The following fixes update-address-taken to properly reject rewriting
decls into SSA that require fixup of call lhs because that's not done.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2016-02-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69715
* tree-ssa
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 08/02/16 11:54, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > when compiling the fipa-pta tests in the libgomp testsuite
> > > (omp-nested-2.c,
> > > pr46032.c) with -flto -flto-partition=max, the tests fa
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the German team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/de.po
(This file, 'gcc-6.1-b20160131.de.po', h
On 08/02/16 17:48 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
I’m running the pretty printer test cases on a target with status wrappers, and
that system works by printing the return code on that output. It is dependent
upon the last line being terminated by “\n”, as the code that looks for the
return code requ
Hi,
When counting cost for loop inv, GCC checks if a loop inv can be propagated
into its use site (a memory reference). If it cannot be propagated, we
increase its cost so that it's expensive enough to be hoisted out of loop.
Currently we simply replace loop inv register in the use site with i
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 09:27:36AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/31/2016 03:16 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> >The comment says this test is supposed to prevent "a narrower
> >operation than requested", but it actually only allows a larger
> >subreg, not one the same size. Fix that.
> >
> >Bootstrapped
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:24:14PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:40 PM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:29:31PM +0300, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> Thanks for reporting this issue.
> >> I prepared slightly different patch since
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:24 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:24:14PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:40 PM, James Greenhalgh
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:29:31PM +0300, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>> >> Hi James,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for r
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:24:57AM +, James Greenhalgh wrote:
Also tested on i686-linux (32-bit), where it previously FAILed too.
> 2016-02-09 James Greenhalgh
>
> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c: Drop dg-options directive,
> gate check on x86_64/i?86.
Ok, thanks.
> d
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Here is updated patch - I came back to move call statements also since
> masked loads are presented by internal call. I also assume that for
> the following simple loop
> for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
> if (b1[i])
> a1[i]
It turns out if-conversions poor job on
if (a)
x[i] = ...;
else
x[i] = ...;
results in bogus uninit warnings of x[i] for a variety of reasons.
First of all forwprop (aka match.pd simplification) doesn't fixup
all of if-conversions poor job as canonicalization sometimes
inverts the condit
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:07:57PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch adds a testcase for PR 69625.
Version 2 also runs with -m31.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
ChangeLog
* gcc.target/s390/pr69625.c: Add test case.
>From 5c539cfea4292dc20bb5e7f8541019
On 08.02.2016 15:26, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 12/21/2015 08:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/18/2015 11:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
In an earlier fix, the following change was made in varasm.c for invalid
register variables:
--- trunk/gcc/varasm.c2014/08/26 14:59:59214525
+++ trunk/gcc/vara
On 02/01/2016 09:57 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> This patch fixes a couple of bugs preventing c++ reference-typed
> variables from working in openacc data clauses. These fixes include:
>
> * Teach the gimplifier to filter out pointer data mappings for
>OACC_DATA, OACC_ENTER_DATA, OACC_EXIT
Tested on x86_64-linux.
2016-02-09 Richard Biener
* gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c: Add missing space.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-mov
This patch teaches omp-lower how handle reference-typed reductions,
which are common in fortran subroutines. Unlike the implementation in
gomp4 branch, this patch doesn't rewrite the reference reduction
variables as local variables. Instead, a local copy is created for
reduction variable.
There ar
While I've not looked at the rest of the patch, this bit stood out:
+static bool
+is_oacc_parallel_reduction (tree var, omp_context *ctx)
+{
+ if (!is_oacc_parallel (ctx))
+return false;
+
+ tree clauses = gimple_omp_target_clauses (ctx->stmt);
+
+ /* Don't install a local copy of the dec
Please find attached a reworked patch. It doesn't contain the ABI modifications
as I notified you earlier in an email. Also, you may have extra comments
regarding these original observations:
>+ /* ARCHS has 64-bit data-path which makes use of the even-odd paired
>+ registers. */
>+ if (
2015-12-15 19:41 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev :
> Hi Richard,
>
> I re-designed the patch to determine ability of loop masking on fly of
> vectorization analysis and invoke it after loop transformation.
> Test-case is also provided.
>
> what is your opinion?
>
> Thanks.
> Yuri.
>
Hi,
I'm going to st
On 02/09/2016 07:33 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> While I've not looked at the rest of the patch, this bit stood out:
>
>> +static bool
>> +is_oacc_parallel_reduction (tree var, omp_context *ctx)
>> +{
>> + if (!is_oacc_parallel (ctx))
>> +return false;
>> +
>> + tree clauses = gimple_omp_targ
On 02/09/2016 09:09 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Another option is to peel scalar loop and then just run vectorizer
one more time to vectorize and mask it.
Also we may peel vectorized loop and use original version (with all
STMT_VINFO still available) as a tail and peeled version as a main
loop.
C
Hi Michael,
On 17/12/15 00:02, Michael Collison wrote:
Kyrill,
I have attached a patch that address your comments. The only change I would ask you to re-consider renaming is the function 'bool aarch32_simd_check_vect_par_cnst_half'. This function was copied from the aarch64 port and I thought i
On 8 February 2016 at 11:42, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
>
> On 03/02/16 18:59, charles.bay...@linaro.org wrote:
>>
>> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>> @@ -28208,6 +28208,35 @@ arm_expand_vec_perm (rtx target, rtx op0, rtx
>> op1, rtx sel)
>> arm_expand_ve
On 02/09/2016 07:00 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 09:57 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>
>> > This patch fixes a couple of bugs preventing c++ reference-typed
>> > variables from working in openacc data clauses. These fixes include:
>> >
>> > * Teach the gimplifier to filter out poi
On 8 February 2016 at 11:42, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> On 03/02/16 18:59, charles.bay...@linaro.org wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>> @@ -28318,15 +28318,21 @@ arm_evpc_neon_vzip (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
>> unsigned int i, high, mask, nelt = d->nelt;
>>
On 09/02/16 17:00, Charles Baylis wrote:
On 8 February 2016 at 11:42, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Charles,
On 03/02/16 18:59, charles.bay...@linaro.org wrote:
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
@@ -28208,6 +28208,35 @@ arm_expand_vec_perm (rtx target, rtx op0, rtx
op1, rtx s
Hi all,
In this wrong-code PR the builtin-apply-4.c test fails with -flto but only when
targeting an fpu
with only single-precision capabilities.
