em calls such as "open" simply return EACCESS
("permission denied") so the stub implementations are fairly easy to
understand (e.g. newlib/libc/sys/amdgcn/open.c). The task would be to
insert new code there that actually does something. You do not need to
modify the compil
On 10/03/2025 22:56, Arijit Kumar Das wrote:
Hello Andrew,
Thank you for the detailed response! This gives me a much clearer
picture of how things work.
Regarding the two possible approaches:
* I personally find *Option A (self-contained in-memory FS)* more
interesting, and I'd
also in theory error out in GNU binutils as which can help.
Accepting a patch to both I suspect will be acceptable upstream
communities since there is little to no development on the MIPS
backends and they are only now used for embedded/legacy developement.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Cont
lt;< pair(3, 4) << endl;
>cout << vector(3, 7) << endl;
>cout << vector >(3, pair(3, 4)) << endl;
> }
>
> // output:
> // (3,4)
> // [7, 7, 7]
> // [(3,4), (3,4), (3,4)]
> -----
variables but
nobody has implemented that yet. There is a patch floating around
trying to fix COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS but it has not been approved and
from what I remember reading the patch it was causing some testsuite
regressions (which should be fixed, IIRC the testcase needs to be
updated but I could be
actly a driver and links directly against the
front-ends so it does not need to call out to other programs*.
*) The exception is the linker so you will run into issues there if
you have a lot of files to link against.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Best Regards,
> Geeta D
l diagnostic issue.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> 1) place code below in main.cpp
>
> 2) g++ -std=c++20 main.cpp
>
> and you get
>
> main.cxx: In function 'my_co do_co()':
> main.cxx:16:7: error:
> 'my_co::promise_type::get_return_objec
for this, so the documentation
is a little vague.
Andrew
I suspect you should use an union instead,
something like:
#define __imm_insn(name, expr) [name]"i"(((union { struct bpf_insn
insn_s; long insn; }){.insn_s = (expr)}).insn)
Should fix the issue.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> This can be silenced with:
>
> +progs/verifier_bpf_fas
On 27/12/2024 12:29, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek
Sent: 17 December 2024 19:09
To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
Cc: Andrew Stubbs ; Richard Biener
; Richard Biener ;
gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge
Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offloading to
IIRC, the reason is that, under strict alignment, it can be assumed
that accessing subfields of an aligned datatype won't cross a boundary
that would cause the high part to change, thus requiring a different
LUI instruction for the subfield access. Under non-strict alignment,
this assumption doesn
23539 | typedef _Bool bool;
> | ^~~~
>
> Full log at [3], and also at [4].
These are simple, the selftests/bpf programs need to compile with
-std=gnu17 or -std=gnu11 since GCC has changed the default to C23
which defines false and bool as keywords now and can'
(__builtin_inff ())
| ^~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
make[2]: *** [Makefile:512: _divhc3.o] Error 1
Should we do #undef INFINITY in libgcc2.c? change all of the uses of
INFINITY to something else?
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Build state: failed comp
s known to be smaller or equal to the user supplied
safelen.
Another thing (already mentioned in the thread Andrew referenced) is
that max_vf is used in two separate places. One is just to size of
the magic arrays and one of the operands of the minimum (the other is
user specified safelen). In th
On Sat, Nov 9, 2024, 11:19 AM Sad Clouds via Gcc wrote:
> Hello, I don't know if this is a known GCC bug or intentional design,
> but code like this:
>
> double value = 0.0;
> ...
> if (value == 0.0)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> Results in the following warning with gcc-12.2.0:
>
> "... warning: com
ll, so as not to hurt AArch64 hosts, but I still need to figure out
why your solution is not working for me.
Andrew
[*] My original post claimed a 10x speedup, but that was when amdgcn
only had V64 vector modes, so setting "max_vf = 16" resulted in total
vectorizer failure. Now that
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 1:25 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 6:26 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >
> > As an experiment Sourceware is now running an forgejo v9 instance at
> > https://forge.sourceware.org
> >
> > Everybody with an @sourcew
do it?
