Re: Leaking bitmap data in ree.c?

On 03/20/2016 09:24 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:18:16PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: Is it just me, or does find_removable_extensions leak bitmap data for INIT, KILL, GEN and TMP? It calls bitmap_initialize on all of them, but never clears the bitmaps... Am I missing

Re: Leaking bitmap data in ree.c?

On 03/21/2016 11:15 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: I'll resist the urge for now to apply RAII principles in this code, but that'd probably a much cleaner way to think about the problem in general. I worked on a couple attempts to c++ify bitmaps a while back, but never finished any of them, but I

Re: Leaking bitmap data in ree.c?

On 03/21/2016 11:16 AM, David Malcolm wrote: On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 11:13 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 03/21/2016 11:15 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: I'll resist the urge for now to apply RAII principles in this code, but that'd probably a much cleaner way to think about the problem in ge

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

On 03/31/2016 09:39 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 03/31/2016 10:30 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though he provides the "-Werro

Re: IF conversion bug with CC0

On 04/04/2016 02:19 PM, Dan wrote: Greetings! GCC is usually so perfect, that I hate to write, but ... I think I'm chasing down quite the bug in it and would appreciate some thought to the following. The code that causes the bug looks like: if (ptr) { *ptr = 1; } This code evaluates, in th

Re: [RFC] When adding an offset to a lo_sum containing a symbol, check it is in range of the symbol's alignment

On 04/04/2016 06:36 AM, Andrew Bennett wrote: Hi, In MIPS (and similarly for other RISC architectures) to load an absolute address of an object requires a two instruction sequence: one instruction to load the high part of the object's address, and one instruction to load the low part of the ob

Re: IF conversion bug with CC0

On 04/04/2016 03:13 PM, Dan wrote: Jeff, Thank you for your quick response! Yes, I have a custom ISA. I am building a custom back end. The project, in its current state, can be found at: http://opencores.com/project,zipcpu Can you tell me whether the difference between CC0 processing and no

Re: IF conversion bug with CC0

On 04/04/2016 04:20 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: From a 30 second view of your ISA, it appears that most arithmetic/logicals unconditionally set the condition codes. I would suggest modeling condition code handling similar to how it's done on the x86 port. No advertisement intended, but the Visi

Re: Compute all gimple statements in which a var is used

On 04/05/2016 08:59 AM, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana wrote: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On March 28, 2016 7:23:26 PM GMT+02:00, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana wrote: Hello, In order to compute all the statements where a variable is used, is it enough to rely on the

Re: Unnecessary check on phi node in tree if-conversion?

On 04/06/2016 12:21 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: Hi, Function if_convertible_phi_p has below check on virtual PHI nodes: if (any_mask_load_store) return true; /* When there were no if-convertible stores, check that there are no memory

Re: [IMPORTANT] slots assigned

On 04/14/2016 05:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote: So it looks like we need to scrap one of the three GCC proposals (currently all have Mentors "assigned" - well, not sure if "want to mentor" counts as assigned). There's the GIMPLE FE, Addressing mode selection and replacing libiberty with gnulib.

Re: GCC 6.0.1 Status Report (2016-04-15)

On 04/15/2016 09:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Status == We have reached zero P1 regressions today (and < 100 important regressions) and the branches/gcc-6-branch has been created; and GCC 6.1-rc1 will be built and announced soon. The branch is now frozen for blocking regressions and documenta

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

On 03/30/2016 08:34 AM, Alan Modra wrote: OK, I'll try to list the technical issues re. pr65248 "Copy relocation against protected symbol doesn't work". Given a shared library that defines a variable, and a non-PIC executable that references that variable, the linker makes a duplicate of the var

Re: m68k / coldfire target

On 04/17/2016 02:19 PM, Angelo Dureghello wrote: Dear all, i submitted some months ago 2 issues on cross-building gcc for the m68k/coldfilre family. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68082 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467 These issues are connected, and probably th

Re: Is MODES_TIEABLE_P transitive?

