On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:00:08AM +0800, Bin Cheng wrote:
> The test case "gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/hoist-register-pressure.c" is failed on
> x86_64-apple-darwin because it uses more registers than x86_64-linux. This
> can be fixed by simplifying the case using fewer registers.
>
> Tested on x86_64-
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> CC:ing middle-end maintainers this time. I was a bit surprised
> when Eric Botcazou wrote in his review, quoted below, that he's
> not one of you. Maybe approve that too?
If Eric is fine with the patch it is ok. Yes, he is not
middle-end maintai
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During expression reassociation, statements are conservatively moved
> downwards to ensure that dependences are correctly satisfied after
> reassocation. This could lead to lengthening of live ranges. This
> patch moves statements o
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> As suggested in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00285.html, I
> have updated the attached patch to rename 'dump_enabled_phase' to
> 'dump_enabled_phase_p'. The 'dump_enabled_p ()' doesn't take any
> argument and can be used as a predica
We generate a special PARM_DECL for Out parameters passed by copy at -O0, but
it doesn't play nice with LTO so this patch removes it when LTO is enabled.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline and 4.7 branch.
2012-10-22 Eric Botcazou
* gcc-interface/decl.c (gnat_to_gnu
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > this patch fixes off-by-one error in the testcase attached. The problem
> > > is that
> > > dominance based test used by record_estimate to check whether the given
> > > statement
> > > must
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:16 PM
> To: Bin Cheng
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH GCC]Fix test case failure reported in PR54989
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:00:08AM +0800, Bin Cheng wrote:
>
On 20/10/12 12:38, Julian Brown wrote:
Hi,
Quite a few tests fail for big-endian multilibs which use VFP
instructions at present. One reason for many of these is glaringly
obvious once you notice it: for D registers interpreted as two S
registers, the lower-numbered register is always the less-s
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > What about the conservative variant of simply
> > > >
> > > > else
> > > > delta = double_int_one;
> > >
> > > I think it would be bad idea: it makes us to completely unroll one
> > > interation
> > > too many that bloats code for no
This is a regression at -O present on mainline and 4.7 branch. The compiler
inadvertently uses a non-base type for the base type of a modular iteration
variable on 32-bit architectures.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline and 4.7 branch.
2012-10-22 Eric Botcazou
*
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> We generate a special PARM_DECL for Out parameters passed by copy at -O0, but
> it doesn't play nice with LTO so this patch removes it when LTO is enabled.
>
> Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline and 4.7 branch.
Shouldn't i
Ada 2012 has extended the use of limited_with and incomplete types coming from
a limited context may now appear in parameter and result profiles. This of
course introduces more circularities, especially in -gnatct mode.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2012-10-22 Eric Bo
The function does a bit of pattern matching to emit the special encoding for
variable-sized record types in the debug info and it needs to be adjusted to
the sizetype change.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2012-10-22 Eric Botcazou
* gcc-interface/utils.c (res
This pertains only to small arrays, for which we fail to take into account a
pragma Volatile on the component type or a pragma Volatile_Component.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline and 4.7 branch.
2012-10-22 Eric Botcazou
* gcc-interface/decl.c (gnat_to_gnu_entity
> Shouldn't it be simply the abstract origin for the VAR_DECL? Or be
> not 'lowered'
> here but be a 'proper' PARM_DECL with DECL_VALUE_EXPR? That said,
> how is debug info emitted in the optimize case?
This is a PARM_DECL with DECL_VALUE_EXPR set to the VAR_DECL emitted in the
outermost functi
Hi,
I have just merged upstream gcc-4_7-branch on the aarch64-4.7-branch up to
r192597.
Thanks
Sofiane
Hi,
Attached patch intends to fix bug 55019 which is exposed on 4.7 branch.
Although this bug can't be reproduced on trunk, I think this fix is still
useful to make trunk more robust. Tested with trunk regression test on
cortex-m0 and cortex-m3, no regression found. Also tested with various
benchm
Hi,
I have merged upstream trunk into ARM/aarch64-branch, up to r192598.
Thanks
Sofiane
On 10/19/2012 02:52 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
How do you want to move forward with the VLE patch? Can you localize
more of the changes?
