On 8/1/19 5:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:37:40PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> OT I'm actually quite annoyed by mklog repeating the date/name/email
>>> for each changelog, I'd find it much more natural to print that and the
>>> list of PRs once and then just those
Hi,
This patch fixes gcc.dg/torture/ssa-fre-6.c failing for the avr target, by
requiring effective-target int32.
Committed as obvious to trunk.
Regards
Senthil
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2019-08-02 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
* gcc.dg/torture/ssa-fre-6.c: Add dg-require-effective-target int32.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 8:57 PM Paul McKenney wrote:
> Excellent point, this discussion needs to be made official.
> Please see attached for an initial draft of a working paper.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
Please, find the attachment here (
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:48 AM Kito Cheng wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog
> * config/riscv/riscv.c (riscv_promote_function_mode): New.
> (TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE): Use riscv_promote_function_mode.
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> * gcc.target/riscv/promote-type-for-libcall.c: New.
Committed as r273994 with minor change, since pr89330_0.C has fixed by r273973
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 4:41 AM Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM Kito Cheng wrote:
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > * g++.dg/lto/pr87906_0.C: Add dg-require-effective-target shared
> >
On 8/1/19 5:53 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 05:11:47PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/1/19 3:50 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
We started rejecting this test with r268321, whereby we process the
compound_literal in finish_compound_literal normally even in a template
if it's not
On 8/1/19 3:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/08/19 11:47 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 8/1/19 6:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/07/19 10:50 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Here is the patch for
* Implement C++20 p0202 - Add constexpr Modifiers to
Resending and adding the jit list.
There seems to be a typo in gcc/jit/Make-lang.in where it references an
undefined LIBGCCJIT_SYMLINK instead of LIBGCCJIT_SONAME_SYMLINK.
---
gcc/jit/Make-lang.in | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/jit/Make-lang.in
On 8/1/19 12:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/22/19 12:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg00622.html
On 7/8/19 3:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch implements three new warnings:
* -Wstruct-not-pod triggers for struct definitions that
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 6:01 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 8/1/19 3:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 8/1/19 4:22 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> On 6/27/19 3:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>> On 6/23/19 5:51 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 6/22/19 9:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 6/21/19
On 8/1/19 3:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/1/19 4:22 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/27/19 3:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/23/19 5:51 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/22/19 9:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/21/19 8:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The solution we implemented in GCC 9 to get the
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 03:55:09PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> Add future.md place holder to PowerPC.
>
> This patch creates future.md. Right now it is a place holder, and it takes
> the
> power9.md, and changes the names to be future, and the cpu to be future.
>
> It is anticipated
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 05:11:47PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/1/19 3:50 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > We started rejecting this test with r268321, whereby we process the
> > compound_literal in finish_compound_literal normally even in a template
> > if it's not instantiation-dependent.
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 03:47:56PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> Add future_cost placeholder.
>
> Currently, the -mcpu=future uses the power9 costs. This patch separates out
> the cost to a separate structure so that in the future we can tweak the costs
> as needed.
Is there any reason for
Ping.
--
steve
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 04:41:02PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> The attach patch fixes a problem with the conversion of a
> BOZ literal constant to a REAL where the size of the REAL
> exceeds the size of the largest INTEGER. The problem can
> be seen on 32-bit targets that
On 8/1/19 3:50 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
We started rejecting this test with r268321, whereby we process the
compound_literal in finish_compound_literal normally even in a template
if it's not instantiation-dependent. This broke with __PRETTY_FUNCTION__
in a template function, because
The attached patch fixed the issues raised in the
PR fortran/42546. Namely, ALLOCATED has two possible
keywords: ALLOCATE(ARRAY=...) or ALLOCATED(SCALAR=...)
In Tobias' original patch (attached to the PR), he
tried to make both ARRAY and SCALAR options, then
in gfc_check_allocated()
On 8/1/19 4:22 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/27/19 3:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/23/19 5:51 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/22/19 9:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/21/19 8:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The solution we implemented in GCC 9 to get the mangling of
non-type template arguments of
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2019-08-01 Eric Botcazou
* cfgrtl.c (relink_block_chain): Add line returns in dump file.
