Committed, thanks Richard.
Pan
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2024 2:53 PM
To: Li, Pan2
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; Wang,
Yanzhang ; rdapp@gmail.com; jeffreya...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] VECT: F
Excerpts from David Malcolm's message of März 5, 2024 4:09 pm:
> On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 19:33 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
>> Hi.
>> See answers below.
>>
>> On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 18:04 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 17:27 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
>> > > Hi.
>> > > This
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
It's worth noting that the AArch64 machines I had available to test with
didn't have a new enough glibc to reproduce the ICEs in the PR, but this
patch will be necessary (albeit possibly not sufficient)
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 Swedish team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po
(This file, 'gcc-14.1-b20240218.sv.po'
> Am 10.03.2024 um 11:02 schrieb Li, Pan2 :
>
> Committed, thanks Richard.
You might want to investigate why you get mask and not Len for a particular
stmt. mixing will cause variable length vectorization to fail.
> Pan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Sunday
Ok for trunk?
--
As the tests assume that strndup() is visible (only part of
POSIX.1-2008) define the guard to ensure that it's visible. Currently,
glibc appears to always have this defined in C++, newlib does not.
Without this patch, fails like this can be seen:
Testing analyzer/strndup-1.c,
Hi all,
I have a new revision of the patch. Alexandre pointed out a few issues
with the hardening options and I agreed with the comments. I took a look
at when the boolean hardening and stack scrubbing options became
available within Ada. Hardbools were already available in GCC 13.1,
stack scr
So as I mentioned in the BZ, the case of
t = MIN_EXPR (A, B)
where we know something about the relationship between A and B can be
trivially handled by some existing code in DOM. That existing code
would simplify when A == B. But by testing GE and LE instead of EQ we
can cover more cases wi
Hi,
This patch removes the early lowering of D AST types as GCC trees in
Target::preferPassByRef, fixing both PR12285 and PR12290.
The way that the target hook preferPassByRef is implemented, it relied
on the GCC "back-end" tree type to determine whether or not to use `ref'
ABI for D `in' paramet
Here's a potential approach to fixing PR92539, a P2 -Warray-bounds false
positive triggered by loop unrolling.
As I speculated a couple years ago, we could eliminate the comparisons
against bogus pointers. Consider:
[local count: 30530247]:
if (last_12 != &MEM [(void *)"aa" + 3B])
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 2:04 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Here's a potential approach to fixing PR92539, a P2 -Warray-bounds false
> positive triggered by loop unrolling.
>
> As I speculated a couple years ago, we could eliminate the comparisons
> against bogus pointers. Consider:
>
> >[local count
On 3/10/24 3:05 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 2:04 PM Jeff Law wrote:
Here's a potential approach to fixing PR92539, a P2 -Warray-bounds false
positive triggered by loop unrolling.
As I speculated a couple years ago, we could eliminate the comparisons
against bogus pointe
Dear all,
after playing for some time with NAG and Intel, and an off-list
discussion with Jerry, I am getting more and more convinced that
simpler runtime error messages (also simpler to parse by a human)
are superior to awkward solutions. This is also what Intel does:
use only the name of the a
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, Florian Weimer wrote:
> +
> +Older Autoconf versions (for example, Autoconf 2.13) generate core
> +probes that are incompatible with C99. These include the basic
> +compiler functionality check:
:
:
Yes, thank you!
Gerald
PS: Feel free to copy me on wwwdocs patches.
> You might want to investigate why you get mask and not Len for a particular
> stmt. mixing will cause variable length vectorization to fail.
Yes, the new added gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr114195-1.c cannot
vectorize, will try to investigate why.
Pan
-Original Message-
The problem here is that merge_truthop_with_opposite_arm would
use the type of the result of the comparison rather than the operands
of the comparison to figure out if we are honoring NaNs.
This fixes that oversight and now we get the correct results in this
case.
Committed as obvious after a boot
Hi,
on 2024/3/8 19:33, Rene Rebe wrote:
> This might not be the best timing -short before a major release-,
> however, Sam just commented on the bug I filled years ago [1], so here
> we go:
>
> Glibc uses .machine to determine assembler optimizations to use.
> However, since reworking the rs6000
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 2:09 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/10/24 3:05 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 2:04 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's a potential approach to fixing PR92539, a P2 -Warray-bounds false
> >> positive triggered by loop unrolling.
> >>
> >> As I specula
Hi,
This patch tries to fix the problem when a canonical form doesn't benefit
on a specific target. The const operand of AND is and with the nonzero
bits of another operand in combine pass. It's a canonical form, but it's no
benefits for the target which has rotate and mask insns. As the mask is
19 matches
Mail list logo
