Re: Understanding tree_swap_operands_p wrt SSA name versions

2018-06-19 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/19/2018 12:30 PM, Michael Ploujnikov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > (I hope this is the right place to ask, if not my apologies; please > point me in the right direction) > > I'm trying to get a better understanding of the following part in > tree_swap_operands_p(): > > /* It is preferable to

Re: divmod pattern question

2018-06-19 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/19/2018 12:55 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > Gentlepeople, > > I have a two-operand divide instruction that takes a double length dividend > in a register pair, and produces the quotient in the first register and > remainder in the second. > > How do I write a divmod pattern for that? The quot

divmod pattern question

2018-06-19 Thread Paul Koning
Gentlepeople, I have a two-operand divide instruction that takes a double length dividend in a register pair, and produces the quotient in the first register and remainder in the second. How do I write a divmod pattern for that? The quotient is easy enough, I write a match_operand for that re

Understanding tree_swap_operands_p wrt SSA name versions

2018-06-19 Thread Michael Ploujnikov
Hi everyone, (I hope this is the right place to ask, if not my apologies; please point me in the right direction) I'm trying to get a better understanding of the following part in tree_swap_operands_p(): /* It is preferable to swap two SSA_NAME to ensure a canonical form for commutative a

Re: Apparent deeply-nested missing error bug with gcc 7.3

2018-06-19 Thread Jason Merrill
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 01:30, Soul Studios wrote: >> >> > >> > It's never called. >> > >> > I added a call to abort() to that function, and the tests all pass. So >> > the function is never used, so GCC never compiles it and doesn't >> > no

Re: LTO and other test failures on trunk

2018-06-19 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! In case that you have not yet found it: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:19:23 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > I've been noticing a number of failures in LTO (and some other) > tests in my x86_64-builds most of which don't appear in results > reported on gcc-testresults (all those on lines that start wit

Re: Apparent deeply-nested missing error bug with gcc 7.3

2018-06-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 01:30, Soul Studios wrote: > > > > > It's never called. > > > > I added a call to abort() to that function, and the tests all pass. So > > the function is never used, so GCC never compiles it and doesn't > > notice that the return type is invalid. That's allowed by the > > st