--
Eric BotcazouIndex: cfgrtl.c
===
--- cfgrtl.c (revision 273907)
+++
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 5:05 AM Maxim Kuvyrkov
wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 2019, at 5:14 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 16, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:18 PM Maxim Kuvyrkov
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I've been
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM Kito Cheng wrote:
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * g++.dg/lto/pr87906_0.C: Add dg-require-effective-target shared
> check.
> * g++.dg/lto/pr89330_0.C: Ditto.
OK.
Jim
On 6/27/19 3:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/23/19 5:51 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/22/19 9:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/21/19 8:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The solution we implemented in GCC 9 to get the mangling of
non-type template arguments of class types containing array
members
It's an assorted list of things, mainly in comments, that weren't updated when
something else was changed + a few consistency fixes. No functional changes.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline as obvious.
2019-08-01 Eric Botcazou
* cgraph.h
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 02:38:12PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> I committed this patch as 'obvious'. As I'm preparing the next round of
> future
> PowerPC patches, I noticed I had a typo in the usage for the predicate
> pcrel_external_address.
> ;; Return true if the operand is an external
Add future.md place holder to PowerPC.
This patch creates future.md. Right now it is a place holder, and it takes the
power9.md, and changes the names to be future, and the cpu to be future.
It is anticipated that in the future, this file will be updated to match the
scheduling information for
We started rejecting this test with r268321, whereby we process the
compound_literal in finish_compound_literal normally even in a template
if it's not instantiation-dependent. This broke with __PRETTY_FUNCTION__
in a template function, because instantiation_dependent_expression_p didn't
consider
Add future_cost placeholder.
Currently, the -mcpu=future uses the power9 costs. This patch separates out
the cost to a separate structure so that in the future we can tweak the costs
as needed.
I have bootstraped versions of this patch multiple times on a power8 little
endian system. Can I
On 01/08/19 11:47 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 8/1/19 6:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/07/19 10:50 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Here is the patch for
* Implement C++20 p0202 - Add constexpr Modifiers to Functions in
and Headers.
* Implement C++20
OK.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:36 PM Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> in Cologne, during the presentation of P1771R0, Per Sommerlad pointed
> out that apparently GCC was already almost doing the right thing - it
> accepts [[nodiscard]] on a constructor and then a warning is emitted in
> the
I committed this patch as 'obvious'. As I'm preparing the next round of future
PowerPC patches, I noticed I had a typo in the usage for the predicate
pcrel_external_address.
2019-08-01 Michael Meissner
* config/rs6000/predicates.md (pcrel_external_address): Update
comment.
We can vectorize the testcase to:
movqpix1(%rip), %xmm0
movqpix2(%rip), %xmm1
psadbw %xmm1, %xmm0
movd%xmm0, %edx
* pextrq $1, %xmm0, %eax
* addl%edx, %eax
ret
The instructions, marked with (*) are generated due to middle end
On 7/22/19 12:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg00622.html
On 7/8/19 3:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch implements three new warnings:
* -Wstruct-not-pod triggers for struct definitions that are not
POD structs,
*
Attached patch adds missing SSE4.1 xmm->reg/mem extractions for V2SI modes.
2019-08-01 Uroš Bizjak
* config/i386/mmx.md (vec_extractv2si_0): Add (r,x) alternative.
(*vec_extractv2si_0_zext_sse4): New insn pattern.
(*vec_extractv2si_0_zext): Ditto.
(*vec_extractv2si_1): Add
On 8/1/19 2:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 7/31/19 4:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 7/30/19 9:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 09:16:45AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
Say something like
Greetings,
Here is a patch for C++20 p0879 - Constexpr for swap and swap related
functions.
This essentially constexprifies the rest of .
Built and tested with C++20 (and pre-c++20) on x86_64-linux.
Ok?
Regards,
Ed Smith-Rowland
2019-08-01 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
> So isn't this an issue with the code before when we have a RANGE_EXPR
> that covers the wrapping point?
No, see the reduced testcase attached in the PR.
> Then index > max_index and may not catch the found element with
>
> /* Do we have match? */
> if (wi::cmpu (access_index, index)
Hi,
in Cologne, during the presentation of P1771R0, Per Sommerlad pointed
out that apparently GCC was already almost doing the right thing - it
accepts [[nodiscard]] on a constructor and then a warning is emitted in
the relevant potentially dangerous situations - but it does first emit a
On 8/1/19 10:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 1:24 AM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Aldy started this relatively straightforward submission a month ago (!!
