Ping...
>
> Hello,
>
> and Ping for this patch:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01552.html
>
>
> note however, that cross-building is probably broken
> anyway in the moment by r205690,
>
>
> Thanks
> Bernd.
>
>> there is a small problem with SSIZE_MAX, because it is not always
>
On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 12/08/13 13:06, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > Lovely. Thank you very much!
(Looks like nobody replied to this and it isn't committed.)
> $ svn diff
> Index: configure.ac
> ===
> --- configure.a
ping.
On 22 January 2014 22:27, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>
> After we changed the frame growing direction (downwards) in Aarch64,
> the back-end now generates stack smashing set and test based on
> generic code available in GCC.
>
> But most of the ports (i386, spu, rs6000, s390,
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Le 18/01/2014 21:17, Mikael Morin a écrit :
> > Well, I guess that due to the touchy nature of the bug, there are cases
> > that work by luck on old versions and fail (by unluck) on newer ones.
> > Thus, I will backport in a few days to 4.8 and 4.7.
> >
>
In the 32-bit runtime, it is more efficient to do a long call to a non-
local function using an
indirect call than it is to use the inline sequence currently in
pa_output_call. The attached
change modifies the call and call_value expanders to do this.
Tested on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu, hppa2.0
The attached change removes an unnecessary nop from two indirect call
sequences. I also revised
the long PIC sequence to use the ldo instruction to compute the return
pointer. Think it's better to use
an integer arithmetic operation instead of a branch for this.
Tested on hppa-unknown-linu
Le 18/01/2014 21:17, Mikael Morin a écrit :
> Well, I guess that due to the touchy nature of the bug, there are cases
> that work by luck on old versions and fail (by unluck) on newer ones.
> Thus, I will backport in a few days to 4.8 and 4.7.
>
I added the following hardening to the patch on the
Ping.
The patch in question is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01688.html
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 16:28 +0100, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 01:19 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 19 December 2013 00:10, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > When writing code s
Updated patch with test.
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index ccbea0f..e80c30b 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2013-12-29 Allan Sandfeld Jensen
+ * config/i386/i386.c (get_builtin_code_for_version): Separate
+ Westmere from Nehalem, Ivy Bridge from San
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 07c73153d6a224dfe2add152720e9d25369b33d3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Sun Jan 26 10:51:17 2014 +
* acinclude.m4 (GLIBCXX_ENABLE_C99): Fix typo.
* configure: Regenerate.
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 b/libstdc++-v3
Also tweak a comment and whitespace.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit c0539972b28657267c3c0f91be0f0cf9ad1ab56f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Sun Jan 26 10:50:29 2014 +
* include/bits/stl_map.h: Remove anachronistic comment.
* include/bits/stl_multimap.h: A
On 26 January 2014 09:43, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is a patch to fix PR 55033 in profile mode. Like in debug mode it
> was missing noexcept qualifier on move constructor.
But don't those functions allocate memory? So they can throw.
I agree we want the move constructor to be noexc
Hi
This is a patch to fix PR 55033 in profile mode. Like in debug mode
it was missing noexcept qualifier on move constructor.
2014-01-26 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/55083
* include/profile/unordered_base.h (_Unordered_profile()): Add
noexcept qualifier.
(_Unordered_pro
13 matches
Mail list logo
