On 07/31/2015 11:27 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/31/2015 12:18 PM, Michael Collison wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Yes I will create a test case. I'm not quite sure what to check for even
in the machine dependent test case. It's quite possible for the
instructions that are generated to change over time.
I think
Hi Jason,
Sounds like an interesting idea. Do have already a specific approach in mind?
My idea might be just hard to model, as we aren't sure we walked
before the complete chain. Due cp_fold is caching, we won't try to
fold an expression a second time, but we don't cover all EXPRs in
cp_fold,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Wakely [mailto:jwak...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 6:54 PM
> To: Moore, Catherine; fdum...@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Gerald Pfeifer; libstd...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] libstdc++/65142 Check read() result
On 18 September 2015 at 01:23, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
> Ok. Tested on Linux-PPC64. This patch doesn't handle attributes yet, it looks
> to
> me as if gcc doesn't support namespace attributes in the location that
> the standard
> grammar puts them into. I had to adjust a couple of
Ahem, oops,
On 17/09/15 22:32 +, Moore, Catherine wrote:
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Wakely
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 5:28 PM
To: Gerald Pfeifer
Cc: libstd...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:13:21 +0200
> Did you keep the 64-bit promotion in PROMOTE_MODE or...?
Yes I had to, the compiler aborts() if I make it use SImode on 64-bit.
I'll take a closer look soon.
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Wakely
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 5:28 PM
> To: Gerald Pfeifer
> Cc: libstd...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] libstdc++/65142 C
On 17 September 2015 at 23:11, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 07:55 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>
>> This is the first stab, I haven't written the tests yet. Feedback would be
>> most welcome; should I put this code into a separate function? Is the
>> minor
>> code duplication with the reg
On 17/09/15 21:25 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jonathan Wakely writes:
+ p = "/dev/stdin";
+ if (exists(p))
+{
+ auto p2 = canonical(p);
+ if (is_symlink(p))
+VERIFY( p != p2 );
+ else
+VERIFY( p == p2 );
+ VERIFY( canonical(p2) == p2 );
This fails i
On 17/09/15 22:21 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Any comments on this version?
Committed to trunk.
Unfortunately this broke bootstrap on FreeBSD 10.1.
/scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc: In member
function 'std::random_dev
> I'll let Bernd comment on the patch itself. But I would say that if
> you're setting up cases where we can tie the source/dest of an extension
> together, then it's a good thing. It'll cause more of them to turn into
> NOPs and it'll make the redundant extension elimination pass more
> effectiv
> > You need to update https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html
>
> Done.
Nice work! Did you keep the 64-bit promotion in PROMOTE_MODE or...?
--
Eric Botcazou
-- Forwarded message --
From: Christopher Jefferson
Date: 17 September 2015 at 18:59
Subject: Re: vector lightweight debug mode
To: Jonathan Wakely
On 16 September 2015 at 21:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 16/09/15 21:37 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
>
@@ -1051,6 +1071,7
On 17 September 2015 at 21:57, David Malcolm wrote:
> In my mind it's more about saving the user from having to locate the
> field they really meant within the corresponding structure declaration
> (either by grep, or by some cross-referencing tool).
I think it is more than that. After a long cod
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Any comments on this version?
> Committed to trunk.
Unfortunately this broke bootstrap on FreeBSD 10.1.
/scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc: In member
function 'std::random_device::result_type std::random_device::_M_getval(
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 16:04:09 +0200
> You need to update https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html
Done.
On 09/16/2015 07:55 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
This is the first stab, I haven't written the tests yet. Feedback would be
most welcome; should I put this code into a separate function? Is the minor
code duplication with the regular namespace definition ok?
I think I'd prefer to keep it in the
On 09/17/2015 02:04 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Back in January Andrew mostly implemented C++1z fold-expressions
(https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n4295.html), but the patch broke
bootstrap. I've fixed it up now and am committing it to the trunk.
