From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103213 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2020 09:54:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 103198 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2020 09:54:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*i:sk:241d00a, H*f:sk:241d00a, H*MI:sk:241d00a, narrower X-HELO: us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) (207.211.31.81) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:54:32 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1581587671; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=P1qrh9bhnXR4W3lxlkjpXoEL1HsxULz1gbAZPZMAUmM=; b=EwD7MC3BSHqBLO9LUIfNbFMl4cxGWjIoouEshTja45JnfcRnU8YnhKm1AwFvDAfXnu4KyJ RkUp5wL/ODw+L6KUPDRQYe65fq8TsERvfazxYfHBbNeJgG47Yq1uM6ftVN8lw8+FzjckMc l0QTE4toPJnTnpoMZgIV+rCbzPXa95o= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-199-ZDe-yvvVODWjcLns_BZu7Q-1; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 04:54:25 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51DA9107ACC5; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:54:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.51]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A652B26FB6; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:54:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 01D9sLro021840; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:54:21 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 01D9sJwo021839; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:54:19 +0100 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:54:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Jeff Law Cc: Jason Merrill , Richard Earnshaw , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Kyrylo Tkachov , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping Message-ID: <20200213095419.GH17695@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20200210092415.GJ17695@tucnak> <241d00a5cabb62b38c6c1f83917510527a097353.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <241d00a5cabb62b38c6c1f83917510527a097353.camel@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00782.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:39:05PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 10:24 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > >=20 > > I'd like to ping a couple of patches: > >=20 > > PR target/91913 - arm movsi + cmpsi -> movsi_compare0 peephole2 ICE fix > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00010.html > Letting the ARM guys deal with this. Yes, that is resolved now (Richard E. committed his patch and I've committed the testcase). > > PR preprocessor/92319 - partially implement P1042R1: __VA_OPT__ wording= clarifications > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg02104.html > Jason for this one. Of course; I just chose to send a ping for all my pending patches and add to To: all relevant maintainers. > > PR target/93069 - avx512* rejects-valid fix (rejected by assembler) > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01606.html > This is in my queue :-) Ok. > > PR tree-optimization/92868 - compute_objsize/gimple_call_alloc_size > > /maybe_warn_overflow fixes > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01164.html > Martin's patch should have addressed all the issues and should include > your tests (tweaked, but supposed to be equivalent). No, this is something different, this isn't what has been covered by the testcases, but something found by code inspection, mainly inconsistencies in the APIs, e.g. the ranges represented as sizetype most of the time, but with one exception where it could be some other type (wider or narrower), or sometimes the range being incorrect (if there is possible overflow and we punt, we didn't change the ranges effectively to VARYING, but just capped the maximum), or INTEGER_CSTs compared by pointer equality rather than operand_equal_p. Jakub