July 1st!), and we've made virtually no progress since then.
Actually I think it's a waste of time on my side since I
On 7/17/19 4:05 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 01:57:06PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/3/19 10:13 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 11:28:36PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/13/19 5:03 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Case values are converted constant
OK.
On 8/1/19 9:12 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
As discussed with Marc, I'm suggesting to mark user-provided
delete operators with DECL_SET_IS_OPERATOR_DELETE in order to allow
possible DCE for it. I've checked that clang can also optimize that
situation out.
Patch can bootstrap on
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:01 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> I used this patch by Richard to check gcc_sort_r in bootstrap.
OK to commit as well.
Thanks,
Richard.
> * domwalk.c (bb_postorder): Remove static variable.
> (cmp_bb_postorder): Adjust.
> (sort_bbs_postorder):
I used this patch by Richard to check gcc_sort_r in bootstrap.
* domwalk.c (bb_postorder): Remove static variable.
(cmp_bb_postorder): Adjust.
(sort_bbs_postorder): Adjust and use gcc_sort_r.
(dom_walker::walk): Adjust.
diff --git a/gcc/domwalk.c b/gcc/domwalk.c
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 5:54 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this patch adds gcc_sort_r, a function similar to Glibc qsort_r that takes an
> extra 'user data' pointer and passes it to comparators. Richi asked about it
> in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg01383.html , see
Hi,
this patch adds gcc_sort_r, a function similar to Glibc qsort_r that takes an
extra 'user data' pointer and passes it to comparators. Richi asked about it
in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg01383.html , see followups in
that thread for other approaches that were considered.
On 8/1/19 6:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/07/19 10:50 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Here is the patch for
* Implement C++20 p0202 - Add constexpr Modifiers to Functions in
and Headers.
* Implement C++20 p1023 - constexpr comparison operators for std::array.
Relative
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
>
> On 30/07/2019 13:16, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I believe this is in line with what you were explaining to me earlier. The
> > one thing I haven't quite done here is the jump around for if there is no
> > prolog
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hello,
> I missed your email initially, so sorry for late reaction.
> > > +/* REF1 and REF2 are ARRAY_REFs which either start at the same address or
> > > + are completely disjoint.
> >
> > So the ARRAY_REF array bases are at the same address, not the
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:53:10PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> --- a/contrib/mklog
> +++ b/contrib/mklog
> @@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
>
> me = os.path.basename(sys.argv[0])
>
> +pr_regex = re.compile('\+\/(\/|\*)\s+(PR [^\/]+\/[0-9]+)')
Perhaps narrow it down to
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:37:40PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > OT I'm actually quite annoyed by mklog repeating the date/name/email
> > for each changelog, I'd find it much more natural to print that and the
> > list of PRs once and then just those contrib/, gcc/testsuite/ etc.
> > snippets
On 8/1/19 4:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> That sounds good! People should write tests and as a bonus, they will
> have PRs filled in mklog ChangeLog. I'll work on that.
I'm doing that in the attached patch.
Ready for trunk?
Martin
>From 8be6ce17c3c236273338a430d80cfd79b2a67df4 Mon Sep 17
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:34:09PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Ok, after deeper discussion with Honza, I would like to suggest the original
> patch that was about proper detection of jobserver.
>
> Can you please Jakub test the patch in your environment?
Isn't this done too late (as in, doesn't
Ping.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 04:05:24PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 01:57:06PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 7/3/19 10:13 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 11:28:36PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On 6/13/19 5:03 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On 8/1/19 3:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 03:09:22PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I use quite often mklog and then I manually write references
>> to PRs. I would like to teach the script to do it for me.
>> Example:
>>
>> $ ./contrib/mklog /tmp/patch -b
On 8/1/19 3:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:00:37PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 7/31/19 12:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Anyway, the auto-detection of jobserver seems very ugly to me :/
>>> I tend to remove the support and start working on a proper implementation
>>>
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:10 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> In LTO WPA mode we don't have to append temp file name
> to the global cdtor function names.
Is that true? You can link with -r -flinker-output=rel and use
multiple WPA phases whose results you then finally link.