Andrew: The main change I made was to drop tentative
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 13:14 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/17/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I have a (very messy) implementation of this working for the C
> > frontend, which gives us source ranges on expressions without needing to
> > add any new tree nodes, or add any fields to
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 13:31 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 02:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Btw, this looks quite expensive - I'm sure we want to limit the effort
> > here a bit.
> A limiter is reasonable, though as it's been pointed out this only fires
> during error processing, so
Fantastic. I've wanted to get back to this, but since school started
back up, I haven't had any time to look at it.
Thanks!
Andrew
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Back in January Andrew mostly implemented C++1z fold-expressions
> (https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n4295.h
Michael Collison writes:
> On 09/14/2015 02:34 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Michael Collison writes:
>>> Here is a modified patch that takes your comments into account. Breaking
>>> on depth == 0 with '>' does not work due to the code looking for whitespace.
>> What goes wrong? Just to make s
On 09/16/2015 02:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Btw, this looks quite expensive - I'm sure we want to limit the effort
here a bit.
A limiter is reasonable, though as it's been pointed out this only fires
during error processing, so we probably have more leeway to take time
and see if we can do b
On 15/09/2015 23:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 14/09/15 20:26 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
>> On 08/09/2015 22:47, François Dumont wrote:
>>> On 07/09/2015 13:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 05/09/15 22:53 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
>I remember Paolo saying once that we were not gu
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> + p = "/dev/stdin";
> + if (exists(p))
> +{
> + auto p2 = canonical(p);
> + if (is_symlink(p))
> +VERIFY( p != p2 );
> + else
> +VERIFY( p == p2 );
> + VERIFY( canonical(p2) == p2 );
This fails if stdin is a pipe, which doesn't
On 09/15/2015 04:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:14:22PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.h b/gcc/cp/parser.h
index 760467c..c7558a0 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.h
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.h
@@ -61,6
Hello Jason,
thanks for your review. I addressed most of your mentioned issues
already today. To some of them I have further comments ...
2015-09-17 8:18 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
>> @@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ libgcov-driver-tool.o-warn = -Wno-error
>> libgcov-merge-tool.o-warn = -Wno-error
>> gimpl
On 09/17/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
FWIW, I have a (very messy) implementation of this working for the C
frontend, which gives us source ranges on expressions without needing to
add any new tree nodes, or add any fields to existing tree structs.
The approach I'm using:
* ranges are st
Here is my updated patch, with the changes suggested by
Ian for gcc/gospec.c and David for gcc/configure.ac.
Bootstrap built and tested on ppc64le, ppc64 multilib.
2015-09-17Lynn Boger
gcc/
PR target/66870
config/rs6000/sysv4.h: Define TARGET_CAN_SPLIT_STACK_64BIT
On 09/15/2015 06:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Of course this boils down to "uses" of a VAR_DECL using the shared tree
node. On GIMPLE some stmt kinds have separate locations for each operand
(PHI nodes), on GENERIC we'd have to invent a no-op expr tree code to
wrap such uses to be able to give
On 09/15/2015 06:54 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 15 September 2015 at 14:18, Richard Biener
wrote:
Of course this boils down to "uses" of a VAR_DECL using the shared tree
node. On GIMPLE some stmt kinds have separate locations for each operand
(PHI nodes), on GENERIC we'd have to invent a
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, niXman wrote:
> mirrors.webhostinggeeks.com/gcc/
This is a little disappointing, though I am inclinded to consider
it a genuine mistake/migration. Addressed like this.
Gerald
Index: mirrors.html
===
RCS file: /
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:18:42AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > So just to clarify - you need to reduce the vector with max to a scalar
> > but want the (same) result in all vector elements?
>
> Yes. Alan Hayward's cond-reduction patch
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Matthew Wahab
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> ARMv8.1 adds atomic swap and atomic load-operate instructions with
> optional memory ordering specifiers. This patch uses the ARMv8.1
> load-operate instructions to implement the atomic__fetch patterns.