On 04/21/2016 01:53 PM, Michael Meissner wrote: As I start to allow integer modes into vector registers, I need to revisit MODES_TIEABLE_P. I'm wondering if MODES_TIEABLE_P is transitive? I don't recall a need for it to be transitive. The only really special thing I remember about MODES_TIEABLE

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

On 04/18/2016 11:55 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: That is why protected visibility is such a mess. Not mess, but it comes with certain limitations. And that's okay. It's intended as an optimization, and it should do that optimization if requested, and error out if it can't be done for whatever reas

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

On 04/19/2016 02:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Alan Modra wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:59:50AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Alan Modra wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: To summarize: there is

Re: SafeStack proposal in GCC

On 04/13/2016 07:01 AM, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana wrote: Hello, I bring to your attention SafeStack, part of a bigger research project - CPI/CPS [1], which offers complete protection against stack-based control flow hijacks. I am interested in developing SafeStack for GCC and I would like to

Re: Using stl containers in gcc

On 05/03/2016 08:44 AM, Andres Tiraboschi wrote: Hi, Does anyone know if there is a good reason for not using stl containers in gcc sources? I'm asking because I didn't find any use of them in the code I read. The GCC coding conventions allow the use of the standard library; but you have to be c

Re: Bug maintenance

On 05/08/2016 04:03 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: On 4/28/2016 9:41 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 04/28/2016 01:35 AM, David Wohlferd wrote: As part of the work I've done on inline asm, I've been looking thru the bugs for it. There appear to be a number that have been fixed or overtaken by events ove

Re: Bug maintenance

On 05/08/2016 04:13 PM, Oleg Endo wrote: Sometimes there is. Before randomly closing any bugs because they are too old, one should at least have a look at them and see if they're still an issue etc. Often things would've been fixed along the way, but not all of them. When this is the case I do

Re: Mingw-w64 exception handling configuration

On 05/12/2016 09:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: I see that the default EH behavior for a biarch mingw-w64 target GCC is to use SJLJ for the 32-bit multilib and SEH for the 64-bit one, but that there are #errors in cygming.h and mingw32.h that prevent you from configuring a biarch build with --dis

Re: Copyright assignment to FSF

On 05/19/2016 07:46 AM, Jakub Sejdak wrote: Dear Sir or Madam, On behalf of Paweł Pisarczyk (CEO of Phoenix Systems) I'm writting to you regarding copyright assignment to FSF related to changes in GNU GCC. We are currently working on porting our product, Phoenix-RTOS, to several branches: trunk

Re: Mingw-w64 exception handling configuration

On 05/13/2016 08:22 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: On 05/12/2016 09:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: I see that the default EH behavior for a biarch mingw-w64 target GCC is to use SJLJ for the 32-bit multilib and SEH for the 64-bit one, but that there are #errors in cygming.h and mingw32.h that preve

Re: GNU C: Implicit int and implicit function definitions

On 05/20/2016 03:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 05/20/2016 11:22 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: Florian Weimer writes: C99 got rid of implicit function definitions and implicit ints. Would it be possible to remove them retroactively from the -std=gnu99 and -std=gnu11 language variants (as well as

Re: Question regarding bug 70584

On 05/20/2016 01:18 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote: (reposting in gcc@ and adding more information) On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Andres Tiraboschi wrote: While analysing this bug we arrived to the following code at tree.c:145 (lvalue_kind): case VAR_DECL: if (TREE_READONLY (ref) && ! T

Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

On 06/21/2016 10:33 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Hi, On 21/06/16 13:08, Michael Matz wrote: On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Andrew Haley wrote: As said in the various threads about basic asms, all correctness problems can be solved by making GCC more conservative in handling them (or better said: not making

Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

On 06/22/2016 09:23 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote: On the other hand, some of the the x86_64 examples in lib/raid6/sse2.c are super scary and have back-to-back instructions with hard-coded registers... asm volatile("pcmpgtb %xmm4,%xmm5"); asm volatile("paddb %xmm4,%xmm4");

Re: [RFC][Draft patch] Introduce IntegerSanitizer in GCC.

