant perhaps?
...
|| (reg_parm_stack_space != REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE
(current_function_decl))
I think you're probably right.
sibcall/tailcall basically re-use the current function's stack
Jeff,
Right, say we have function a tail-calling funct
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Andrew Pinski
wrote:
> Hi,
> The problem here is that both asan and ubsan testsuite test if we
> have set a library path before running the testsuite. This is
> incorrect when running the already installed testing as there is no
> path to set.
>
> This patch cha
Hi!
This patch implements one of the few remaining missing ubsan
sanitizations, in particular instrumentation which complains about
loads of (non-bitfield) bool or enum (the latter in C++ only) value
that is outside of the range allowed (0/1 for bool, min/max for
minimum precision integer type hol
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 08:24:21PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This adds more testing of unary -.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-linux with -m32/-m64, ok for trunk?
>
> 2013-12-14 Marek Polacek
>
> testsuite/
> * c-c++-common/ubsan/overflow-negate-1.c: Add more testing. Don't
> requir
This adds more testing of unary -.
Regtested on x86_64-linux with -m32/-m64, ok for trunk?
2013-12-14 Marek Polacek
testsuite/
* c-c++-common/ubsan/overflow-negate-1.c: Add more testing. Don't
require int128 target.
* c-c++-common/ubsan/overflow-negate-2.c: New test.
> I checked in this patch:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=3f899b097ac0188fc55c763afc1
> ccde5e2766027
>
> to fix ChangeLog entries.
Thanks!
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi all,
I have just committed an 'obvious' patch to fix an ICE-on-invalid
problem with class pointer assignments:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=205990
Cheers,
Janus
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 09:47:20AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:30:12AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >> >lhs of a call for calls or somewhere in output arguments of
>inline
>> >asm.
>> >>
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> This fixes an oversight in the recent change to var-tracking.c
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02007.html
> whereby union types are not treated in a consistent way.
>
> Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline as
On 12/14/2013 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
+ /* True if the result needs to be negated. */
+ bool is_neg = false;
/* If the top level routine did not really pass in an overflow, then
just make sure that we never attempt to set it. */
bool needs_overflow = (overfl
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 3:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
We can't change -fPIC underneath in x86 backend while middle-end is
unchanged.
This patch restores opts->x_flag_pic from global flag_pic. OK to install?
2013-12-12
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Henderson writes:
On 12/10/2013 10:44 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Sorry, I don't understand. I never said it was invalid. I sai
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 3:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> We can't change -fPIC underneath in x86 backend while middle-end is
>>> unchanged.
>>> This patch restores opts->x_flag_pic from global flag_pic. OK to install?
>>>
>>> 2013-12-12 H.J. Lu
>>>
>>> PR target/59492
>>> * confi
The current world
is actually structured so that we never ask about overflow for the two
larger classes because the reason that you used those classes was that
you never wanted to have this discussion. So if you never ask about
overflow, then it really does not matter because we are not going to
* gcc.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp: Fix last change.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp
index cb27418..2f7fcb7 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp
@
This fixes an oversight in the recent change to var-tracking.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02007.html
whereby union types are not treated in a consistent way.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline as obvious.
2013-12-14 Eric Botcazou
* var-tracking.c
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 12/14/2013 06:40 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Hi Kenny,
>>
>> Sorry for the slow response.
>>
>> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>>> Index: gcc/wide-int.cc
>>> ===
>>> --- gcc/wide-int.cc (revision 205765)
>>> +
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> We can't change -fPIC underneath in x86 backend while middle-end is
>> unchanged.
>> This patch restores opts->x_flag_pic from global flag_pic. OK to install?
>>
>> 2013-12-12 H.J. Lu
>>
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 02:20:05PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This adds two sanity tests for signed-integer-overflow sanitization.
> One variant uses asms to prevent ccp/... from optimizing away the
> computations. Nothing in these tests should fail.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu a
This adds two sanity tests for signed-integer-overflow sanitization.
One variant uses asms to prevent ccp/... from optimizing away the
computations. Nothing in these tests should fail.
Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu,
ok for trunk?
2013-12-14 Marek Polacek
On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 10:19 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Oleg Endo wrote:
> >On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 03:13 -0500, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 06:47:37PM +0100, Oleg Endo wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 00:04 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> > > Declaring the edge_iter
On 12/14/2013 06:40 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Kenny,
Sorry for the slow response.
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
Index: gcc/wide-int.cc
===
--- gcc/wide-int.cc (revision 205765)
+++ gcc/wide-int.cc (working copy)
@@ -1275,
Hi!
Ping, after another month. Reposting the patches below; freshly
re-tested, both to cause no change if the new configure options are not
used, and to do the right thing if they are.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:52:37 +0100, I wrote:
> Could a global maintainer or build machinery maintainer please r
Hi Kenny,
Sorry for the slow response.
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> Index: gcc/wide-int.cc
> ===
> --- gcc/wide-int.cc (revision 205765)
> +++ gcc/wide-int.cc (working copy)
> @@ -1275,23 +1275,31 @@ wi::mul_internal (HOST_WIDE_INT
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 09:47:20AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:30:12AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> >lhs of a call for calls or somewhere in output arguments of inline
> >asm.
> >>
> >> Can you please simply use
Hi Paul,
> I am somewhat startled that this was so "easy" to fix (ie. the patch looks
> easy but I'll bet that find the fix was not!).
well, actually finding it was not so hard: The backtrace in the PR
pointed me directly to mio_expr, and a bit of debugging showed that we
simply do do handle any
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> We can't change -fPIC underneath in x86 backend while middle-end is unchanged.
> This patch restores opts->x_flag_pic from global flag_pic. OK to install?
>
> 2013-12-12 H.J. Lu
>
> PR target/59492
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_
Oleg Endo wrote:
>On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 03:13 -0500, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 06:47:37PM +0100, Oleg Endo wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 00:04 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> > > Declaring the edge_iterator inside the for() is not a good
>argument
>> > > against FOR_EA
36 matches
Mail list logo