>
> The approach is to use t
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 08:06:48PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:39:04, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > On 09/17/2015 09:00 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 07:48:15PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:31:33, Jeff
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:39:04, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 09/17/2015 09:00 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 07:48:15PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:31:33, Jeff Law wrote:
You could probably make the function static or change its visibili
Back in January Andrew mostly implemented C++1z fold-expressions
(https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n4295.html), but the patch broke
bootstrap. I've fixed it up now and am committing it to the trunk.
Andrew: The main change I made was to drop tentative parsing in favor of
scanning the tokens ah
Hello,
ARMv8.1 is a set of architectural extensions to ARMv8. Support has been
enabled in binutils for ARMv8.1 for the architechure, using the name
"armv8.1-a".
This patch adds support to gcc for specifying an ARMv8.1 architecture
using options "-march=armv8.1-a" and "-march=armv8.1-a+crc". It a
On 09/15/2015 06:52 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> I made a step forward forcing vector comparisons have a mask (vec)
> result and disabling bool patterns in case vector comparison is supported by
> target. Several issues were met.
>
> - c/c++ front-ends generate vector comparison with integer vec
On 09/17/2015 03:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
I wonder if we'd do better to first add new match.pd patterns, one at a
time, with tests, and evaluating them along the way by looking at the
dumps
or .s files across many systems. Then when we think we've got the right
set, then look at what happens
On 15/09/15 08:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Sorry for chiming in so late...
Not at all, TYVM for your help!
> TREE_CONSTANT isn't the correct thing to test. You should use
> TREE_CODE () == INTEGER_CST instead.
Done (in some cases, via tree_fits_shwi_p).
> Also you need to handle
> NULL_TREE
On 09/17/2015 08:38 AM, Robert Suchanek wrote:
Hi,
We came across a situation for MIPS64 where moves for sign-extension were
not converted into a nop because of IRA spilled some of the allocnos and
assigned different hard register for the output operand in the move.
LRA is not fixing this up as
On 09/17/2015 03:52 AM, Simon Dardis wrote:
The profitability of using an ordinary branch over a delay slot branch
depends on how the delay slot is filled. If a delay slot can be filled from
an instruction preceding the branch or instructions proceeding that must be
executed on both sides then it
Hello,
ARMv8.1 adds atomic swap and atomic load-operate instructions with
optional memory ordering specifiers. This patch uses the ARMv8.1
load-operate instructions to implement the atomic__fetch patterns.
The approach is to use the atomic load-operate instruction to atomically
load the data and
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:21 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 12:48 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:33:58PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:14:22PM +0200, Richa
Hello,
ARMv8.1 adds atomic swap and atomic load-operate instructions with
optional memory ordering specifiers. This patch uses the ARMv8.1 atomic
load-operate instructions to implement the atomic_fetch_
patterns. This patch also updates the implementation of the atomic_
patterns, which are treate
Hello,
ARMv8.1 adds atomic swap and atomic load-operate instructions with
optional memory ordering specifiers. This patch adds the ARMv8.1 atomic
load-operate instructions.
Tested the series for aarch64-none-linux-gnu with native bootstrap and
make check. Also tested for aarch64-none-elf with cr
Hello,
ARMv8.1 adds atomic swap and atomic load-operate instructions with
optional memory ordering specifiers. This patch adds an expander to
generate a BIC instruction that can be explicitly called when
implementing the atomic__fetch pattern to calculate the value to
be returned by the operation
On 09/17/2015 09:00 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 07:48:15PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:31:33, Jeff Law wrote:
You could probably make the function static or change its visibility via
a function attribute (there's a visibility attribute which can
Hello,
ARMv8.1 adds atomic swap and atomic load-operate instructions with
optional memory ordering specifiers. This patch series adds the
instructions to GCC, making them available with -march=armv8.1-a or
-march=armv8+lse, and uses them to implement the __sync and __atomic
builtins.
