On October 23, 2021 10:00:05 PM GMT+02:00, Jan-Benedict Glaw
wrote:
>Hi Richard,
>
>On Tue, 2021-09-21 16:25:19 +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>> I have built all targets from contrib/config-list.mk to make sure we
>> don't run into the #error and the following makes the STABS us
Somewhat belatedly following Aldy's lead on finishing
the conversion to Ranger, the attached patch modifies
gimple-ssa-warn-access and other passes that use
the pointer_query machinery to provide Ranger with
the statement it's being called to determine ranges for.
The changes are almost completely
On 10/4/21 3:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/4/21 14:42, Martin Sebor wrote:
While resolving the recent -Waddress enhancement request (PR
PR102103) I came across a 2007 problem report about GCC 4 having
stopped warning for using the address of inline functions in
equality comparisons with null
On 10/23/2021 2:00 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Tue, 2021-09-21 16:25:19 +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
I have built all targets from contrib/config-list.mk to make sure we
don't run into the #error and the following makes the STABS usage
explicit for pdp11 and
On 10/21/2021 12:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
So if we're referring to those temporary const/copy propagations
"escaping" into Ranger, then I would fully expect that to cause
problems. Essentially they're path sensitive const/copy propagations
and may not be valid on all the paths through the C
Hi!
+gcc_jit_type *
+gcc_jit_type_unqualified (gcc_jit_type *type)
+{
+ RETURN_NULL_IF_FAIL (type, NULL, NULL, "NULL type");
+
+ return (gcc_jit_type *)type->unqualified ();
+}
I think there is a problem with the current implementation of unqualified()
that might be kinda surprising to
users,
Hi Richard,
On Tue, 2021-09-21 16:25:19 +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> I have built all targets from contrib/config-list.mk to make sure we
> don't run into the #error and the following makes the STABS usage
> explicit for pdp11 and hppa with SOM.
I'm running build tests based o
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 11:40 AM
> To: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches
> Cc: Tamar Christina ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; nd ; Marcus Shawcroft
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]AArch64: Add better costing for vector constants
> and operati
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 5:34 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 5:31 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:20 PM Tobias Burnus
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > for some reasons, I cannot reproduce this. I checked with that I am in
> > > sync with master – and I a
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 5:31 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:20 PM Tobias Burnus
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > for some reasons, I cannot reproduce this. I checked with that I am in
> > sync with master – and I also tried -m32 and -march=cascadelake, running
> > both manually and
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:20 PM Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> for some reasons, I cannot reproduce this. I checked with that I am in
> sync with master – and I also tried -m32 and -march=cascadelake, running
> both manually and via DejaGNU but I it passes here.
>
> Can someone who sees it show
Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches writes:
>> I'm still a bit sceptical about treating the high-part cost as lower.
>> ISTM that the subreg cases are the ones that are truly “free” and any others
>> should have a normal cost. So if CSE handled the subreg case itself (to
>> model
>> how the rtx woul
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 2:15 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> First, ssa-dom-thread-7 was looking at a dump file that was not
> being generated. This probably happened in the detangling of the VRP
> threader from VRP, and I didn't notice because the test came back as
> with UNRESOLVED
First, ssa-dom-thread-7 was looking at a dump file that was not
being generated. This probably happened in the detangling of the VRP
threader from VRP, and I didn't notice because the test came back as
with UNRESOLVED instead of FAIL.
Second, aarch64 gets far more threads than other architectures
Hi Matt,
sorry for slow response,
unavoidable external factors have been keeping me away from the computer (for
both $dayjob and and volunteer stuff).
> On 20 Oct 2021, at 04:51, Matt Jacobson via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 26, 2021, at 11:45 PM, Matt Jacobson wrote:
>>
>> Fix prot
On 10/22/21 5:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/22/21 9:18 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:27 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/22/21 5:22 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:51 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
(By the way, I don't see range info in the access pass
16 matches
Mail list logo