This was not mentioned so I thought I could register with my
@gcc.gnu.org account as the email and it would work.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> There is also a new mailinglist for discussion about the setup and the
> best way to create a pull-request workflow. Please subscribe
e gimple_convert just calls gimple_build (unless it is already the
correct type).
You can find which simplifications is done by adding the `-folding`
option to the dump option (note this option is not documented but that
is PR 114892).
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Before this code is run,
nski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc$ git grep "side-effect" *.cc|wc -l
167
Note for my patch I am just going to use `side effect` when used as a noun.
Thanks,
Andrew
oing
it so removing it is ok too.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
ill
happen is in use of constexpr. Since constexpr functions with C++11
limited what could be done. I know we have mentioned this before but I
can't find it either.
I see the functions/methods in bbitmap.h definitely could be improved
with going to C++14.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Jason
On Sat, Sep 07, 2024 at 09:09:52AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> > Am 06.09.2024 um 17:38 schrieb Andrew Carlotti :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm working on optimising assignments to the AArch64 Floating-point Mode
> > Register (FPMR), as part o
On Fri, Sep 6, 2024, 7:42 PM Jeremy Rifkin wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Thanks for the thoughts and quick reply.
>
> > Not always. because inodes are not always stable on some file systems.
> > And also does not work with multi-mounted devices too.
>
> Unusual filesystems and
On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 5:49 PM Jeremy Rifkin wrote:
>
> Thanks Andrew, I appreciate the context and links. It looks like the
> prior implementation failed to handle links due to being based on file
> path, given cpp_simplify_pathname. Do you have thoughts on the use if
> device
rties.
Does anyone have any comments on this approach, before I start writing any
code?
Thanks,
Andrew
cc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2003-July/111203.html
for more information on the fixes.
In fact `#pragma once` was deprecated before GCC 3.4 because it would
do incorrectly what clang and MSVC are doing and that was considered
wrong.
So GCC behavior has been this way before clang was even wri
way to go...?
Isn't there a knob to tell that complement is with respect to the
range as provided by type(), and not w.r.t. the integers?
Andrew would have to answer that but I think that's how ranges
behave. They just have those API requirements that are
sometimes annoying.
Richard.
=116246) but he found
that there is already a bug report opened against gdb for it though:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30114 .
Also libiberty upstream is technically gcc git repo; though most
patches are posted to either the GCC mailing list or to gdb and the
GCC mailing or t
know it is an supported GNU extension
either so deprecating them for GCC 15 seems like a decent idea.
Any thoughts on this? And possibly removing support in GCC 16?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
() = 2384, from+1 = 2385, tag: LTO_null
> > >
> > > From lto_read_decls:
> > > unsigned from = data_in->reader_cache->nodes.length ();
> > > /* Read and uniquify SCCs as in the input stream. */
> > > enum LTO_tags tag =
gned"
+ }
set nshort [file tail [file dirname $test]]/[file tail $test]
list-module-names $test
```
should work but I am not 100% I got the TCL syntax correct.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 3:37 PM pifminns deettnta via Gcc
wrote:
>
> using uint_least64_t = __UINT_LEAST64_TYPE__;
>
> uint_least64_t testbswap(uint_least64_t a) noexcept
> {
>return __builtin_bswap64(a);
> }
>
> clang:
> https://godbolt.org/z/z8GTsazf4
>
>
> _Z9testbswapm:
>revb.d $a
lobal flag rather
than an optimization flag.
common.opt does not mark -flto-partition= as an optimization flag either.
Plus IIRC flto-partition= needs to be passed down to the linker in
this case too.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> For instance, if I want to add -flto-partition=one to Ofast, he
rator<<(std::ostream& os, const std::pair& pr)
{
os << "(" << pr.first << ", " << pr.second << ")";
return os;
}
```
And then it will work correctly.
