Updated to latest version.

Updated to latest upstream version. Small caveat:

The bug described in pr79242 is still not resolved and activity on it seems to
be of low interest. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to look into it that
much. As such, instead of delaying the update until the bug is resolved, I have
opted to instead revert the change that exposed the bug [2]. Yes, this means
that the bug is still there and may be triggered a different way, I have yet to
find a scenario where it happens though.

I will ask then the community: if such case is found, please let me know and/or
add it to [1]. I will then prepare and release a PKGBUILD based on gcc 6.4
instead.

Cheers,
Orlando.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79242
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71289

1 files changed, 20 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/revert-pr71289.patch b/revert-pr71289.patch
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..298386e65d1e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/revert-pr71289.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+diff -rupN gcc-7.1.0-pristine/gcc/match.pd gcc-7.1.0-modified/gcc/match.pd
+--- gcc-7.1.0-pristine/gcc/match.pd	2017-04-04 05:06:04.000000000 -0400
++++ gcc-7.1.0-modified/gcc/match.pd	2017-07-26 10:46:14.079911462 -0400
+@@ -3071,16 +3071,6 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
+        && types_match (TREE_TYPE (@0), TREE_TYPE (@1)))
+    (out (imagpart @2) { build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (@0)); }))))
+ 
+-/* For unsigned operands, -1 / B < A checks whether A * B would overflow.
+-   Simplify it to __builtin_mul_overflow (A, B, <unused>).  */
+-(for cmp (lt ge)
+-     out (ne eq)
+- (simplify
+-  (cmp:c (trunc_div:s integer_all_onesp @1) @0)
+-  (if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (@0)) && !VECTOR_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0)))
+-   (with { tree t = TREE_TYPE (@0), cpx = build_complex_type (t); }
+-    (out (imagpart (IFN_MUL_OVERFLOW:cpx @0 @1)) { build_zero_cst (t); })))))
+-
+ /* Simplification of math builtins.  These rules must all be optimizations
+    as well as IL simplifications.  If there is a possibility that the new
+    form could be a pessimization, the rule should go in the canonicalization