On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 07:18:05AM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> On 1/13/25 2:56 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > In order to better test our s390 builtins, I have been coming up with a
> > small tool in order to a
Hi everyone,
In order to better test our s390 builtins, I have been coming up with a
small tool in order to automatically generate tests. The tool consumes
s390-builtins.def and generates currently
$ ls -1 | wc -l
4703
many files which consume
$ du -s -h .
19M .
space in total. Since the
Hi all,
For older s390 machines, which do not support vector extensions, I'm trying to
implement 2-byte GPR<->FPR moves. Since GPRs are right-aligned and FPRs
left-aligned I cannot trivially copy between them. However, at least since
z9-ec (TARGET_DFP) we have instructions ldgr/lgdr in order to
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 09:49:03AM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 01:56:48PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > I haven't tested it extensively but it triggers at least for the current
> > > case.
> > > I would have loved to also
aving more testing would be great. I've attached a new patch.
Cheers,
Stefan
>From 0199088d2877c9c840ce984f61365816879818bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 09:45:57 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] rtl: Verify pseudo register references
Ensure that each pseudo register referenced in an
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 07:57:43AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 8/8/24 6:26 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 06:03:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/8/24 5:15 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 06:03:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 8/8/24 5:15 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc wrote:
>
> >
> > However `(reg:DI 61 [ MEM[(const union T *)p_2(D)] ])` referencing the
> > same pseudo in a different mode is not substituted in
Hi all,
While trying to fix the failing test gcc.dg/torture/pr111821.c on s390 I'm
stumbling across another problem. After ira we have
(note 4 1 18 2 [bb 2] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn 18 4 2 2 (set (reg:DI 66)
(reg:DI 2 %r2 [ p ])) "/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr111821.c":5:1
1503 {
I just ran into an unresolved iterator
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/657360.html
which motivated me to dig into genoutput.cc where in process_template()
we already emit an error but only if the new compact syntax is used.
There is probably a reason for limiting the check to th
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 01:00:54PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Am 22.06.24 um 10:46 schrieb Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 09:50:43PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 17.06.24 um 21:13 schrieb Stefan Schulze
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 09:50:43PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.06.24 um 21:13 schrieb Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to add an alternative to an existing insn foobar:
> >
> > (defi
Hi all,
I'm trying to add an alternative to an existing insn foobar:
(define_insn "foobar"
[(set (match_operand ...)
(match_operand ...))]
""
"@
foo
bar
#")
Since the asm output depends on the operands in a non-trivial way which isn't
easily solved via iterators, I went fo
On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 09:50:04AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:52 AM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is there some sort of guarantee that the unused part of a partial vector has
> > all bits set t
Hi all,
Is there some sort of guarantee that the unused part of a partial vector has
all bits set to zero?
The question came up while implementing an insn for mode V2SF on s390
where only half of the hard register would be utilized. The final
machine instruction, however, would make use of the f
Hi all,
while bisecting I recently ran into build errors like
In file included from /devel/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/tsystem.h:101,
from /devel/gcc/libgcc/libgcov.h:42,
from /devel/gcc/libgcc/libgcov-interface.c:26:
/usr/include/stdlib.h:931:6: error: wrong number of arg
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 05:53:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> > Am 24.11.2022 um 17:28 schrieb Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc
> > :
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Currently I'm looking into a wrong-code bug and would like to unders
Hi everyone,
Currently I'm looking into a wrong-code bug and would like to understand
a certain optimization done by combine during local transformation.
Without LTO I would simply debug cc1 and step through combine. However,
with LTO enabled AFAIK I have to debug lto1 instead. In order to get
t
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 12:25:21PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 09:24, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > I gave unexpand from GNU coreutils 8.32 a try. Looks like it cannot
> > deal with form feeds or maybe I'm missing something?
> >
> &
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 08:53:37PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 20:49, Tim Lange wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28 2022 at 02:46:58 PM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > > Is there documentation on setting up text editors to work with our
> > > coding
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:59 AM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to detect loops of the form
> >
> > while (*x != y)
> > ++x;
> >
> > which
I'm trying to detect loops of the form
while (*x != y)
++x;
which mimic the behaviour of function rawmemchr. Note, the size of *x is not
necessarily one byte. Thus ultimately I would like to detect such loops and
replace them with calls to builtins rawmemchr8, rawmemchr16, rawmemchr32 if
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 10:32 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> You forgot to add
>
> A::A(const A&) { ++c;}
>
> The missing call is to the copy constructor. Since you didn't declare
> one, the compiler inserts one, and it doesn't increment the counter.
Arghl your right. I removed the copy constructor two
Hello all,
I just tried to easily show how many temporary objects get created in my
program. I created a test application like this one:
#include
struct A {
static int c, d;
A() { ++c; }
~A() { ++d; }
void operator+=(const A&) { }
A operator+(const A&) {
23 matches
Mail list logo