But now this is getting into C++ help rather than GCC he
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:14 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:58 AM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Pinski writes:
> > > I need some help with the vector cost model for aarch64.
> > > I am adding V2HI and V4QI mode support
behavior. And code that depends on behavior defined by the standard
would now break.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> From this link
> https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2022/04/25/new-c-features-gcc-12#corrections_and_internal_improvements
> Corrections and internal improvements
> The changes
there something I am missing here or are we just over estimating
V8QI cost and is something easy to fix?
Thanks,
Andrew
0001-RFC-aarch64-Start-to-support-v4qi-modes-for-SLP.patch
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:57 AM Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:38 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > > Am 27.06.2024 um 19:04 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc :
> > >
> > > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2434r1.html
> > > proposes to require that
s not do anything)
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 25/06/2024 10:05, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
Hi,
Andrew Stubbs writes:
On 24/06/2024 23:34, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc wrote:
I was also proposing (and would like to re-air that here) enforcing that
the committer field of each commit is a (valid) @gcc.gnu.org email.
This can be configured repo
make it hard to compile
statistics about contributions from corporate domains (which people do do).
I do not object to having the bugzilla account also listed in
MAINTAINERS, although I've never had trouble finding people by name.
Andrew
.
Looks like it was not updated to the ftp.gnu.org which required an
extra step, let me find out about that.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Thank you,
>
> Liviu
>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Jakub Jelinek via gcc-announce
> > Subject: GCC 12.4 Rel
ump_printf_loc in vect_pattern_recog_1.
`-fopt-info-all-internals` as documented
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.1.0/gcc/Developer-Options.html#index-fopt-info
Note you can find the same information in the vect dump file if you
dump if via -fdump-tree-vect-details too.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Sent using https://www.zoho.com/mail/
can do about this since
data layout is "hard" to do to get the best performance always.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> Clark Zhao
onth to write
I like proposal 2 better than proposal 1 since it allows for cleanups later on.
I think about starting this in July if folks think proposal 2 is the way
forward.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
cification (or the compiler
> silently ignored them because they were not applicable to my machine -
> ugh), the cause of the problem lies elsewhere.
AARCH64 armv8-a has FMA as part of its base ISA.
So you want to try with `-ffp-contract=off` instead.
RDMA turns on/off instructions which
4 includes an FMA instruction but since the base ISA
does not include it, it is not enabled by default.
I am suspect the aarch64 "excessive exceeding the threshold for
errors" are all caused by the more use of FMA rather than anything
else.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> diff lapack-amd
with it.
Especially when it comes cores that don't have not been upstream
directly from the company that produces them.
The default scheduling model is cortex-a53 anyways. And you didn't use
-mtune= nor -mcpu=; only -march=native which just changes the arch
features and not the tuning or sc
n a recent OS works?
Basically glibc's check for GCC version is only designed for released
versions of GCC. So bisecting GCC means sometimes that check will
break.
I have not fully looked into it but maybe glibc folks can provide a
workaround to disable the version check to assume a much older version
of GCC here.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Cheers,
> Stefan
could fix most of the match patterns which assume we would get a boolean
like type or we could fix the patterns which would create this.
Both are not hard to do but it would be useful for GCC 15 at least to add a
verifier if we decide the type should not be a signed 1bit integer.
Thoughts?
Than
might fall under this and MIPS n32). Or do you split a 64bit argument
into the lower and upper half registers. Maybe you should warn/error
out if not passed the correct sized argument.
Also do you sign or zero extend a 32bit argument for LP64 targets?
Right now it is not obvious nor documented in
>
>
>
> > I think the key difference here is that Autotools allows arbitrarily
> generated code to be executed at any time. More modern build systems
> require the use of specific commands/files to run arbitrary code, e.g.