David, I have been distracted by other tasks. I expect to revisit VLE this
week. However, I won't be able to invest much more time on VLE. I'll look
at wha
> > +static void
> > +maybe_lower_iteration_bound (struct loop *loop)
> > +{
> > + pointer_set_t *not_executed_last_iteration = pointer_set_create ();
> > + pointer_set_t *visited;
> > + struct nb_iter_bound *elt;
> > + bool found = false;
> > + VEC (basic_block, heap) *queue = NULL;
> > +
> >
Could someone commit the patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00758.html ?
TIA
Dominique
This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice
transitions in VRP, so the following adds that since we now
can produce a lot more UNDEFINED than before not doing so triggers
issues.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2012-10-22 Richard Biene
On 22/10/12 12:50, Terry Guo wrote:
Hi,
Attached patch intends to fix bug 55019 which is exposed on 4.7 branch.
Although this bug can't be reproduced on trunk, I think this fix is still
useful to make trunk more robust. Tested with trunk regression test on
cortex-m0 and cortex-m3, no regression
Hello!
We don't need to check for REG_P on base and index, we are sure that
non-null RTXes are registers only. Also, we should determine the mode
of RTXes in addr32 calculation from original RTXes.
2012-10-22 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/i386.c (memory_address_length): Assert that non-nu
Somehow bogus truncations slipped through in my LTO overflowed
INTEGER_CST streaming patch. Oops.
Committed as obvious.
Richard.
2012-10-22 Richard Biener
PR lto/55021
* tree-streamer-in.c (unpack_ts_int_cst_value_fields): Remove
bogus truncations.
Index: gcc/tree-
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Michael Matz wrote:
> the operands cache is ugly. This patch removes it at least for the def
> operands, saving three pointers for roughly each normal statement (the
> pointer in gsbase, and two pointers from def_optype_d). This is
> relatively easy to do, because al
Hi,
I observed the following failure on arm big-endian:
FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t024 cp_compat_x_tst.o compile, (internal
compiler error)
The compiler is configured as:
armeb-montavista-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./armeb-tools/bin/armeb-montavista-lin
Hi,
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice
> transitions in VRP,
That makes sense, because the individual parts of VRP that produce new
ranges are supposed to not generate invalid transitions. So if anything
such checkin
On 22/10/12 15:14, Matti, Manjunath wrote:
Hi,
I observed the following failure on arm big-endian:
FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t024 cp_compat_x_tst.o compile, (internal
compiler error)
The compiler is configured as:
armeb-montavista-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLEC
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >
> > This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice
> > transitions in VRP,
>
> That makes sense, because the individual parts of VRP that produce new
> ranges are supposed to n
Minor update to the patch: It now also sets TREE_USED for entry
masters in order to avoid bogus warnings for procedures with ENTRY
(cf. comment 6 in the PR, which like comment 0 is a 4.8 regression).
Still regtests cleanly. Ok?
Cheers,
Janus
2012/10/21 Janus Weil :
> Hi all,
>
> here is anothe
Hi,
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice
> > > transitions in VRP,
> >
> > That makes sense, because t
Hi,
here is updated patch with the comments. The fortran failures turned out to be
funny interaction in between this patch and my other change that hoped that
loop closed SSA is closed on VOPs, but it is not.
Regtested x86_64-linux, bootstrap in progress, OK?
Honza
* tree-ssa-loop-niter
Hi,
with profile feedback we may misupdate the profile and start to believe that
loops
iterate more times than they do. This patch makes at least
nb_iterations_estimate
no greater than nb_iterations_upper_bound. This makes the
unrolling/peeling/unswitching
heuristics to behave more consistentl
Hi,
this patch updates tree_unroll_loops_completely to update loop closed SSA.
WHen unlooping the loop some basic blocks may move out of the other loops
and that makes the need to check their use and add PHIs.
Fortunately update_loop_close_ssa already support local updates and thus
this can be done
Hi!
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01538.html
- PR54844 with lots of dups, C++ FE ICE with sizeof in template
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01700.html
- PR54970 small DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer improvements
- the dwarf2out.c and tree-sra.c bits of the patch alre
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Please take a look at the updated patch. There is, thanks to Uros, changed
> expander and asm patterns.