So I don't think
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 1:24 AM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> On 7/31/19 4:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:54 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >> Everything in this compiler is historical. We did everything we could to
> >> save memory back in the old days, I know, I was there
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Ugh. Yeah, it's probably some inlining parameter. OTOH I assumed
> > the inliner would always inline into a simple wrapper if that makes
> > the wrapped function unused - of course if we can't make
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ugh. Yeah, it's probably some inlining parameter. OTOH I assumed
> the inliner would always inline into a simple wrapper if that makes
> the wrapped function unused - of course if we can't make that
> function static then it cannot know... it looks
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 03:09:22PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I use quite often mklog and then I manually write references
> to PRs. I would like to teach the script to do it for me.
> Example:
>
> $ ./contrib/mklog /tmp/patch -b lto/91307,c/12345 > /tmp/changelog
> $ cat
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:00:37PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 7/31/19 12:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Anyway, the auto-detection of jobserver seems very ugly to me :/
> > I tend to remove the support and start working on a proper implementation
> > that can be used not only by make build
Hi.
As discussed with Marc, I'm suggesting to mark user-provided
delete operators with DECL_SET_IS_OPERATOR_DELETE in order to allow
possible DCE for it. I've checked that clang can also optimize that
situation out.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to
Hi.
In LTO WPA mode we don't have to append temp file name
to the global cdtor function names. It helps to have a reproducible
builds with LTO mode.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-08-01 Martin
Hi.
I use quite often mklog and then I manually write references
to PRs. I would like to teach the script to do it for me.
Example:
$ ./contrib/mklog /tmp/patch -b lto/91307,c/12345 > /tmp/changelog
$ cat /tmp/changelog
(PR lto/91307,c/12345)
contrib/ChangeLog:
2019-08-01 Martin Liska
Fix pr89330_0.C test by adding missing effective target shared.
Committed as obvious.
ChangeLog:
2019-08-01 Wilco Dijkstra
* gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr89330_0.C: Add effective-target shared.
--
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr89330_0.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr89330_0.C
On 01/08/19 13:52 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/08/19 13:31 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Am Do., 1. Aug. 2019 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
On 01/08/19 12:36 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Am Do., 1. Aug. 2019 um 11:57 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
More comments inline below
On 01/08/19 13:31 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Am Do., 1. Aug. 2019 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
On 01/08/19 12:36 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
>Am Do., 1. Aug. 2019 um 11:57 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
>>
>> More comments inline below ...
>[..]
>>
>> >François
>> >
>> >On 6/19/19
This patch is deprecated, newer one is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00026.html
and it include fix for another testcase.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 5:22 PM Kito Cheng wrote:
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/lto/pr87906_0.C: Add dg-require-effective-target
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/lto/pr87906_0.C: Add dg-require-effective-target shared check.
* g++.dg/lto/pr89330_0.C: Ditto.
---
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr87906_0.C | 1 +
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr89330_0.C | 1 +
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git
- argument and return value for libcall won't promote at
default_promote_function_mode_always_promote, however we expect it
should sign-extend as normal function.
- Witout this patch, this test case will fail at -march=rv64i -mabi=lp64.
- The implementation of
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2019-08-01 Richard Biener
* tree-ssa-pre.c (has_abnormal_preds): Remove global var.
(compute_antic): Localize it here.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
index 61b448933f0..d46ddf0a523 100644
---
Am Do., 1. Aug. 2019 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
>
> On 01/08/19 12:36 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
> >Am Do., 1. Aug. 2019 um 11:57 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely
> >:
> >>
> >> More comments inline below ...
> >[..]
> >>
> >> >François
> >> >
> >> >On 6/19/19 7:32 PM, François Dumont
On 7/31/19 3:16 PM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
>
> On 30/07/2019 21:51, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> +/* { dg-options "-marm -march=armv6 -mno-unaligned-access -mfloat-abi=soft
>> -mabi=aapcs -O3" } */
>
> This isn't going to work as-is, we test many combinations of the compiler,
> either
On 01/08/19 12:36 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Am Do., 1. Aug. 2019 um 11:57 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
More comments inline below ...
[..]
>François
>
>On 6/19/19 7:32 PM, François Dumont wrote:
>>I wanted to implement Debug overloads for those already existing
>>overloads but then
On 31/07/19 10:50 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Here is the patch for
* Implement C++20 p0202 - Add constexpr Modifiers to Functions in
and Headers.