> CMake (IIRC [`execute_process()`][2] and [`ExternalProject`][3]), Meson
>
ult to adding `--as-needed` to the
command line (except around libgcc). Some distros add patches which
add `--as-needed` by default though. It looks like alpine is one of
those distros. Maybe you should ask them instead of asking us. It
looks like they made the change between their 3.4 and 3.5 relea
On 14/03/2024 12:03 pm, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mär 14 2024, Andrew Cooper via Gcc wrote:
>
>> so any known-constant value can be folded. What I'm dealing with is the
>> remainder of the cases.
> Which cases remain?
None, thanks to the answers on this thread.
The
On 14/03/2024 11:02 am, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Cooper via Gcc:
>
>> Anyway - is there a way of doing this that I've managed to overlook?
> Use __builtin_ffs?
>
> I think there's some concern for GCC that some of the alternative x86-64
> implementatio
On 14/03/2024 6:04 am, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Andrew Cooper via Gcc wrote:
>
>> I suppose that what I'm looking for is something a little like
>> __builtin_constant_p() which can either be used in a straight if(), or
>> in a __builtin_choose_ex
unknown, the entire
if/else chain is emitted, which is strictly worse than just emitting the
else case which is the safe catch-all.
I suppose that what I'm looking for is something a little like
__builtin_constant_p() which can either be used in a straight if(), or
in a __builtin_choose_expr().
Anyway - is there a way of doing this that I've managed to overlook?
~Andrew
match,
generic-match, insn-emit, etc.) we write the generated files to the build
directory, and generation is always enabled. I see no reason not to do the
same thing for aarch64-{asm|dis|opc}-2.c.
Andrew
> >
> > It is run on all commits and warns if it detects a change in the
> > (checked in) generated files.
> > https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/gcc-autoregen
> > https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/binutils-gdb-autoregen
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mark
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:16:41 +0800 Baoquan He wrote:
> with GCC 13.2.1 and W=1, there's compiling warning like this:
>
> kernel/panic.c: In function ‘__warn’:
> kernel/panic.c:676:17: warning: function ‘__warn’ might be a candidate for
> ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format
is the wrong email list, it should be sent to gcc-help@.
Second, your subject line can be read as being offensive to some folks
due to the use of the phrase "lives matter".
Third, this is what the C++ standard says it should be. And it might
be better to be brought up to a C++ forum rather than one about the
GCC implementation of the C++ standard.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Thanks.
> OE
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 1:20 PM Eric Gallager wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:16 PM Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > -fgnu-tm support has not been improved since GCC 5 or earlier. It is
> > not even supported with LTO. Does it make sense to deprecate the
&g
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:26 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Andrew Pinski via Gcc:
>
> > -fgnu-tm support has not been improved since GCC 5 or earlier. It is
> > not even supported with LTO. Does it make sense to deprecate the
> > support for GCC 14 and remove it in GC
-fgnu-tm support has not been improved since GCC 5 or earlier. It is
not even supported with LTO. Does it make sense to deprecate the
support for GCC 14 and remove it in GCC 15?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:08 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 6:19 AM Florian Weimer via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > I feel like I have asked this before. Currently, GCC uses calls to
> > __tls_get_addr to obtain the address of global-dynamic
her the old or new
> interface is used.
Just FYI, the last time this was asked was 6 years ago but maybe
things has changed since:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/came9rop_68qpdlz25poha1ewb6pgquvv_+h5bxgfhu05mh9...@mail.gmail.com/
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>
on devices that
have the AVGPR register file (they use it as spill space and therefore
don't need the memory loads) and I actually don't need XNACK on the
older devices at this time, but probably this is just pushing the
problem further down the road so if there's a better solution then I'd
like to find it.
Thanks in advance
Andrew
nds32 support in Linux was removed last year:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Andes-Tech-NDS32-Removal
The support for glibc never made it upstream as far as I can tell either.
