The test case checked array[idx]=array and array[idx]=scalar assignment,
but not scalar[idx]=scalar assignments.
I have now added the check; committed as Rev. 210308.
Tobias
Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.fortran-caf
===
---
A rather obvious copy and paste error ...
Committed as Rev. 210309.
Tobias
On Sat, 10 May 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
in my recent phiopt patch enhancing value_replacement to optimize
x!=0?x+y:y, I forgot to check that there is no other PHI (not sure how I
managed to miss that since I
For those with a broken crystal ball (and being too lazy to look in the
repository), here's the attachment.
Tobias Burnus:
A rather obvious copy and paste error ...
Committed as Rev. 210309.
Index: libgfortran/ChangeLog.fortran-caf
Hi,
currently it is not possible to build GCC's libjava support on Cygwin-64.
The attached patch fixes the current build-problems and the most
fundamental bugs on that platform.
Note you must still add --enable-threads=posix to successfully build the
java language support.
Boot-Strapped on
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
The wide-int version of int_const_binop_1 has:
static tree
int_const_binop_1 (enum tree_code code, const_tree arg1, const_tree parg2,
int overflowable)
{
[...]
tree type = TREE_TYPE
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener
PING
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Janne Blomqvist
blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
the attached patch switches libgfortran C sources to be compiled in
gnu11 mode instead of gnu99. As the 4.9 release notes
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html say,
ISO C11 support is now at a
PING
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Janne Blomqvist
blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
the attached patch avoids a stack overflow crash due to not trying to
create a null-terminated duplicate of the argument char array on the
stack. Also, for the common case it avoids an extra
Hello,
This patch plugs a GGC leak in gcse.c, which will hold on to test insn
to save memory. But this results in holding on to entire RTL function
bodies, the function's CFG, and a lot more.
Fix is simple: Clear the part of test_insn that causes this.
Bootstrappedtested on
On May 11, 2014 3:54:30 PM CEST, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
This patch plugs a GGC leak in gcse.c, which will hold on to test insn
to save memory. But this results in holding on to entire RTL function
bodies, the function's CFG, and a lot more.
Fix is simple: Clear the
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 04:10:47PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
...
Tested again x86_64-linux, ok now?
2014-05-02 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
PR c/50459
This caused on x86_64-apple-darwin13
FAIL: c-c++-common/pr50459.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
This patch changes the type of second argument to
_gfortran_caf_num_images from Boolean to integer. The reason is that we
have to represent three different states:
a) num_images() - all existing images (in the current/distance-th
parent team)
b/c) num_images(...,failed) - those states which
While it would be nice to support !$OMP do for do concurrent loops,
the OpenMP spec does not support it, yet. (Syntactically, it is a not a
that simple feature as do concurrent can optionally have a MASK=, which
has to be evaluated before the loop.)
Thus, this patch avoids an ICE by simply
===
--- gcc/builtins.c(revision 210019)
+++ gcc/builtins.c(working copy)
@@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ static rtx result_vector (int, rtx);
#endif
static void expand_builtin_update_setjmp_buf (rtx);
static void
On 02 May 2014, at 17:57, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 May 2014 17:18, Oleg Endo wrote:
Jonathan,
now that we're in stage 1 again, I'd like to revive the issue below. Do
you have any particular plans? How should we proceed?
Hi Oleg, sorry for letting the thread
Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com writes:
The errors are
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr50459.c:8:1: error: constructor
priorities are not supported
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr50459.c:9:1: error: destructor
priorities are not supported
Ah. The following
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 09:18:47PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
No, that's wrong: avoid hardcoding target lists if at all possible.
Besides, it's wrong since it doesn't cover the Solaris (and other
non-gld linker) case. Use the init_priority effective-target keyword
instead. Also, please check
That test now looks a bit silly with the dozen+1 exceptions. But, I
guess with just this one(?) test there's little sense in adding an
effective target to describe that division by 0 doesn't signal. Other
than keeping it in just one place, of course. But, committed.
gcc/testsuite:
*
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:24:34PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
rs6000_emit_set_const ... always returns a non-zero result ...
Can you help clarify the removal of the code that tests if the
splitter failed?
See above.
--
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:23:16AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:24:34PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
rs6000_emit_set_const ... always returns a non-zero result ...
Can you help clarify the removal
Ping ?
Thanks,
Kugan
On 02/05/14 22:27, Kugan wrote:
On 02/05/14 20:06, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
On 29 April 2014 03:37, Kugan kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org wrote:
On 28/04/14 21:01, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 04/26/14 11:57, Kugan wrote:
Attached patch implements
Ping ?
Thanks,
Kugan
On 02/05/14 19:04, Kugan wrote:
On 02/05/14 10:15, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
It doesn't seem a good idea to me for a host-side GCC file to use the FE_*
names for the target's FE_* values; you'd run into problems if that file
ever ends up including the host's fenv.h,
I don't have permissions to commit this patch, but I do have a release
on file with the FSF.
Problem description:
The existing docs make reference to a macro which is described below.
However, this is the final sentence in the section; there is no
below. Turns out the macro was deleted a
Ping.
Thanks,
bin
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM, bin.cheng bin.ch...@arm.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of bin.cheng
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 3:21 PM
To: Richard Earnshaw
Cc:
Hi,
This patch fixes a bogus warning generated by -Wmaybe-uninitialized.
The problem is that we sometimes fail to acknowledge a defining edge
belonging to a control-dependence chain because we assume that each
defining edge shares the same control-dependence root. But this may not
be true if a
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Andrew Burgess aburg...@broadcom.com wrote:
On 09/05/2014 9:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Andrew Burgess aburg...@broadcom.com wrote:
if ((AUTO_DEMANGLING || GNU_DEMANGLING))
{
success = gnu_special
27 matches
Mail list logo