On 07/11/2016 10:08 AM, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: On 11/07/16 18:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:31:31AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: CC'ing Jakub, Marek and Kostya, sanitizer maintainers in GCC. Jakub, thanks for your summary. I'm not convinced it is a good idea, that is

Re: [RFC][Draft patch] Introduce IntegerSanitizer in GCC.

On 07/12/2016 02:48 AM, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: void foo (unsigned len) { ... void *p = malloc (len); } void bar () { ... unsigned len = a + b; foo (len); } Inlining & lto can help here as could a symbolic execution engine. This is precisely t

Re: ubsan and Dejagnu not having a big enough buffer in some cases

On 07/20/2016 02:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:48:09PM +0530, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: I see this for some of the larger C frontend tests with lots of expected errors/warnings as well. I also see this for tests with small output, but it happens more often fo

Re: ubsan and Dejagnu not having a big enough buffer in some cases

On 07/20/2016 03:09 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 07/20/2016 02:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:48:09PM +0530, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: I see this for

Re: [libiberty] does anyone use regex.c with REGEX_MALLOC?

On 07/23/2016 04:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: Hi guys! I'm looking at libiberty's use of alloca() and trying to place some bounded checks at alloca() call points. Silly question, do we have any users of regex.c with REGEX_MALLOC set? I don't see any #define for REGEX_MALLOC anywhere in binutils

Re: [libiberty] does anyone use regex.c with REGEX_MALLOC?

On 07/29/2016 05:30 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote: On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote: I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could look to resync with glibc, though that could

Re: [libiberty] does anyone use regex.c with REGEX_MALLOC?

On 07/29/2016 05:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 07/29/2016 07:30 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote: On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote: I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could lo

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 08/05/2016 06:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 4 August 2016 at 21:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: d) Delegate hierarchically. Module owners should seek and delegate to people with svn-write powers and ask for reviews in exchange of reviews. Advantages: No loss in quality, distribute work, cr

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 08/05/2016 10:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: I believe that Diego tried setting up an alternative patch review system using Reitveld, but it did not catch on. And there were some before that :-) For Go development I have been using Gerrit, an instance hosted at Google (https://go-review.go

Re: Help with implementing Wine optimization experiment

On 08/14/2016 01:57 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 01:23:16AM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote: I'm experimenting with ways to optimize wine (x86 target only) and I believe I can shrink wine's total text size by around 7% by outlining the lengthy pro- and epilogues required for ms_

Re: How do you emit RTL for a jump to a mem/symbol instead of an asm label?

On 08/20/2016 06:01 AM, Daniel Santos wrote: I have been unable to figure out how to (correctly) generate RTL (in expand the pro/epilogue pass) to jump to a stub defined in libgcc for the out-of-lined epilogue. If I write it as a function call, but then set the insn's jump field to true it emits

Re: Proposal: readable and writable attributes on variables

On 09/01/2016 09:04 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: Understood. I think a write-only attribute or type qualifier would make sense. Until/unless it's implemented I would recommend to work around its absence by hiding access to the registers behind a read- only and write-only functional API. As you note

Re: [PATCH, testsuite]: Test compat _Complex varargs passing

On 09/08/2016 02:53 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: It looks that different handling of _Complex char, _Complex short and _Complex float is there on purpose. Is (was?) there a limitation in a c language standard

Re: fold() can't fold simple expressions?

On 09/14/2016 08:08 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: On 09/14/2016 09:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've been playing with folding arbitrary range expressions, which I expect fol

Re: fold() can't fold simple expressions?

On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote: It's what match-and-simplify does as well. I question the need to build GENERIC here though. M-a-s happily gets you a simplified expression as sequence of GIMPLE statements. (But does not yet provide a way to build a simplified GENERIC expressi

Re: fold() can't fold simple expressions?