What are others thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
like the evolution of that work even.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Kind regards
> Jonny
;; Hmmm...
> sizeof(xxx) changed?
>18: e89da800ldm sp, {fp, sp, pc}
Well for one -mabi=apcs-gnu and -mabi=aapcs-linux are 2 different ABIs
and have different rules.
The difference is due to the anonymous union:
> union { struct { unsigned short pn_15_0; unsigned int pn_47_16; }
> __attribute__((packed));
> struct { unsigned short pn_15_0; unsigned int pn_47_16; }
> __attribute__((packed)) pn;
> };
If we add __attribute__((packed)) at the end of the union, the size is
"corrected".
Since apcs-gnu is considered an ABI pre EABI for GCC I really doubt it
can be changed here.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Dmitry
> vector instructions.
Note TSVC benchmark is part of GCC testsuite too:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=tree;f=gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/tsvc/vect/tsvc;h=0a8f19a630bf39c28c6c6016bbc99a6421d83970;hb=HEAD
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> If I simply count the number of instances of each vector ins
ontrib/gcc-git-customization.sh`. This will install an alias so you
can just do `git gcc-commit-mklog ` and you will get a commit log
with that part filled in.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>
he best strategy to do this. My idea is to:
>
> - create a new flag (let's say -m[no-]float-insn or something like that
A few backends use -msoft-float to handle that. (mips and rs6000 for examples).
And yes GCC outputs library calls for floating point in those cases.
Thanks,
Andrew
> :
> :
>return _5;
>
> }
>
> Is the expression '_1 = tmp_4 << 10' considered legal in GIMPLE? Given
> the
> semantics of C bit shifts, this statement could modify the sign bit,
> potentially leading to overflow.
Except it was not undefined in C90.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> ---
> With best regards,
> Daniil
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:12 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 12:48 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > Hi David and others,
> > I am in the process of improving phi-opt and moving what was
> > handled
> > in value_replacement to match-and-simplify a
thing else like move analyzer earlier before phiopt?
Attached is the patch which shows the 2 testsuite failures. I have not
done a full bootstrap with it; just a build and run the testsuite.
Thanks,
Andrew
From 02324ac702fb5e39ccfdbd4910b5240762679593 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Pinski
o the list referenced
> above, including its minimal version.
Oh also intl is not used on GNU/Linux hosts and is the process of
being updated to the latest upstream version so the requirement might
be changing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632170.html
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Kind regards,
> Simon
is not required to build gcc rather only if you are modifying gcc.
Thanks,
Andrew
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023, 11:01 Simon Sobisch via Gcc wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html has a bunch of tools
> under "Tools/packages necessary for modifying GCC", but GNU Bison is
> produce more efficient code.
>
> Or there if is a better way to get rid of MASK_STORE, please tell me
> about that. :)
So there are 2 issues with this transformation which you need to take
into account.
1) C11/C++11 threading model (-fallow-store-data-races is needed)
2) foo could be read only and cause a trap if written to. if the
branch is never taken there would be no writes
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Thanks
> Hanke Zhang
On 10/10/2023 20:09, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 04:11:18PM +0100, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
I'm also seeing wrong-code bugs when I allow more than 32 new registers,
but that might be an unrelated problem. Or the allocation is broken? I'm
still analyzing
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:59:10AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Carlotti via Gcc:
>
> > I've also seen the GCC documentation for the ifunc attribute [1].
> > This states that "the indirect function needs to be defined in the
> > same translation unit a
On 11/10/2023 07:54, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2023/10/10 11:11 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to add a new register set to the GCN port, but I've hit a
problem I don't understand.
There are 256 new registers (each 2048 bit vector register) but the
register
On 10/10/2023 20:09, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 04:11:18PM +0100, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
I'm also seeing wrong-code bugs when I allow more than 32 new registers,
but that might be an unrelated problem. Or the allocation is broken? I'm
still anal
dd an explicit restriction that all function
implementations must be in the same translation unit, but it seems that might
be required for absolute correctness anyway.