>
> Considering H.J.'s comments:
>
> 1) Yes, I added new option -mxsaveopt
> 2) No.The FXSAVE and FXRSTOR instructions are not consid
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> During expression reassociation, statements are conservatively moved
>> downwards to ensure that dependences are correctly satisfied after
>> reassocation. This could lea
Ping.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch fixes bugs introduced by my previous patch to propagate
> profiles during switch expansion. Bootstrap and profiledbootstrap
> successful on x86_64. Confirmed that it fixes the crashes reported in
> PR middle-end/549
Hi!
On the following testcase we have IF_THEN_ELSE in insn notes,
and when folding it, folded_arg1 is a subreg from earlier CC setter,
as the other argument has equiv constant, simplify_relational_operation
is called on it to simplify it and we end up with invalid RTL sharing
of the subreg in betw
Hi!
cplus_decl_attributes assumes that if attributes is NULL, there is nothing
to do in decl_attributes, unfortunately that call can add implicit
attributes based on currently active pragmas, at least for FUNCTION_DECLs.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for
Hi!
On the following testcase we have two endless loops before cddce2:
Sender_signal (int Connect)
{
int State;
unsigned int occurrence;
:
if (Connect_6(D) != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
# occurrence_8 = PHI <0(7), occurrence_12(4)>
occurrence_12 = occurrence_8 + 1;
__buil
On 16.10.2012 11:50, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
The below is the port of this patch to 4.7, took longer than expected but
still. Will commit after retesting on x86-64 (testing on ia64 is already
fine) and with the fix for PR 53975.
Now the same patch is also committed to 4.6 after more wait an
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On the following testcase we have two endless loops before cddce2:
>
> Sender_signal (int Connect)
> {
> int State;
> unsigned int occurrence;
>
> :
> if (Connect_6(D) != 0)
> goto ;
> else
> goto ;
>
> :
> # occ
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:48:16PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On the following testcase we have two endless loops before cddce2:
> >
> > Sender_signal (int Connect)
> > {
> > int State;
> > unsigned int occurrence;
> >
> > :
> >
Attached patch applied.
2012-10-22 François Dumont
* include/bits/unordered_set.h (unordered_set<>): Prefer
aggregation to inheritance with _Hashtable.
(unordered_multiset<>): Likewise.
* include/debug/unordered_set (operator==): Adapt.
* include/profile/unordered_set (ope
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:48:16PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On the following testcase we have two endless loops before cddce2:
>> >
>> > Sender_signal (int Connect)
>> > {
>>
Eric Botcazou writes:
> This implements static stack checking for MIPS, i.e. checking of the static
> part of the frame in the prologue when -fstack-check is specified. This is
> very similar to the PowerPC and SPARC implementations and makes it possible
> to
> pass the full ACATS testsuite w
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
1) it handles constant folding of vector comparisons,
2) it fixes another place where vectors are not expected
Here is a new version of this patch.
In a
On 10/16/12, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2012-10-16 10:43 , Richard Biener wrote:
> > Diego - is PTH still live? Thus, do I need to bother about
> > inventing things in a way that can be hook-ized?
>
> We will eventually revive PPH. But not in the short term. I think
> it will come back when/if w
On 22 October 2012 20:59, François Dumont wrote:
> Attached patch applied.
>
> 2012-10-22 François Dumont
>
>
> * include/bits/unordered_set.h (unordered_set<>): Prefer
> aggregation to inheritance with _Hashtable.
> (unordered_multiset<>): Likewise.
> * include/debug/unordered_s
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:27:52PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I understand what your patch does, but I don't understand why it is correct.
>
> Why are there fake edges from bb7 and bb8 to exit when both are
> reverse-reachable from exit via the infinite loops? The infinite loops
> should be c
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> dominance.c doesn't use cfgloop.h (can it? Isn't it used before loops are
> computed, perhaps after loops destroyed, etc.), so there is no guarantee
> that loop->latch of endless loop will have the fake edge added and no other
> bb before i
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > dominance.c doesn't use cfgloop.h (can it? Isn't it used before loops are
> > computed, perhaps after loops destroyed, etc.), so there is no guarantee
> > that loop->latch
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Wouldn't it be way cheaper to just export dfs_find_deadend from cfganal.c
> and call it in calc_dfs_tree on each unconnected bb?
