[wwwdocs] Simplify gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html (and convert to global CSS)

And here is the version for GCC 4.6. Applied. Gerald Index: gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html,v retrieving revision 1.11 diff -u -r1.11 cxx0x_status.html ---

[wwwdocs,Java] java/index.html -- fix formatting on gcc.gnu.org

It turns out the stricter server settings also broke the /java page on gcc.gnu.org. This restores showing two columns on this page (though it still uses non-standard CSS extensions). That said, looking at the page, and how since 2005 nearly all changes have been maintainance ones from me, is it

[committed] Testsuite fixes for hppa

Attached are a set of testsuite updates for hppa. The pr64434.c.d.txt, ivopts-lt-2.c.d.txt and uninit-19.c.d.txt changes were applied to both gcc-5 and trunk. The rest were applied to the trunk. Tested on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 and hppa64-hp-hpux11.11. Sorry, for batch update. Mail wasn't

Re: [PATCH withdrawn] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct, closed as INVALID

Patch withdrawn, PR47040 closed as INVALID. Dominique

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 06:51:50PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > > > > > It is valid syntax because of > > > > "An empty sequence forms a zero-sized rank-one array." > > > > It seems that J3 saw the error in their ways as (/ /) is clearly > > an empty array constructor, and fixed the

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

> > It is valid syntax because of > > "An empty sequence forms a zero-sized rank-one array." > > It seems that J3 saw the error in their ways as (/ /) is clearly > an empty array constructor, and fixed the possibility of creating > a typeless zero-sized, rank-one array. This is exactly the

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 05:56:12PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > > > (/ /) is valid Fortran 95 syntax > > ... > > > > program foo > > call bar((/ /)) > > end program foo > > > > % gfc -c -std=f95 foo.f90 > > foo.f90:2:17: > > > >call bar((/ /)) > > 1 > > Error:

Re: [PATCH 2/3] [graphite] add array access function in the right order

On 09/12/15 19:26, Sebastian Pop wrote: we used to add the access functions in the wrong order, Fortran style, leading to unprofitable interchanges. --- gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

> (/ /) is valid Fortran 95 syntax > ... > > program foo > call bar((/ /)) > end program foo > > % gfc -c -std=f95 foo.f90 > foo.f90:2:17: > >call bar((/ /)) > 1 > Error: Empty array constructor at (1) is not allowed > > The above error is correct. Well the two

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 12:28:12PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > >>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should > it be back ported to the gcc-5 branch? > >>> > >>> No and No. > >

[committed] PR70592 New test gfortran.dg/deferred_character_16.f90

As asked by Paul Richard Thomas on IRC I have committed the following patch to trunk. I’ll commit it to the gcc-5 branch tomorrow. Dominique Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog === --- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 234849) +++

Re: [C PATCH] PR43651: add warning for duplicate qualifier

On 04/08/2016 08:54 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> The name for new option "-Wduplicate-decl-specifier" and wording was >> chosen to match the same option in Clang. > > My version of Clang also warns in C++ mode but if I'm reading > the patch right, GCC would warn only C mode. I would find it >

Re: Patches to fix optimizer bug & C++ exceptions for GCC VAX backend

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016, Jake Hamby wrote: > Thanks for the info! I've discovered a few additional clues which should > help, namely the optimizer pass that's introducing the problem. Through > process of elimination, I discovered that adding "-fno-tree-ter" will > prevent the unrecognizable insn

Re: [PATCH] Fix ifcombine (PR tree-optimization/70586)

On April 9, 2016 1:29:51 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 01:21:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> To followup myself here - we can also make sure the function doesn't >become pure/const. >> >> Similar issues exist with pure/const functions with ops

Re: [PATCH] Fix ifcombine (PR tree-optimization/70586)

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 01:21:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > To followup myself here - we can also make sure the function doesn't become > pure/const. > > Similar issues exist with pure/const functions with ops with undefined > overflow (and code gen taking advantage of that). > So it's

Re: [PATCH, PR68953] Fix pdr accesses order

On April 9, 2016 6:07:19 AM GMT+02:00, Sebastian Pop wrote: >On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Tom de Vries >wrote: >> pdr_0 (read >> in gimple stmt: _9 = yu[_8][0]; >> data accesses: { S_4[i1, i2] -> [1, 0, 1 + i1] } > >data access should be { S_4[i1, i2]

Re: [PATCH] Fix ifcombine (PR tree-optimization/70586)

On April 9, 2016 1:17:51 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Biener wrote: >On April 8, 2016 10:00:58 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek > wrote: >>On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Hmm, I think this means GIMPLE_has_side_effects is to be fixed

Re: [PATCH] Fix ifcombine (PR tree-optimization/70586)

On April 8, 2016 10:00:58 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> Hmm, I think this means GIMPLE_has_side_effects is to be fixed then. > >> Note that honza had plans to compute things like 'uses FP' and >'contains

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

>>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should it be back ported to the gcc-5 branch? >>> >>> No and No. > Le 7 avr. 2016 à 15:59, Steve Kargl a >

[committed] Fix [Bug sanitizer/70573] FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/halt_on_error-1.c

I have committed the following patch for PR70573 (preapproved by Jakub Jelinek in bugzilla) Dominique Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog === --- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 234847) +++ gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (working

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/21802 (two-stage name lookup fails for operators

> On 15 Jan 2016, at 05:10, Patrick Palka wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Ryan Burn wrote: > >> Also caused https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69091 > > Thanks for the heads up, I was not aware I had caused this regression. While looking at last few failures