So, how much of this stuff matters? Is some of this stuff actually broken?
Will we have horrible compatibility issues if we try
feels like it shouldn't be this
hard... :(
Thanks in advance.
Andrew
compilers and
embedded platforms where the libraries are bundled with the compiler.
Andrew
ng here. */
> #pragma GCC diagnostic push
> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wstringop-overflow"
> *q = '\0';
> #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
>
> so obviously the #pragma doesn't survive through LTO. Somehow I think
> this is a known bug, but maybe I misremember (I think we are not streaming
> any of the ad-hoc location parts).
Yes it is a known bug.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80922 .
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Richard.
>
> >
> > Jeff
hooks which seems exactly what you need in this case
TARGET_NEED_IPA_FN_TARGET_INFO
TARGET_UPDATE_IPA_FN_TARGET_INFO
And then use that information in can_inline_p target hook to mask off
the ISA bits:
unsigned int info = ipa_fn_summaries->get (callee_node)->target_info;
if ((info & RS6000_FN_TARGET_INFO_HTM) == 0)
{
callee_isa &= ~OPTION_MASK_HTM;
explicit_isa &= ~OPTION_MASK_HTM;
}
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 12:33 AM Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 10:38 AM Martin Uecker via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > (moved to gcc@)
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 08:18:28AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:35 PM Ken Matsui wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have merged all my patches into a sing
pointer implementation itself is not the reason.)
>From c-common.h:
#define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \
(((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) code)
This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> I have pushed t
ski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/gimple-range.cc:138
0xd1a334 expand_expr_real_2(separate_ops*, rtx_def*, machine_mode,
expand_modifier, gimple*)
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/expr.cc:9969
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.cc b/gcc/cfgexpand.cc
index edf292cfbe9..
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:26 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I was reading some code in tree-vect-patterns.cc and I came across
> > vect_recog_mixed_size_cond_pattern . The code tries to handle
> > compariso
Hi,
I was reading some code in tree-vect-patterns.cc and I came across
vect_recog_mixed_size_cond_pattern . The code tries to handle
comparisons from COND_EXPR but that cannot happen any more (after
r13-707-g68e0063397ba82).
Should this code be removed now?
Thanks,
Andrew
ight have the address of nullptr if it is not
defined. And you are running into that.
This is a feature of elf and weak symbols.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Kind regards,
> I am looking forward to hearing from you about this.
> Şahin Duran
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> Source Code:
> #i
eproduce with --with-cpu=native --with-arch=native
> ---enable-checking=yes,rtl,extra on an AVX512 machine.
> So on non-avx512 machine --with-cpu=cascadelake
> --with-arch=cascadelake --enable-checking=yes,rtl,extra should be
> enough.
Also filed as https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
//gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HowToPrepareATestcase should help on how to
write the testcases.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> gcc/c-family/c.opt | 8
> gcc/c/c-typeck.cc | 9 ++---
> gcc/c/gimple-parser.cc | 9 ++---
> gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 11 +++
&g
d so on. Most of these
have both positive and negative forms; the negative form of -ffoo is
-fno-foo. This manual documents only one of these two forms, whichever
one is not the default.
```
Thanks,
Andrew
> Thanks,
> Chuanqi
w after about eight
> years since then?
YES we should keep it.
___builtin_cpu_supports uses those #s so the ABI is exposed to the
object level even if those #s are not exposed to the user directly
those are still exposed as an ABI that needs to be expandable that
way.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Thx,
> Haochen
>
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 11:24 PM jacob navia wrote:
>
> Hi
> The assembler checks at each instruction if the instruction is within the
> selected subset of risc-v extensions or not. I do not quite understand why
> this check is done here.
>
> I suppose that gcc, before emitting any instruction do
1 - 100 of 2678 matches
Mail list logo