> I.e. (untested with the exception of the testcase):
Better yet, I have a patch in testing now to use cfganal'
> This function doesn't work with MIPS16 mode. Maybe just:
>
> if (TARGET_MIPS16)
> sorry ("MIPS16 stack probes");
>
> (We can't test TARGET_MIPS16 in something like STACK_CHECK_STATIC_BUILTIN
> because MIPS16ness is a per-function property.)
I put
if (TARGET_MIPS16)
sorry ("-fstac
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> I Might Be Wrong, but it looks like this won't probe at FIRST + SIZE
>> in the case where SIZE == ROUNDED_SIZE, because the loop exits on that
>> value without probing it. Should the last line be unconditional,
>> or does the loop need to be a do-while instead? (I suppos
On 10/19/12, Richard Biener wrote:
> The existing tree_low_cst function performs checking, so
> tree_to_hwi should as well.
>
> I don't think mismatch of signedness of the variable assigned to
> with the sign we use for hwi extraction is any good. C++ isn't
> type-safe here for the return value b
> Doh! But in that case, rather than:
>
> 1:
> beq r1,r2,2f
> addiu r1,r1,interval
> b 1b
> sw $0,0(r1)
> 2:
>
> why not just:
>
> 1:
> addiu r1,r1,interval
> bne r1,r2,1b
> sw $0,0(r1)
>
> ?
The latter will always probe on
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> Doh! But in that case, rather than:
>>
>> 1:
>> beq r1,r2,2f
>> addiu r1,r1,interval
>> b 1b
>> sw $0,0(r1)
>> 2:
>>
>> why not just:
>>
>> 1:
>> addiu r1,r1,interval
>> bne r1,r2,1b
>> sw $0,0(r1)
>>
>> ?
In straight-line strength reduction, a candidate expression of the form
"(type1)x + (type2)x", where type1 and type2 are compatible, results in
two interpretations of the candidate with different result types.
Because the types are compatible, the first interpretation can appear to
be a legal basis
Sorry, one more thing (obviously a bad night)
Eric Botcazou writes:
> + if (TARGET_64BIT && TARGET_LONG64)
> + emit_insn (gen_probe_stack_rangedi (r3, r3, r12));
> + else
> + emit_insn (gen_probe_stack_rangesi (r3, r3, r12));
Please use:
emit_insn (PMODE_INSN (gen_probe_st
This patch (r192676) is probably causing
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution, -Os
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memmove-chk.c execution, -Os
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/mempcpy-chk.c execution, -Os
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memset-chk.c exec
Hi,
today I spent quite a bit of time on this reject legal issue filed by
Daniel, having to do with constrexpr constructors and anonymous union
members: I didn't want to make the loop much more complex but we have to
handle correctly multiple anonymous union too and of course produce
correct
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Wouldn't it be way cheaper to just export dfs_find_deadend from cfganal.c
> and call it in calc_dfs_tree on each unconnected bb?
> I.e. (untested with the exception of the testcase):
FWIW, dfs_find_deadend looks broken to me for this usage
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> This patch (r192676) is probably causing
>
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution, -Os
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memmove-chk.c execution, -Os
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/mempcpy-chk.c execution, -Os
The following patch fixes several new testsuite failures.
Committed as rev. 192657.
2012-10-22 Vladimir Makarov
* inherit_reload_reg (inherit_reload_reg): Print bb numbers too.
(need_for_split_p): Don't split eliminable registers.
(fix_bb_live_info): Don't use EXECUTE_IF_AND_
Differences from v2:
1) If another control transfer comes right after a cbcond we take
an enormous performance penalty, some 20 cycles or more. The
documentation specifically warns about this, so emit a nop when
we encounter this scenerio.
2) Add a heuristic to avoid using cbcond if we
PR 54918 points out that libgo is not using version numbers as it
should. At present none of libgo in 4.6, 4.7 and mainline are
compatible with each other. This patch to the 4.7 branch sets the
version number for libgo there. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Commit
For the last few months the gccgo branch has been based on the 4.7
branch. I just rebased it to be on trunk. I did this by removing the
branch (revision 192707) and creating a new copy of it based on trunk
(committed as revision 192708).
Ian
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:49:44AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be way cheaper to just export dfs_find_deadend from cfganal.c
> > and call it in calc_dfs_tree on each unconnected bb?
> > I.e. (untested with the exception of
71 matches
Mail list logo