The ARMv8.1
The patch currently issues a false positive for the test case
below. I suspect the chain might need to be cleared after each
condition that involves a side-effect.
int foo (int a)
{
if (a) return 1; else if (++a) return 2; else if (a) return 3;
return 0;
}
But the last branch
On 09/17/2015 10:05 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
The patch doesn't diagnose some more involved cases like the one
below:
if (i < 0) return 1; else if (!(i > 0 || i == 0)) return 2;
even though it does diagnose some other such cases, including:
if (i < 0) return 1; else if (!(i >= 0)) retur
Hi Rainer,
On 17/09/15 12:33, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
On 11/09/15 09:51, Rainer Orth wrote:
Kyrill Tkachov writes:
On 10/09/15 12:43, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
Rainer, could you please check that this patch still fixes the SPARC
regressions?
unfortunately, it breaks sparc-sun
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 18:12 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/17/2015 02:01 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 2015, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >> Slightly adjusted patch attached. Now it is explicit that the warning is
> >> enabled by -Wunused-variable for C, but not C++. There are testcas
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:18 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > On 16/09/15 17:10, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > > > > On 16/
On 09/17/2015 02:01 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Slightly adjusted patch attached. Now it is explicit that the warning is
enabled by -Wunused-variable for C, but not C++. There are testcases for
both C and C++ to check the defaults. And the hardcoded overri
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 02:59:12PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 09:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >This patch implements a new warning, -Wduplicated-cond. It warns for
> >code such as
> >
> > if (x)
> > // ...
> > else if (x)
> > // ...
>
> As usual, I like this improveme
As diagnosed by Richard B., emit_check wrongly resets the TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS
flag on the COND_EXPR built for language-defined checks in Ada, leading to the
omission of required checks in peculiar cases.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2015-09-17 Eric Botcazou
*
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 06:54:30AM +0100, Michael Collison wrote:
> This patch is designed to address code that was not being vectorized due
> to missing widening patterns in the aarch64 backend. Code such as:
>
> int t6(int len, void * dummy, short * __restrict x)
> {
>len = len & ~31;
>i
On 09/17/2015 05:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/09/15 17:42 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I see now the first exists test will detect symlink loops in
the original path. But I'm not convinced there isn't a corner
case that's subject to a TOCTOU race condition between the first
exists test and
As discussed in the audit trail of PR rtl-optimization/66790, the doc of the
DF_LIVE problem is confusing/wrong so the attached patch amends it.
Approved by Kenneth and applied on all active branches.
2015-09-17 Eric Botcazou
PR rtl-optimization/66790
* df-problems.c (LIVE):
On 16/09/15 23:50 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/09/15 19:58 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
commit ef25038796485298ff8f040bc79e0d9a371171fa
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Wed Sep 16 18:07:32 2015 +0100
Implement filesystem::canonical() without realpath
PR libstdc++/67173
On 09/17/2015 07:04 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Handle alignment in __atomic_is_lock_free
>
> gcc:
>
> 2015-09-17 Richard Henderson
>
> PR libstdc++/65913
> * builtins.c (fold_builtin_atomic_always_lock_free): Handle fake
> pointers that encode the a
On 15/09/15 12:47 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11/09/15 14:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
We should not silently ignore a failure to read from the random
device.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk. I'm going to commit this
to the gcc-5 branch too.
commit 2d2f7012dc3744dafef
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 07:48:15PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:31:33, Jeff Law wrote:
> > You could probably make the function static or change its visibility via
> > a function attribute (there's a visibility attribute which can take the
> > values default, hidden
This is silly and makes it harder to read:
return _M_value != 0 ? true : false;
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk.
commit ca8d1e0e92810ac72b337247c10af1de1de465d4
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Thu Sep 17 15:07:24 2015 +0100
Remove redundant conditional expressions in
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:08 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Mike Stump writes:
>>
>>> Not a big issue, but slightly better if (O_CLOEXEC>>32) != 0 is also
>>> true. See, if AIX should ever define this to a sensible value, the
>>> above wo
2015-09-16 15:30 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I'd like to initiate discussion on vectorization of loops which
>> boundaries are not aligned to VF. Main target for this optimization
>> right now is x86's AVX-512, which features per-element emb
>>>+ else if (warn_multiple_inheritance)
>>>+warning (OPT_Wmultiple_inheritance,
>>>+ "%qT defined with multiple direct bases", ref);
>>You don't need to guard the warning with a check of the warning flag; warning
>>will only give the warning if the option is enabled.
