On December 18, 2021 11:56:48 PM GMT+01:00, apinski--- via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>From: Andrew Pinski
>
>Before match-and-simplify was used in phiot, the location of the
>new stamtents were all of that of the conditional, this adds that
>back as I did not realize gimple_simplify didn't do that for
Hi Ruoyao,
Thank you for your attention.
> GCC 12 development cycle is at stage 3 (general bugfixing) now. So a
> new port have to wait until stage 1 of GCC 13 begins (in mid 2022, I
> guess).
I know it is stage3, but we are a new target, it's ok for GCC 12.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:59 PM Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This fixes
>
> gcc/cp/parser.c:4618:41: warning: narrowing conversion of '(char)(*(str +
> ((sizetype)i)))' from 'char' to 'unsigned char' [-Wnarrowing]
> 4618 | unsigned char s[3] = { '\'', str[i], '\'' };
> |
From: Andrew Pinski
Before match-and-simplify was used in phiot, the location of the
new stamtents were all of that of the conditional, this adds that
back as I did not realize gimple_simplify didn't do that for you.
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64 with no regressions.
gcc/ChangeLog:
Dear all,
committed as obvious after discussion with Steve: SIZEOF() cannot
accept a BOZ argument which has no defined type.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Thanks,
Harald
From fd74a2ee40456a1d1621e88738f8e57536194080 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Anlauf
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:12:28AM +0100, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch extends AC_PROG_GDC so that as well as checking for the
> existence of a GDC compiler, also validate that it has also been built
> with libphobos, otherwise warn or fail with the message that GDC is
> required to
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:33:12PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:43 PM HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> > +(define_insn "rs6000_mffscrni"
> > + [(set (match_operand:DF 0 "gpc_reg_operand" "=d")
> > + (unspec_volatile:DF [(match_operand:DF 1 "u2bit_cint_operand" "n")]
>
>
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 10:13 AM Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:57 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/2021 9:10 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> > ---
>> > gcc/config.gcc | 1 +
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
>>
On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 15:43 +0800, Chenghua Xu wrote:
> +#undef TARGET_ASM_CODE_END
> +#define TARGET_ASM_CODE_END loongarch_code_end
/* snip */
> +static void
> +loongarch_code_end (void)
> +{
> + if (NEED_INDICATE_EXEC_STACK)
> +/* Add .note.GNU-stack. */
> +
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:57 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 12/17/2021 9:10 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > ---
> > gcc/config.gcc | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
> > index c8824367b13..fe93a72a16c 100644
> > --- a/gcc/config.gcc
> > +++
Allow returning dynamic expressions from ADDR_EXPR for
__builtin_dynamic_object_size and also allow offsets to be dynamic.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-object-size.c (size_valid_p): New function.
(size_for_offset): Remove OFFSET constness assertion.
(addr_object_size): Build
Handle non-constant expressions in GIMPLE_CALL arguments. Also handle
alloca.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-object-size.c (alloc_object_size): Make and return
non-constant size expression.
(call_object_size): Return expression or unknown based on
whether dynamic object
Handle GIMPLE_PHI and conditionals specially for dynamic objects,
returning PHI/conditional expressions instead of just a MIN/MAX
estimate.
This makes the returned object size variable for loops and conditionals,
so tests need to be adjusted to look for precise size in some cases.
Handle hints provided by __attribute__ ((access (...))) to compute
dynamic sizes for objects.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-object-size.c: Include tree-dfa.h.
(parm_object_size): New function.
(collect_object_sizes_for): Call it.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
*
This patchset enhances the __builtin_dynamic_object_size builtin to
produce dynamic expressions for object sizes to improve coverage of
_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
Testing:
This series has been tested with build and test for i686, bootstrap with
ubsan and full bootstrap and test with x86_64. I
> Yes, but please put this ^^ explanation into the git commit log, and prepend
> the title line with Darwin:
Thanks, committed.
FX
From: Sören Tempel
The -fsplit-stack option requires the pthread_t TCB definition in the
libc to provide certain struct fields at specific hardcoded offsets. As
far as I know, only glibc provides these fields at the required offsets.
Most notably, musl libc does not have these fields. However,
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:13 AM Sören Tempel wrote:
>
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > I think it should check OPTION_MUSL at runtime instead of
> > TARGET_GLIBC_MAJOR at compile time.
> > or rather opts->x_linux_libc == LIBC_MUSL
> > The others should be done similarly too.
>
> Thanks for pointing
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I think it should check OPTION_MUSL at runtime instead of
> TARGET_GLIBC_MAJOR at compile time.
> or rather opts->x_linux_libc == LIBC_MUSL
> The others should be done similarly too.
Thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't aware of OPTION_MUSL and
OPTION_GLIBC. However, I
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 2:44 AM soeren--- via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> From: Sören Tempel
>
> The -fsplit-stack option requires the pthread_t TCB definition in the
> libc to provide certain struct fields at specific hardcoded offsets. As
> far as I know, only glibc provides these fields at the
From: Sören Tempel
The -fsplit-stack option requires the pthread_t TCB definition in the
libc to provide certain struct fields at specific hardcoded offsets. As
far as I know, only glibc provides these fields at the required offsets.
Most notably, musl libc does not have these fields. However,
On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 15:45 +0800, Paul Hua via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion, Those macros can be removed, we will send
> the v4 version soon.
>
> Are there any problems in this series of patches?
I'm not a compiler expert, but I'll bootstrap it once my 5th
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 12:24:48PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> Since all computations in tree-object-size are now done in sizetype and
> not HOST_WIDE_INT, comparisons with HOST_WIDE_INT based unknown and
> initval would be incorrect. Instead, use the sizetype trees directly to
> generate
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted
by the Spanish team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/es.po
(This file,
cpplib-11.1-b20210207.es.po.gz
Description: Binary data
The Translation Project robot, in the
name of your translation coordinator.
25 matches
Mail list logo
