On Thu, 2020-03-05 at 08:51 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> FWIW I've got an sh4/sh4eb bootstrap and regression test running with
> HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER defined. As Vlad mentioned, that may be a
> viable workaround.
>
I've had a look at the good old CSiBE code size results and poked at
some of the
On 3/7/20 6:02 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 01:21:41AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/6/20 8:12 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 05:49:07PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/5/20 2:40 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
The static_assert in the following test was fai
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, Lewis Hyatt wrote:
> Just checking whether the below is OK for gcc 10 changes.html please. Thanks!
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01667.html
Yes, this looks fine to me from a web perspective.
Thank you,
Gerald
[ I didn't get any of the intervening replies, huh. ]
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 10:06:46PM +0100, J.W. Jagersma wrote:
> On 2020-03-07 21:52, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> >On Sat, 7 Mar 2020, J.W. Jagersma wrote:
> >>>This should wait for stage 1, IMO. Looks pretty good to me, thanks!
> >>What does stag
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 01:21:41AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/6/20 8:12 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 05:49:07PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 3/5/20 2:40 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > The static_assert in the following test was failing on armv7hl because
>
David Malcolm writes:
> On Mon, 2019-09-02 at 09:16 +, Andrea Corallo wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> yesterday I've found an interesting bug in libgccjit.
>> Seems we have an hard limitation of 200 characters for literal
>> strings.
>> Attempting to create longer strings lead to ICE during pass_expand
Pushed.
Gerald
snip
commit 8a562ce34e441587b87d5e5bc2ebb58f4ce630b9
Author: Gerald Pfeifer
Date: Sat Mar 7 21:59:50 2020 +0100
Represent mirror admins' addresses more consistently.
diff --git a/htdocs/mirrors.html b/htdocs/mirrors.html
index 6813de72..462d7cd7 100644
--
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
> Add ARC entry for gcc-10/changes.html
What do you think of the following refinement to mark up
mov and ior as code?
Gerald
PS: And thanks for your other feedback, Martin!
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
index
On 2020-03-07 21:48, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 09:43:59PM +0100, J.W. Jagersma wrote:
What does stage 1 refer to? I'm sorry, this is my first gcc patch and
I'm still learning how this all works.
No worries, you'll get there. You can read more about that here:
https://gcc.g
Hi J.W.,
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020, J.W. Jagersma wrote:
>> This should wait for stage 1, IMO. Looks pretty good to me, thanks!
> What does stage 1 refer to? I'm sorry, this is my first gcc patch and
> I'm still learning how this all works.
we have tried to cover this at https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.ht
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 09:43:59PM +0100, J.W. Jagersma wrote:
> What does stage 1 refer to? I'm sorry, this is my first gcc patch and
> I'm still learning how this all works.
No worries, you'll get there. You can read more about that here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
Marek
On 2020-03-07 20:20, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 06:12:45PM +0100, J.W. Jagersma wrote:
The following patch extends the generation of exception handling
information to cover volatile asms too. This was already mostly
implemented, and only minor changes are required in
Hi!
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 06:12:45PM +0100, J.W. Jagersma wrote:
> The following patch extends the generation of exception handling
> information to cover volatile asms too. This was already mostly
> implemented, and only minor changes are required in order to make it
> work.
This should wait
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:18:19PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> 3. Simplification routines do the following mappings:
> sind(x) = sin((pi/180) * x) asind(x) = (180/pi) * asin(x)
> cosd(x) = cos((pi/180) * x) acosd(x) = (180/pi) * acos(x)
> tand(x) = tan((pi/180) * x)
The following patch extends the generation of exception handling
information to cover volatile asms too. This was already mostly
implemented, and only minor changes are required in order to make it
work.
The new test case works for me on x86_64-linux-gnu, but will likely
fail on most other platfo
> Please excuse my ignorance as this is my first (and hopefully not last)
> patch submission.. But I don't see any testcases in the Ada testsuite except
> for the (outdated) ACATS tests, which doesn't cover this assertion. So I'm
> honestly not sure how I should go about that..
See testsuite/gnat.
16 matches
Mail list logo