bar is a function returing a double. For non-LTO compilation the caller of bar
reads the return value
from it from the s0 and s1 VFP registers like
On 09/02/16 17:21, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
In this wrong-code PR the builtin-apply-4.c test fails with -flto but only when
targeting an fpu
with only single-precision capabilities.
bar is a function returing a double. For non-LTO compilation the caller of bar
reads the return value
fro
Hi Bill,
> 2014-02-20 Bill Schmidt
>
> * config/rs6000/altivec.md (altivec_lvxl): Rename as
> *altivec_lvxl__internal and use VM2 iterator instead of
> V4SI.
> (altivec_lvxl_): New define_expand incorporating
> -maltivec=be semantics where needed.
I just noticed
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 08:46:42AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> The comment says this test is supposed to prevent "a narrower
> operation than requested", but it actually only allows a larger
> subreg, not one the same size. Fix that.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64-linux. OK for
Hello!
No need to go through all subreg processing, we already know we have
const_int here.
2016-02-09 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/i386.md (insv_1): Use gen_int_mode to
truncate const_int operand 1 to QImode.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32},
committed to
This bug fixes PR 68404, which created an insn for the fusion operation when
accessing an array with a large constant offset that the downstream passes
(regrenam in particular don't like). Because fusion in general adds so little
to the performance of power8, I just eliminated the compiler from ge
On 02/06/2016 03:06 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The testcase has a debug insn referencing a pseudo right before an
insn that modifies the pseudo.
Without debug insns, REG_N_CALLS_CROSSED was zero for that pseudo, so
sched_analyze_reg added a dep between the pseudo setter and an earlier
(lib)call.
Committed to trunk as r233252
On 9 February 2016 at 17:07, Charles Baylis wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 11:42, Kyrill Tkachov
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/02/16 18:59, charles.bay...@linaro.org wrote:
>>> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>>> @@ -28318,15 +28318,21 @@ arm_evpc_n
On 9 February 2016 at 17:08, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 09/02/16 17:00, Charles Baylis wrote:
>>
>> On 8 February 2016 at 11:42, Kyrill Tkachov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Charles,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/02/16 18:59, charles.bay...@linaro.org wrote:
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
+++ b/gcc/confi
This was actually approved by Kai in the BZ eons ago. I've installed
the patch on the trunk.
Essentially there's a missing #include for mingw32 that prevents libssp
from building.
Jeff
commit d48dbf6568626d96cc948d8aaf7ef0265689a213
Author: law
Date: Tue Feb 9 19:16:30 2016 +
2
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted
by the Finnish team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/fi.po
(This file, 'cpplib-6.1-b20160131
Jason Merrill writes:
> The issue in this bug was that due to changes in the libstdc++ headers, the
> built-in abs declaration was getting hidden by a using-declaration, so that
> then when the built-in got an explicit declaration, the original
> declaration wasn't there anymore and so the new de
PR other/69554 describes a regression seen from the Fortran frontend
when issuing a diagnostic containing more than one location: if the
locations are within the same file (and hence not filtered by the
existing sanitization code), diagnostic_show_locus could print all
of the lines of the source fi
Ping.
This is a bug in a new feature, so it isn't a regression as such, but
it's fairly visible, and I believe the fix is relatively low-risk
(error-handling of typos of command-line options).
This also now covers PR driver/69453 (and its duplicate PR
driver/69642), so people *are* running into
This adds a note to the porting document about the (shockingly
widespread) problem of calling member functions through null pointers,
which GCC 6 no longer tolerates.
Following some comments about (bool)os I'm also tweaking another part
of the doc to use the plusplusgood static_cast form.
Commit
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> This bug fixes PR 68404, which created an insn for the fusion operation when
> accessing an array with a large constant offset that the downstream passes
> (regrenam in particular don't like). Because fusion in general adds so little
> to
In PR 69511 Dominik Vogt sent in this patch to change the gcstack_size
field of the G struct from uintptr to size_t. This is because the
address of the field is passed to __splitstack_find, which takes an
argument of type size_t*. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committ
The attached patch reverts the guilty code. We were trying to honor delim=NONE
on namelist reads which is invalid.
Test cases updated. Regression tested on x86-64.
OK for trunk and back port in about a week?
Regards,
Jerry
2016-02-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/69668
* io/
On 02/08/2016 11:28 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the simple patch below rejects arrays as do loop index
> variable before another (confusing) error message is emitted.
> Two new testcases derived from the PR, plus adaption of one
> testcase that relies on the old error message.
>
> Whoever
On 09/02/16 15:34, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
Most of the cases checking only the CC user may be sufficient. However, there
are cases (only one which I found), where the CC user has a different mode than
of the CC setter. This is happening when running gcc.dg/pr56424.c test. Here,
the C_FPU
[In reply to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00646.html ]
Hi David,
> OK for trunk in stage 4? (PR 69554 is a regression)
The Fortran part of the patch is OK.
I would also appreciate if the patch could go in. The chances
of encountering this regression in Fortran are rather hig
47 matches
Mail list logo
