Ok. For the branch please wait until after 4.9.2 is out.
4.9.2 being out, I applied this to the branch.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:24 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Looks ok to me, but can you add a testcase please?
Also check if 4.9 is affected.
Sorry for the delay, this finally made it back to the top of my to-do
list. Testcase included which fails without and passes with this
Ok. For the branch please wait until after 4.9.2 is out.
Thanks! Committed to trunk.
Looks ok to me, but can you add a testcase please?
Also check if 4.9 is affected.
Sorry for the delay, this finally made it back to the top of my to-do
list. Testcase included which fails without and passes with this
patch. 4.9 is affected and the same patch fixes it. Tested on
rx-elf,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:08 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Looks ok to me, but can you add a testcase please?
I have a testcase, but if -flto the testcase doesn't include *any*
definition of the test function, just all the LTO data. Is this
normal?
Without -ffat-lto-objects yes,
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:08:33, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:08 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Looks ok to me, but can you add a testcase please?
I have a testcase, but if -flto the testcase doesn't include *any*
definition of the test function, just all the LTO
Looks ok to me, but can you add a testcase please?
I have a testcase, but if -flto the testcase doesn't include *any*
definition of the test function, just all the LTO data. Is this
normal?
Also check if 4.9 is affected.
It is... same fix works, though.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:35 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
If the combined bitfields are exactly the size of the mode, the logic
for detecting range overflow is flawed - it calculates an ending
position that's the position of the first bit in the next field.
In the case of short for
If the combined bitfields are exactly the size of the mode, the logic
for detecting range overflow is flawed - it calculates an ending
position that's the position of the first bit in the next field.
In the case of short for example, you get 16 15 without this
patch (comparing size to
