On 9/17/20 8:32 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
We discussed this in a team meeting the other day, and agreed that it's
probably simpler to switch back to gotos for C++ than fix up all the
optimizers. And that there probably isn't much benefit to the
middle-end to retain the higher level
On 9/17/20 8:32 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 9/9/20 8:20 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 9/9/20 3:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> My impression from Jeff's analysis in January and David's in March
>>> was that many of the testsuite changes were from the C++ approach
>>> actually providing
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The C++ changes are OK. A C maintainer will need to sign off on the changes
> there.
The C front-end changes are OK.
Note: for a long time there used to be actual (undesired) semantic
differences between the C and C++ loop handling,
On 9/9/20 8:20 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 9/9/20 3:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
My impression from Jeff's analysis in January and David's in March was
that many of the testsuite changes were from the C++ approach actually
providing better results, so the reversal here surprises me. Can
On 9/10/20 7:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
BTW, in terms of analyzer issues, my big rewrite of analyzer state-
tracking landed in master a month ago, on 2020-08-13 as
808f4dfeb3a95f50f15e71148e5c1067f90a126d, and changed the behavior of
gcc.dg/analyzer/explode-2.c, which was one of the ones an
On Wed, 2020-09-09 at 17:13 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/13/20 12:34 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> > This is a revised version of the patch set originally posted
> > last November:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-November/534142.html
> >
> > In addition to generally
On 9/9/20 3:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
My impression from Jeff's analysis in January and David's in March was
that many of the testsuite changes were from the C++ approach actually
providing better results, so the reversal here surprises me. Can you
talk more about the regressions you're
On 8/13/20 12:34 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
This is a revised version of the patch set originally posted
last November:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-November/534142.html
In addition to generally updating and rebasing the patches to reflect
other changes on mainline in the
Ping again on this patch series:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551927.html
These patches just missed making it into GCC 10 last year -- although
there seemed to be agreement in principle, they needed a bit more work
to resolve test regressions. Now that we are heading
Ping! Only the fix for the Fortran bootstrap failure in part 3 has been
reviewed.
-Sandra
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551927.html
On 8/13/20 10:34 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
This is a revised version of the patch set originally posted
last November:
This is a revised version of the patch set originally posted
last November:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-November/534142.html
In addition to generally updating and rebasing the patches to reflect
other changes on mainline in the meantime, for this version I have
switched to
11 matches
Mail list logo