On 09/15/2016 02:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote: It's what match-and-simplify does as well. I question the need to build GENERIC here though. M-a-s happily gets you a simplified expressi

Re: Message missing from gcc-patches

On 09/15/2016 11:12 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Hi, this message did not get listed on the gcc-patches archive. I've got no bounce, and it just vanished, several times. Any idea what is wrong? No clue. It's not likely hitting the maximum size limits. And I certainly got the copy addressed dire

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

On 09/16/2016 02:37 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: Hi! Since a few days TARGET_LRA_P defaults to returning "true". I changed all in-tree ports to still behave the same as before, which for most ports means they use old reload always. All the primary platforms (see the release criteria,

Re: sprintf warning on overlapping output

On 09/25/2016 03:46 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Hi Martin, in the past I have seen (and fixed) code like sprintf(buf, "%s %d", buf, x); that may possibly work by chance, but usually produces undefined results. Do you see a way to enhance the warning for cases where the output buffer overlaps an

Re: sprintf warning on overlapping output

On 09/26/2016 09:20 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Jeff Law: On 09/25/2016 03:46 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Hi Martin, in the past I have seen (and fixed) code like sprintf(buf, "%s %d", buf, x); that may possibly work by chance, but usually produces undefined results. Do you se

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

On 10/04/2016 04:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote: On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments in calls to functions taking bool param

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

On 10/04/2016 09:41 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

On 10/04/2016 03:08 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Zan Lynx wrote: On 10/04/2016 02:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: This would have been easier if C++ had allowed the same default value to be given in both the declaration and the definition: void foo(int x, int y, bool ba

Re: VREGS cannot handle subreg(mem (plus ...)) pattern

On 10/11/2016 08:48 AM, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote: Hi, Out of the expand I get the following pattern: (set (reg:SI 203) (subreg:SI (mem/c:DI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 147 virtual-stack-vars) (const_int -320 [0xfec0])) [4 buf1.state+0 S8 A32]) 4)) which it look

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

On 10/11/2016 11:24 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: To close the loop on this thread, although there was mild support for both of these conventions there were also objections to both, including a suggestion for an alternative to the "/*foo_p=*/" st

Re: Make GCC emit ASM instructions in 'gcc/except.c' for i686 MinGW targets ?

On 10/16/2016 08:58 PM, lhmouse wrote: Hi there, I come up with an idea about implementing stack unwinding for the i686-w64-mingw32 target using native Windows Structured Exception Handling (a.k.a SEH) for efficiency reasons. Unlike DWARF and SEH for x64, SEH for x86 is stack-based and works li

Re: [BUILDROBOT] s390.md:10630:9: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]

On 10/19/2016 10:26 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: Hi! I noticed that building for --target=s390-linux-gnu (via config_list.mk) also hits the new fall-through checking code, see build http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id=643406: [...] g++ -fno-PIE -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -

Re: LSDA unwind information is off by one (in __gcc_personality_v0)

On 10/20/2016 10:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: We have a fun little glibc bug which causes pthread_cond_wait to write out of bounds on i386: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20719 Root cause is this in libgcc/unwind-c.c: 130 int ip_before_insn = 0; … 158 /* Pars

Re: History of GCC

On 10/26/2016 07:07 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Will Hawkins wrote: My name is Will Hawkins and I am a longtime user of gcc and admirer of the project. I hope that this is the proper forum for the question I am going to ask. If it isn't, please accept my apolo

Re: Bootstrap failure in stage 2 on i386.c

On 11/23/2016 01:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Serge Belyshev wrote: My builds for the last couple of days have all been failing in stage 2 like so: /home/arth/src/gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.c: In function ‘rtx_def* ix86_expand_bui ltin(tree, rtx, rtx, machine_mod

Re: Bootstrap failure in stage 2 on i386.c

On 11/23/2016 12:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On November 23, 2016 8:17:34 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote: On 11/23/2016 01:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Serge Belyshev wrote: My builds for the last couple of days have all been failing in stage 2 like so

Re: Breakage on trunk, a fix

On 11/29/2016 08:38 PM, Jerry DeLisle wrote: I had to do this to get my build to work. diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi index 5d96e5fd..140ff807 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/install.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/install.texi @@ -2196,7 +2196,7 @@ continues. @itemx --with-target-bdw-gc-lib=

arm.c bug in handling of TARGET_ASM_INIT_SECTIONS

Trying to build arm-netbsdelf: g++ -fno-PIE -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macro

Re: strange test failures

On 12/08/2016 04:47 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I'm seeing failures in a few C tests that I'm not sure what to make out of. The tests fail due to undefined symbols while linking even though they're not meant to link. Among these are a number (but not all) of the gcc.dg/divmod-[1-6]{-simode}.c tests

Re: BITS_PER_UNIT issue in port....