* Implement C++20 p1023 - constexpr comparison operators for std::array.
Relative to the last effort it is rebased on more
Am Do., 1. Aug. 2019 um 11:57 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
>
> More comments inline below ...
[..]
>
> >François
> >
> >On 6/19/19 7:32 PM, François Dumont wrote:
> >>I wanted to implement Debug overloads for those already existing
> >>overloads but then realized that those algos could be
Hi Graham,
I had actually committed a ChangeLog entry:
see https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=273969
$ svn diff -rPREV:BASE
Index: gcc/lto/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/lto/ChangeLog (Revision 273968)
+++ gcc/lto/ChangeLog
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > So - were you able to allocate some cycles for this? I think
> > we've settled with doing the implementation qsort_r-style while
> > implementing the wrapping with fancy C++ templates.
>
> Yes. It
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 12:34, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon writes:
> > On 22/05/2019 10:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 10:39, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 21/05/2019 16:28, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h
> +++
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 11:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 18:15, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 13:45, Kyrill Tkachov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Prathamesh
> > >
> > > On 7/10/19 12:24 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > For
On 26/07/19 07:06 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
A new version with tests added at the right place, in 25_algorithms,
next to the existing basic ones.
Ok to commit ?
Are there any benchmarks showing the performance improvements?
It *should* be faster, but it's a lot of complicated code to
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> So - were you able to allocate some cycles for this? I think
> we've settled with doing the implementation qsort_r-style while
> implementing the wrapping with fancy C++ templates.
Yes. It works, but not quite as perfectly as I'd hoped. I found two
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > So you unconditionally add a smaxdi3 pattern - indeed this looks
> > > necessary even when going the STV route. The actual regression
> > > for the testcase could also be solved by turing the smaxsi3
> > > back into a compare and jump
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:21 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jul 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > > > How would one write smaxsi3 as a splitter to be split after
> > > > >
There's no ChangeLog entry fof this
Original message
From: edlin...@gcc.gnu.org
Date: 01/08/2019 09:45 (GMT+00:00)
To: gcc-...@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: r273969 - in /trunk/gcc/lto: ChangeLog Make-lan...
Author: edlingerDate: Thu Aug 1 08:45:29 2019New Revision:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:27 AM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this fixes the cd2a31a regression in the ACATS testsuite on 32-bit targets
> introduced by the recent change to get_array_ctor_element_at_index:
>
> * fold-const.h (get_array_ctor_element_at_index): Adjust.
> *
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:21 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > > How would one write smaxsi3 as a splitter to be split after
> > > > reload in the case LRA assigned the GPR alternative? Is it
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 7/31/19 4:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/30/19 9:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 09:16:45AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > > > Say something like this POC:
> > >
Hi,
this fixes the cd2a31a regression in the ACATS testsuite on 32-bit targets
introduced by the recent change to get_array_ctor_element_at_index:
* fold-const.h (get_array_ctor_element_at_index): Adjust.
* fold-const.c (get_array_ctor_element_at_index): Add
ctor_idx
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> I've noticed the following when looking at the output from make install:
>
> /usr/bin/install -c lto-dump \
> //home/ed/gnu/install/bin/lto-dump
>
> Note the "//" before the $(bindir) path, which
> is itself already an absolute path name
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > > Can you let me handle sort.cc changes once there's agreement
> > > > which way to go?
So - were you able to allocate some cycles for this? I
Hi!
I've noticed the following when looking at the output from make install:
/usr/bin/install -c lto-dump \
//home/ed/gnu/install/bin/lto-dump
Note the "//" before the $(bindir) path, which
is itself already an absolute path name starting with a /.
While it is harmless on linux, it might be
gcc.target/riscv/attribute-10.c will failed on rv64 target because it
the abi is incompatible with rv64, added a valid arch before the
incorrect -march option could resolve it.
From 727069fa18d0c0351391ae4a5e9661023f0ca12e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kito
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:33:48 +
Hi!
I've backported following 5 patches from trunk to 9.2,
bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to
gcc-9-branch.
Jakub
2019-08-01 Jakub Jelinek
Backported from mainline
2019-07-17 Jakub Jelinek
PR tree-optimization/91157
93 matches
Mail list logo