>the spelling
When exceptions are disabled a failed allocation while trying to
shrink_to_fit() will abort the program. Since shrink_to_fit() is a
non-binding request we should just ignore it rather than risk taking
down the whole process.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 13cf19282acf42a52
Hi,
We came across a situation for MIPS64 where moves for sign-extension were
not converted into a nop because of IRA spilled some of the allocnos and
assigned different hard register for the output operand in the move.
LRA is not fixing this up as most likely the move was not introduced by
the LR
On 09/16/15 10:23, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/16/2015 08:02 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
+ else if (warn_multiple_inheritance)
+warning (OPT_Wmultiple_inheritance,
+ "%qT defined with multiple direct bases", ref);
You don't need to guard the warning with a check of the warning fl
Updated patch addressing your points. Some further comments though ...
+ while (GOMP_LAUNCH_PACK (GOMP_LAUNCH_END, 0, 0)
+ != (tag = va_arg (ap, unsigned)))
That's a somewhat non-idiomatic way to write this, with the constant first and
not obviously a constant. I'd initialize a variable
On 17/09/15 12:16 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/09/15 17:42 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I see now the first exists test will detect symlink loops in
the original path. But I'm not convinced there isn't a corner
case that's subject to a TOCTOU race condition between the first
exists test and
Bernd Schmidt writes:
> On 09/14/2015 07:54 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> This patch splits optabs up as follows:
>>
>>- optabs-query.[hc]: IL-independent functions for querying what a target
>>can do natively.
>>- optabs-tree.[hc]: tree and gimple query functions (an extension o
Oops, I meant to reply to the lists, not just Geoff ...
On 16/09/15 18:35 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/09/15 10:08 -0700, Geoff Pike wrote:
Also, to clarify, I am primarily seeking high-level comments; I am new
here and don't want to waste anybody's time.
Hi Geoff,
This looks very in
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>
> > On 16/09/15 17:10, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > > > On 16/09/15 15:28, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > 2015-09-16 Bill Schmidt
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mike Stump writes:
>
>> Not a big issue, but slightly better if (O_CLOEXEC>>32) != 0 is also
>> true. See, if AIX should ever define this to a sensible value, the
>> above would disappear the feature. However, if they did, then this
>>
This fixes a 5/6 regression that causes atomic::is_lock_free() to
require libatomic even on targets where the compiler knows the answer.
The new test only runs on x86_64-linux and powerpc*-linux. It isn't
actually OS-dependent but as long as it runs somewhere we should pick
up regressions so thos
This patch by Chris Manghane changes the Go frontend to issue type
errors earlier for a receive operation. This fixes
https://golang.org/issue/12323 . Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline.
Ian
Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE
===
On 16/09/15 17:36, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 10:25 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/09/15 17:14, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wrote:
Mike Stump writes:
> The software presently works with 1.4.4 and there aren’t any
>
Le 06/09/2015 18:40, Paul Richard Thomas a écrit :
It helps to attach the patch :-)
Paul
On 6 September 2015 at 13:42, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
Dear All,
The attached patch more or less implements the assignment of
expressions to the result of a pointer function. To wit:
my_ptr_fcn (arg1,
Hi,
submitter noticed that the fix for c++/25466:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00553.html
caused a double evaluation of the typeid, at least in some cases. I had
a quick look and wondered if it could make sense to just use the new
code when we are outside the straightforw
On 09/17/15 05:36, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Fail how? Jakub has requested that it works but falls back to unaccelerated
execution, can you confirm this is what you expect to happen with this patch?
Yes, that is the failure mode.