On 12/08/2016 01:37 PM, Steve Silva wrote: Hi, I was not sure where to look but I thought I would try this. I am in the middle of porting GCC 6.2 to an internal processor we are experimenting with. I have about 2 months into it and I have made some decent progress. The biggest issue I have ri

Re: Do we really need a CPP manual?

On 12/16/2016 11:01 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: On 12/16/2016 08:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Sandra Loosemore wrote: Looking at the structure of the whole manual, though, I see that most of it is in fact a tutorial on how to use the preprocessor language, like you would fin

Re: Worse code after bbro?

On 01/04/2017 03:46 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 10:05:49AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: The code size is identical, but the trunk version executes one more instruction everytime the loop runs (explicit jump to .L5 with trunk vs fallthrough with 4.8) - it's faster only i

Re: input address reload issue

On 01/05/2017 09:18 AM, Aurelien Buhrig wrote: Hi all, and best wishes for the happy new year! I'm porting a private 4.6 backend to GCC 6 and facing a reload issue and I would appreciate a little help to cope with it. The issue happens when reloading: (set (reg:QI 47 [ _9 ]) (mem:QI (plus:SI

Re: input address reload issue

On 01/06/2017 03:20 AM, Aurelien Buhrig wrote: So the insn: (set (reg:QI 0 r0) (mem:QI (plus:SI (reg:SI 2 r2)(const_int 1)) is transformed into: (set (reg:SI 8 a0) (reg:SI 2 r2)) (set (reg:SI 8 a0) (const_int 1)) (set (reg:SI 8 a0) (plus:SI (reg:SI 8 a0) (reg:SI 8 a0))) (set (reg:QI 0 r0) (mem

Re: input address reload issue

On 01/06/2017 03:26 AM, Aurelien Buhrig wrote: Look at the dump file for reload to see where things come from. Also everything Jeff said; you really want LRA. I will try switching to LRA in a second step, but I think I need first to remove the old cc0... BTW, in which way the LRA is better

Re: un-optimal code because of forwprop after gcc-5?

On 01/06/2017 03:09 AM, Pitchumani Sivanupandi wrote: Found a code size regression for AVR target in gcc-5 and higher. Looks like it is applicable to x86_64 also. Please file a bug. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla Jeff

Re: input address reload issue

On 01/06/2017 09:37 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: I would suggesting moving away from cc0 first. cc0 is an abomination and should have been abolished years ago -- the only reason is many old ports would break and nobody's taken the time to convert them or propose them for deprecation. It's 8 out of

Re: [RFC] Meta-description for tree and gimple folding

On 02/28/14 08:21, Kai Tietz wrote: Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came up with two years ago. All in all I think it might be worth to express folding-patterns in a more abstract way. So the md-like Lisp syntax for this seems to be just stringent. We make use

Re: [RFC] Meta-description for tree and gimple folding

On 03/03/14 07:05, Kai Tietz wrote: [the possibility to use offline verification tools for the transforms comes to my mind as well] This is actually a pretty interesting idea. As it would allow us to do testing for this area without side-effects by high-level passes, target-properties, etc Yea

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Always require a 64bit HWI

On 04/29/14 05:21, Richard Biener wrote: The following patch forces the availability of a 64bit HWI (without applying the cleanups that result from this). I propose this exact patch for a short time to get those that are affected and do not want to be affected scream. But honestly I don't see

Re: bug in lra causes incorrect register usage / compiler crash

On 04/29/14 14:16, Paul Shortis wrote: I've now confirmed this same issue occurs on a stock i386 build when -fomit-frame-pointer is specified with -O2 and a test case with reasonable register pressure. Please file a report with a compilable testcase. This is important both for the reviewer so t

