On 2017-06-19 12:44 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 06/19/2017 11:28 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > On 2017-06-19 10:51 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > On 06/11/2017 07:32 PM, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > > > This patch adds warning option -Wstring-plus-int for C/C++.
> > > >
> > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > > >
>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 01:04:57PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/19/2017 11:50 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >> A key point to remember is that you can never have an allocation
> >> (potentially using more than one allocation site) which is larger than a
>
Hi
Here is the patch to default the default and move constructors on
the std::forward_list. Putting a move constructor on _Fwd_list_node_base
helped limiting the code impact of this patch. It doesn't have any side
effect as iterator types using this base type are not defining any move
sem
We need to call instantiate_non_dependent_expr before
cxx_constant_value in a template.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 7.
commit 1645e51aeab6cea4e7206cb6a3520eaf383e47f6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mon Jun 19 15:47:47 2017 -0400
PR c++/80562 - ICE with constexpr
The constexpr code uses the CONSTRUCTOR_NO_IMPLICIT_ZERO flag to track
partially-initialized aggregates, but we were failing to clear it on
base subobjects.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 7.
commit 2e3142bcd6fde9f9ac22928718e55584a6255286
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mon Jun 1
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:16 AM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:05:26PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Currently for the following function:
>> int f(int a, int b)
>> {
>> return a + (b <<7);
>> }
>>
>> GCC produces:
>> add w0, w0, w1, lsl 7
>> But for ThunderX
On 06/19/2017 01:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 01:04:57PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/19/2017 11:50 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
A key point to remember is that you can never have an allocation
(potentially using more tha
On 06/19/2017 11:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:45:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/19/2017 11:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, on i?86 orq $0, (%rsp) or orl $0, (%esp) is used to probe stack,
>>> while it is shorter, is it actually faster or as slow as movq $
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I think architectures such as aarch64 without implied stack probing as
> part of the function call sequence would benefit most from an ABI
> agreement (splitting the probing responsibility in some way between
> caller and callee). For architectures wit
On 06/19/2017 12:15 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/19/2017 08:02 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Oh, and using push intelligently with first bumping to SP & 4096-1 + 4095
>> would solve the signal atomicity as well. Might be larger and somewhat
>> interfere with CPUs stack engine. Who knows...
>
On 06/19/2017 03:56 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I think architectures such as aarch64 without implied stack probing as
>> part of the function call sequence would benefit most from an ABI
>> agreement (splitting the probing responsibility in some way b
On 06/19/2017 12:12 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Out of curiousity, does the old Alpha/VMS stack-checking API meet the
> requirements? From what I recall, I think it does.
Unsure. Is this documented somewhere?
jeff
> > Out of curiousity, does the old Alpha/VMS stack-checking API meet the
> > requirements? From what I recall, I think it does.
> Unsure. Is this documented somewhere?
It seems to be in
http://h20565.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-c04621389
starting at page 3-54.
On 06/19/2017 12:02 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On June 19, 2017 8:00:19 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On June 19, 2017 7:29:32 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:07:06AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
After much poking around I concluded that we really
On 06/20/2017 12:05 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/19/2017 03:56 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>>> I think architectures such as aarch64 without implied stack probing as
>>> part of the function call sequence would benefit most from an ABI
>>> agreement (spli
On 19/06/17 19:59, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Aarch64_legitimate_constant_p currently returns false for symbols,
> eventhough they are always valid constants. This means LOSYM isn't
> CSEd correctly. If we return true CSE works better, resulting in
> smaller/faster code (0.3% smaller code on SPEC200
Hi Carl,
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:19:05PM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_overloaded_builtins): Add
Indent is broken on this line.
> ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VMULESW, ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VMULEUW,
> ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VMULOSW, ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VMULOUW enties.
T
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 05:55:35PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> Here is the latest patch that restricts the optimization to 64-bit (due to
> needing VSX small integers). I've done a full bootstrap/make check on a
> little
> endian power8 system, and a build without bootstrap and make check on
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:08:50PM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> Commit r249311 had an error. During the patch review the define expand
> for VFC_inst was changed to VF_sxddp. I compiled and tested the source
> after making the change and it seemed fine. However, I missed a couple
> of changes. It
The following change from gcc-7-branch and trunk needs to be backported
to gcc-6-branch to allow the Xcode 9 clang compiler to bootstrap it. Tested
on 10.12 with Xcode 9 beta. Okay for gcc-6-branch?
Jack
r244010-gcc_6_branch-backport.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For the testcase in this patch we currently generate:
> foo:
> mov w1, 0
> ldaxr w2, [x0]
> cmp w2, 3
> bne .L2
> stxrw3, w1, [x0]
> cmp w3, 0
> .L2:
>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This testcase started to ICE when PR70873 fix changed the splitter:
> @@ -5153,11 +5147,11 @@
> ;; slots when !TARGET_INTER_UNIT_MOVES_TO_VEC disables the general_regs
> ;; alternative in sse2_loadld.
> (define_split
> - [(set (ma
Hello,
would someone mind reviewing this patch please. It was already sent for
review on January this year and got no attention. Now we are in a
different development stage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg01354.html
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierst
101 - 123 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
