Hi Jeff:
Thanks, committed as r274631.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:51 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 8/15/19 8:45 PM, Kito Cheng wrote:
> > - -fsanitize=kernel-address will call targetm.asan_shadow_offset ()
> >at asan_shadow_offset, so it will crash if TARGET_ASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET
> >is not
Ok, thanks.
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019, 6:26 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 08:37:14PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Ok if that passes?
>
> Which it did.
>
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> ChangeLog:
>
> * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as the maintainer for the eBPF port.
Will need steering committee approval, but I don't see that being
problematical.
jeff
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * doc/invoke.texi (Option Summary): Cover eBPF.
> (eBPF Options): New section.
> * doc/extend.texi (BPF Built-in Functions): Likewise.
> (BPF Kernel Helpers): Likewise.
This is likely fine once the port as a
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch makes many tests in gcc.dg and gcc.c-torture to be skipped
> in bpf-*-* targets. This is due to the many limitations imposed by
> eBPF to what would be perfectly valid C code: no support for indirect
> calls, no support for more than 5
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 08:37:14PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Ok if that passes?
Which it did.
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch makes the several effective target checks in
> target-supports.exp to be aware of eBPF targets.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_malloc): New
> function.
>
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch adds a new testsuite to gcc.target, with eBPF specific
> tests.
>
> Tests are included for:
> - Target specific diagnostics.
> - All built-in functions.
>
> testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/bpf/bpf.exp: New file.
> *
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch adds an eBPF port to libgcc.
>
> As of today, compiled eBPF programs do not support a single-entry
> point schema. Instead, a BPF "executable" is a relocatable ELF object
> file containing multiple entry points, in certain named sections.
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> * config.sub: Import upstream version 2019-06-30.
> * config.guess: Import upstream version 2019-07-24.
Similar to the runtimes and such where we're downstream resyncing to the
upstream sources is always OK in stage1. Feel free to commit
So this builds on the previous DSE patch to add handling of strcpy and
resolves the remainder of 80576.
Recall there's two cases to consider.
If the strcpy is the first store (ie, potentially dead), then the
conservative choice when setting up the ao_ref is to take the smaller of
the destination
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:08:07PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/18/19 6:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40:39PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > >
On 8/18/19 6:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40:39PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/15/19 5:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400,
> On 16 Jun 2019, at 19:58, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 07:54:42PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> Actually, because the way in which interposing works for Darwin is
>> different, the only
>> symbol change in the library on Darwin is removing an "undefined dynamic
>>
There is no reasonable chance that the SDKs in question will be re-
issued, so the only viable solution is a fixincludes.
tested on x86_64-darwin, x86_64-linux-gnu, powerpc64-linux-gnu
(fixincludes tests pass on linux)
applied to mainline,
Iain
2019-08-18 C.G. Dogan
Iain Sandoe
Despite that the cpp assert facility is deprecated, we do have a test
for it.
This test needs the cpu and machine asserts to be implemented
which hadn't been done for PPC Darwin. Fixed thus.
tested on powerpc-darwin9,
applied to mainline,
Iain
gcc/
2019-08-18 Iain Sandoe
*
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> This would fix bug 89770 if/when you commit it, btw:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89770
> Thanks for useful comments, I've included all of them (except kB change).
> Feel free to see current version at https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Some users on FreeBSD noticed a problem when trying to use GCC to
>> build things in a standalone environment that manifests itself as
>>
>> /usr/local/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-freebsd11.0/6.3.0/include/xmmintrin.h:34
>> from
>>
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40:39PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 8/15/19 5:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > >
https://blackfin.uclinux.org redirects to a page on ez.analog.com
that states "End of Life for Blackfin Linux" and has a link to
sourceforge.net that at least offers some remaining bits.
Jie, can you please have a look?
This, or something similar, probably should be backported to all
active
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> [ https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/vectorization.html ]
> I'm not disputing that there could be better documentation, but that
> page is not the place to find it. That page should probably get a
> notice added saying that the project is complete
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> ISTM that if you're reverting something recent of your own that's
> causing failures you ought to be able to revert without waiting.
Indeed. And https://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html#all documents this
in the third items.
(Well, that direct link only works
Committed.
Gerald
Index: bugs/index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/bugs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.130
diff -u -r1.130 index.html
--- bugs/index.html 16 Aug 2019 20:59:00 - 1.130
+++ bugs/index.html
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Thanks - can you please update changes.html for it in the 9.2 section?
> There seems to be no GCC 9.2 section yet.
I see one now.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> Yes. Looks good to me btw.
Same here. (I would have taken Richard's note
24 matches
Mail list logo