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Always require a 64bit HWI

On 04/30/14 02:16, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Jeff Law wrote: On 04/29/14 05:21, Richard Biener wrote: The following patch forces the availability of a 64bit HWI (without applying the cleanups that result from this). I propose this exact patch for a short time to get those

Re: [Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c

On 04/25/14 03:16, Dhakshinamoorthy, Soundararajan wrote: 2014-04-25 Soundararajan Dhakshinamoorthy * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c: Adjust the test to work with bare metal targets. The test code references to functions that is not implemented for the avr target (getpid(

Re: Secondary platform change request

On 04/30/14 21:56, Wolf wrote: Since the original MinGW refuses to support 64-bit, I would like to discuss whether we should remove i686-mingw32 from the secondary platforms list and replace it with MinGW-w64. Kai should probably chime in here with his recommendation on the technical side. If/w

Re: Roadmap for 4.9.1, 4.10.0 and onwards?

On 05/20/14 04:09, Bruce Adams wrote: Hi, I've been tracking the latest releases of gcc since 4.7 or so (variously interested in C++1y support, cilk and openmp). One thing I've found hard to locate is information about planned inclusions for future releases. As much relies on unpredictable commun

Re: use of sphinx/rest as source for GNAT doc

On 05/23/14 09:23, Arnaud Charlet wrote: At AdaCore, we have switched most of our product documentation the rest/sphinx format: http://sphinx-doc.org/ which provides most of the advantages of texinfo (text format, can generate output in multiple formats, supported by free software), as well as ad

Re: [RFC] PR61300 K&R incoming args

On 05/26/14 01:38, Alan Modra wrote: PR61300 shows a need to differentiate between incoming and outgoing REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE for the PowerPC64 ELFv2 ABI, due to code like function.c:assign_parm_is_stack_parm determining that a stack home is available for incoming args if REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE is

Re: RFA: [VAX] SUBREG of MEM with a mode dependent address

On 05/25/14 18:19, Matt Thomas wrote: But even if movhi is a define_expand, as far as I can tell there's isn't enough info to know whether that is possible. At that time, how can I tell that operands[0] will be a hard reg or operands[1] will be subreg of a mode dependent memory access? At that

Re: [RFC] PR61300 K&R incoming args

On 05/31/14 00:30, Alan Modra wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:27:52AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/26/14 01:38, Alan Modra wrote: PR61300 shows a need to differentiate between incoming and outgoing REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE for the PowerPC64 ELFv2 ABI, due to code like

Re: ACM SIGPLAN Programming Languages Software Award

On 06/12/14 02:16, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:18 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: It gives me great pleasure to announce that GCC has won the ACM SIGPLAN Programming Languages Software Award Congratulations to the entire GCC Community! That's great! Most definitely. Sadly, we

Re: Should we be updating copyright years on branches?

On 06/13/14 03:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote: I just realised that all our source files still say -2013 on the 4.8 branch, because the branch was created last year and the script to update all the files in January only gets run on trunk. Is that a problem, or is it OK for files on the branches t

Re: combine_simplify_rtx (doesn't) commute XOR and ASHIFTRT ???

On 06/24/14 07:42, Alan Lawrence wrote: I'm looking at git commit ea1ac559 / svn r76965, January 2014 (archive: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-01/msg03406.html), which prevents (ashiftrt (xor A C1) C2) from being commuted to (xor (ashiftrt A C2) (ashiftrt C1 C2)) and wondering if any

Re: Question about GCC's standard dependent optimization

On 06/26/14 02:44, Bin.Cheng wrote: Hi, I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then does optimization like below: movip, sp stmfdsp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, r10, fp, ip, lr, pc} sub

Re: Question about GCC's standard dependent optimization

On 06/26/14 14:13, Jeff Law wrote: On 06/26/14 02:44, Bin.Cheng wrote: Hi, I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then does optimization like below: movip, sp stmfdsp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8

Re: combination of read/write and earlyclobber constraint modifier

On 07/01/14 13:27, Tom de Vries wrote: Vladimir, There are a few patterns which use both the read/write constraint modifier (+) and the earlyclobber constraint modifier (&): ... $ grep -c 'match_operand.*+.*&' gcc/config/*/* | grep -v :0 gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md:1 gcc/config/arc/arc.md

Re: combination of read/write and earlyclobber constraint modifier

On 07/01/14 13:58, Marc Glisse wrote: I don't think we can define any reasonable semantics for &+. My recommendation would be for this to be considered a hard error. Uh? The doc explicitly says "An input operand can be tied to an earlyclobber operand" and goes on to explain why that is useful.

