While doing some research into the aligned attribute I came across
c/61053 that had been reopened after the regression test added with
the fix had started to fail on a couple of targets. Since the bug
is fixed and the test failure is due to the added test I resolved
it as fixed and opened a new o
cpplib-5.2.0.fi.po.gz
Description: Binary data
The Translation Project robot, in the
name of your translation coordinator.
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted
by the Finnish team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/fi.po
(This file, 'cpplib-5.2.0.fi.po',
2016-01-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/69385
* trans-expr.c (is_scalar_reallocatable_lhs): Remove the check
for allocatable components, whilst checking if the symbol is a
derived or class entity..
2015-01-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/69385
* gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_15
* doc/invoke.texi: update documentation WRT .so libraries in -l
---
gcc/ChangeLog | 4
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 8 +---
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 1d60690..0a6acdb 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@
Done as r233009
Thanks for the review,
Dominique
> Le 30 janv. 2016 à 16:45, Paul Richard Thomas
> a écrit :
>
> Hi Dominique,
>
> Thanks for doing this. Yes, it's OK for 5-branch as well.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
Richard Sandiford writes:
> "Steve Ellcey " writes:
> > Here is a patch for PR6400. The problem is that and_operands_ok was
> > checking
> > one operand to see if it was a memory_operand but MIPS16 addressing is more
> > restrictive than what the general memory_operand allows. The fix was to
>
Hi Dominique,
Thanks for doing this. Yes, it's OK for 5-branch as well.
Cheers
Paul
On 30 January 2016 at 15:16, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> AFAICT PR 66707 has been fixed/ prevented/hidden by revision r226732. I have
> committed the following as obvious
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
AFAICT PR 66707 has been fixed/ prevented/hidden by revision r226732. I have
committed the following as obvious
Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 233007)
+++ gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (wor
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:31:05PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Might be wrong, but couldn't the same thing happen for the remainder,
>> e.g. for 0xfffe % 0x ?
>
> You're right, that is broken too. Adjusted patch below.
>
>> Maybe we should have a helper
"Steve Ellcey " writes:
> Here is a patch for PR6400. The problem is that and_operands_ok was checking
> one operand to see if it was a memory_operand but MIPS16 addressing is more
> restrictive than what the general memory_operand allows. The fix was to
> call mips_classify_address if TARGET_MI
Hi!
This is my first proposed patch for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17896. I was willing to
do it using "APPEARS_TO_BE_BOOLEAN_EXPR_P(CODE, ARG)" to check
booleans but gcc doesn't allow (bootstraping fails). Hence I am using
"TREE_CODE_CLASS (CODE) == tcc_comparison"
--
Thanks
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:31:05PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Might be wrong, but couldn't the same thing happen for the remainder,
> e.g. for 0xfffe % 0x ?
You're right, that is broken too. Adjusted patch below.
> Maybe we should have a helper
> function to handle storing uh
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> As the testcase shows, wide_int unsigned division is broken for > 64bit
> precision division of unsigned dividend which have 63rd bit set, and all
> higher bits cleared (thus is normalized as 2 HWIs, first with MSB set,
> the second 0) and divisor of 1, we return just a sin
I'm not sure this patch is safe. The received wisdom used to be that
ABIs should be defined in terms of types, not modes, since types
represent the source code while modes are an internal GCC concept
that could change over time (although in practice the barrier for
that is pretty high).
The patch
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 01:20:08PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > PR target/68662
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (need_toc_init): New var, set it
> > whenever toc_label_name used.
> > (rs6000_file_start): Don't s
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 06:57:48AM +0100, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 20:50 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > This patch reverts one tiny change from r228049 changes (which hasn't
> > been
> > mentioned in the ChangeLog or patch description). We definitely need
> > to
>
Dear Gerald,
The style changes are fine. OK to commit.
Thanks
Paul
On 30 January 2016 at 05:04, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> These local styles feel a bit odd to begin with, and if we skip
> the ... within ..., the originally perceived/
> addresses issue should go away.
>
> Unless there are objecti
18 matches
Mail list logo