- if (num_waits)
+ va_start (ap, kinds);
+ /* TODO: This will ne
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Slightly adjusted patch attached. Now it is explicit that the warning is
> enabled by -Wunused-variable for C, but not C++. There are testcases for
> both C and C++ to check the defaults. And the hardcoded override is
> removed for C++, so the user could
Hi Kyrill,
> On 11/09/15 09:51, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Kyrill Tkachov writes:
>>
>>> On 10/09/15 12:43, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
> Rainer, could you please check that this patch still fixes the SPARC
> regressions?
unfortunately, it breaks sparc-sun-solaris2.10 bootstra
On 17/09/15 12:16 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
So if we use a counter, what's a sane maximum? Is MAXSYMLINKS in
the value the kernel uses? 20 seems quite low, I was
thinking of a much higher number.
Until very recently Linux seemed to hardcode it to 40:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/
On 16/09/15 17:42 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I see now the first exists test will detect symlink loops in
the original path. But I'm not convinced there isn't a corner
case that's subject to a TOCTOU race condition between the first
exists test and the while loop during which a symlink loop can
b
On 09/17/2015 11:52 AM, Simon Dardis wrote:
The profitability of using an ordinary branch over a delay slot branch
depends on how the delay slot is filled. If a delay slot can be filled from
an instruction preceding the branch or instructions proceeding that must be
executed on both sides then it
For a misplaced :s like
(simplify
(plus (minus@1:s @1 @2) (minus @2 @0))
(plus @1 @0))
we were giving
test.pd:2:16 error: not implemented: predicate on leaf operand
(plus (minus@1:s @1 @2) (minus @2 @0))
^
which is at least confusing. The following patch improves this to
te
The profitability of using an ordinary branch over a delay slot branch
depends on how the delay slot is filled. If a delay slot can be filled from
an instruction preceding the branch or instructions proceeding that must be
executed on both sides then it is profitable to use a delay slot branch.
F
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Andre Vieira
wrote:
> On 01/09/15 15:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Andre Vieira
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> On 28/08/15 19:07, Marc Glisse wrote:
(not a review, I haven't even read the whole patch)
O
Since Jakub appears to be busy, I'll give my 2 cents.
On 08/25/2015 03:29 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I did rename the GOACC_parallel entry point to GOACC_parallel_keyed and
provide a forwarding function. However, as the mkoffload data is
incompatible, this is probably overkill. I've had to incr
2015-09-17 11:12 GMT+02:00 Richard Biener :
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 09/15/2015 03:42 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
> 2015-09-08 Kai Tietz
>
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp23.c: Adjust testcase to reflect that
> pattern is matching now already wi
ping 2.
this patch is needed for working visibility ("protected")
attribute for extern data on targets using default_binds_local_p_2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01871.html
On 10/08/15 12:04, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
ping.
On 22/07/15 18:01, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
The commit
http
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 03:42 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2015-09-08 Kai Tietz
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp23.c: Adjust testcase to reflect that
pattern is matching now already within forward-propagation pass.
* gcc.dg/t
On 17/09/15 09:46, Christian Bruel wrote:
As obvious, bad operand number.
OK for trunk ?
Christian
p1.patch
2015-09-18 Christian Bruel
* config/arm/arm.md (*call_value_symbol): Fix operand for interworking.
2015-09-18 Christian Bruel
* gcc.target/arm/attr_thumb-static2
Could somebody review this please?
Thanks
Paul
-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul Richard Thomas
Date: 6 September 2015 at 18:40
Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR40054 and PR63921 - Implement pointer
function assignment - redux
To: Dominique Dhumieres , "fort...@gcc.gnu.org"
, g
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 16 September 2015 at 15:33, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
if we suggest 'foo' instead of foz then we'll get a more confusing followup
error if we actually use it.
>>>
>>>
From: David Miller
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
> There are some other issues I'm having troubles resolving for 64-bit
> native bootstraps as well, and I am probably going to revert the LRA
> sparc changes unless I can resolve them by the end of today.
So I was actually able to re
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