Re: combination of read/write and earlyclobber constraint modifier

On 07/02/14 00:23, Marc Glisse wrote: On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote: On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote: So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so, what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ? I don't think we can define any r

Re: Enable EBX for x86 in 32bits PIC code

On 07/07/14 04:42, Richard Biener wrote: 1. While call expand emit SET_GOT -> EBX and MOV EBX -> some local register: LGOT Prior to each call emit MOV LGOT -> EBX Use LGOT as new GOT register for globals. 2. Set EBX as each CALL parameter. Emit MOV EBX->LGOT in each call. Use LGOT as new GOT r

Re: obsolete targets

On 07/09/14 20:23, Trevor Saunders wrote: Hi, I've noticed that the following targets are built in config-list.mk with --enable-obsolete i686-interix3 - doesn't appear to actually require --enable-obsolete though, should it be marked as obsolete in config.gcc? score-* and picochip-* since atleas

Re: mn10300, invariants on DEP_PRO/DEP_CON and on TARGET_SCHED_ADJUST_COST params

On 07/08/14 14:21, David Malcolm wrote: [CCing nickc, who wrote the mn10300 hook in question] I'm experimenting with separating out instructions from expressions in RTL; see [1] for more info on that. I noticed that mn10300 has this implementation of a target hook: #define TARGET_SCHED_ADJUS

Re: SC: New MIPS maintainers needed

On 07/22/14 06:56, Richard Sandiford wrote: I'll need to step down as MIPS maintainer this weekend in order to avoid a possible conflict of interest with a new job. SC: please could you appoint some new maintainers to take over? We'll get the process started. Stepping down doesn't require you

Re: [Copyright transfer] What to do for copyright transfer to FSF for contracted changes?

On 07/21/14 10:19, Andre Vehreschild wrote: Hi, I am a freelancer contracted to fix some bugs in the fortran compiler. I understand that I need to transfer the copyright of that effort to the FSF. My client and me are willing to sign any paperwork needed for that. Unfortunately my client will be

Re: GCC version bikeshedding

On 07/23/14 10:20, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: I am also fine with it. I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to make them. Otherwise I think we should go with this plan. To me, the basic summary of the idea is that there is no clear reason to ever change the GCC major vers

Re: Prototype of a --report-bug option

On 07/29/14 12:35, David Malcolm wrote: At Cauldron on the Sunday morning there was a Release Management BoF session, replacing the specRTL talk (does anyone know what happened to the latter?) One of the topics was bug triage, and how many bug reports lacked basic metadata on e.g. host/build/tar

Re: Help w/ PR61538?

On 08/07/14 03:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 7 August 2014 06:33, Joshua Kinardwrote: For my own information, what's the cutoff date for fixes to regressions like this to make it into gcc-4.9.1? A month ago, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-07/msg00103.html The GCC home page has links to the st

Re: GCC version bikeshedding

On 08/06/14 04:50, Marc Glisse wrote: A clean .so.7 break would be significantly worse nightmare. We've been there many years ago, e.g. 3.2/3.3 vs. 3.4, there has been significantly fewer C++ plugins etc. in packages and it still it was unsolvable. With the abi_tag stuff, you have the option to

Re: Could you please clarify about GCC optimizations?

On 08/08/14 06:18, Evgeniya Maenkova wrote: As far as I know, there are so many configurations (frontends x backends x applications(benchmarks) x etc), that the same optimization could improve performance in one configuration and degrade at other conditions. Correct. What performance tests do

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >