On October 7, 2016 8:03:34 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>On 10/07/2016 11:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On October 7, 2016 6:49:39 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor
> wrote:
>>> While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the
>bounds
>>> of the poi
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> I was having a look at PR71636 and added the following pattern to match.pd:
> x & ((1U << b) - 1) -> x & ~(~0U << b)
> However the transform is useful only if the target supports "andnot"
> instruction.
> As pointed out by Marc in PR for -mar
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > I was having a look at PR71636 and added the following pattern to match.pd:
> > x & ((1U << b) - 1) -> x & ~(~0U << b)
> > However the transform is useful only if the target supports "andnot"
> > instr
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Andre Vieira (lists)
wrote:
>
>> That is correct. In RTL constants are always sign-extended from their
>> precision to HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, regardless if it is "signed" or
>> "unsigned" constant. Whether you treat the low precision bits of the
>> constant as
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 10:01 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>>
>> After the "Add Early VRP" GCC trunk commit r240291 (Kugan CC for your
>> information), I've been observing all kinds of OpenACC offloading
>> failures. I now figured out what's going on.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> After the "Add Early VRP" GCC trunk commit r240291 (Kugan CC for your
> information), I've been observing all kinds of OpenACC offloading
> failures. I now figured out what's going on.
>
> The "evrp" pass uses basic_block's BB_VIS
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/14/16 05:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> The BB_VISITED flag has indetermined state at the beginning of a pass.
>> You have to ensure it is cleared yourself.
>
>
> In that case the openacc (&nvptx?) pas
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 11:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Bernd Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So maybe it should just call clear_bb_flags instead of doing the loop
>>>
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 13 October 2016 at 13:22, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 October 2016 at 14:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Mar
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:06:59 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> > On 10/14/16 05:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> >> T
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:22:17 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:06:59 +0200, Richard Biener
>> >
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> http://wg21.link/p0137
> adds std::launder which is supposed to be some kind of aliasing optimization
> barrier.
>
> What is unclear to me is if we really need compiler support for that.
> I have unfortunately not found many examples:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:38:50 +0200, I wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:08:44 +0200, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> > wrote:
>> &g
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 10/21/2016 03:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> Status
>> ==
>>
>> Trunk which will eventually become GCC 7 is still in Stage 1 but its
>> end is near and we are planning to transition into Stage 3 starting
>> Nov 13th end of day time zon
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 10:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>
>
>>> Note that I haven't found the time to implement the vectorization of
>>> log/exp/si
I've posted two patches implementing a GIMPLE Frontend to the extent
required for simple unit testing of GIMPLE passes. The work was
mostly done by Prasad Ghangal during this years GSoC project. I've
picked it up to ensure it would be ready for the end of stage1
even though the frontend itself c
On November 11, 2016 6:34:37 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor
wrote:
>I noticed that variables of signed integer types that are constrained
>to a specific subrange of values of the type like so:
>
> [-TYPE_MAX + N, N]
>
>are reported by get_range_info as the anti-range
>
> [-TYPE_MAX, TYPE_MI
or I'm unknowingly invoking in the code, or it may be a code
> generation bug in gcc. I tried to isolate the exact gcc commit that
> caused the change, but I got stuck...
>
> Starting from SVN revision 236320:
>
> 2016-05-17 Richard Biener
>
> P
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> As described in the covering note, one of big differences for SVE is that
> things like mode sizes, offsets, and numbers of vector elements can depend
> on a runtime parameter. This message describes how the SVE patches handle
> that and
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_mode, int)’:
>> /home/arth/src/gcc
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> Constructing variable-length vectors
>>>
>>&
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've recently revisited an ancient patch from Paolo
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00551.html) which uses
> asserts as optimization hints. I've rewritten the patch to be more
> stable under expressions with side-ef
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
>>>>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> 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 Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the comments.
>>>
>>> Richard Biener writes:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Alexander Cherepanov
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Pascal Cuoq communicated to me the following example:
>
> int ar1(int (*p)[3], int (*q)[3])
> {
> (*p)[0] = 1;
> (*q)[1] = 2;
> return (*p)[0];
> }
>
> gcc of versions 4.9.2 and 7.0.0 20161129 optimize it with -O2 on the
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> but that probably shouldn't apply to array types. The idea is that
>> objects of the same type cannot overlap. Maybe Joseph can clarify whether
>> and arra
Status
==
It has been some time since the last release from the GCC 6 branch.
Thus the plan is to do GCC 6.3 before Christmas which means a release
candidate mid next week. Until then the GCC 6 branch is still open
for regression and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority
On December 7, 2016 6:27:56 PM GMT+01:00, Florian Weimer
wrote:
>* Alexander Monakov:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> > For example, this might have impact on writing test for GCC:
>>> >
>>> > When I am writing a test with noinline + noclone then my
>>> > expectation is th
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >Agreed, that's what I've been using in the past for glibc test cases.
>> >
>> >If that doesn't work, we'll need something else. Separate com
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jakub Jelinek:
>
> > + if (lookup_attribute ("used", attributes) == NULL)
> > + attributes = tree_cons (get_identifier ("used"), NULL, attributes);
>
> Attribute “used” seems different to me from the rest. Based on the
> documentation, I wo
s PROP_gimple_lvec for example and that
the provider is not executed.
"Fixing" that correctly requires some re-thinking of how we
schedule passes in general, but for the moment the following patch
works for me...
(testing)
Richard.
2016-12-20 Richard Biener
* passes
(set (reg:SI 5 di [orig:90 ivtmp.9 ] [90])
> (plus:SI (reg:SI 5 di [orig:90 ivtmp.9 ] [90])
> (const_int -1 [0x])))
> (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
> ]) 210 {*addsi_1}
> (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:CC 17 flags)
> (nil)))
> (jump_insn 35 14 36 4 (set (pc)
> (label_ref 15)) -1
> (nil)
> -> 15)
> (barrier 36 35 34)
> (code_label 34 36 30 5 5 "" [1 uses])
> (note 30 34 28 5 [bb 5] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
> (note 28 30 29 5 NOTE_INSN_EPILOGUE_BEG)
> (jump_insn 29 28 31 5 (simple_return) "pr30908.c":5 708
> {simple_return_internal}
> (nil)
> -> simple_return)
>
>
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
(perhaps also HFmode?), the only way to get it working is through
> emulation (whether soft-fp, or writing some emulation using double,
> whatever). Pretending long double on the host is DFmode on the PTX side
> just won't work, they have different representation.
>
> Jakub
>
>
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
On Mon, 2 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:49:55PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > If the host has long double the same as double, sure, PTX can use its
> > > native
> > > DFmode even for long double. But otherwise, th
On January 6, 2017 2:11:51 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:07:23PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> On 06/01/17 12:48, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > SUSE and some other distros use a hack that omits the minor and
>patchlevel
>> > versions from the directory layout, just us
On April 22, 2014 9:28:15 PM CEST, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>Richi,
>
>David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing
>reviewers
>for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any
>
>reviewers for wide-int in the long term, I think that it would be
>useful
>to
al (for some
> definition of trivial).
Yeah. Note that it's difficult to define "reviewer for code that
uses wide-int", thus my question (that is, what do you put into
MAINTAINERS and how would you interpret the entry).
But as always we apply common sense to reviewer/maintainershi
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23 April 2014 10:33, Rainer Emrich wrote:
>>
>> The requested URL /onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.0/libstdc++-api.pdf.gz was not found on
>> this server.
>
> Yes, onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.0/libstdc++-api-gfdl.xml.gz is also missing, I
> didn't figure out
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank-you for selecting me for GSoC 2014, I am looking forward to
> working with GCC community. I am grateful to Richard Biener and Diego Novillo
> for choosing to mentor me for this project. Unfortunately, I coul
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Benedikt Huber
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I want to uninline some basic blocks to a separate function to aid slp
> vectorization.
> The new pass runs just before the slp vectorization pass.
> As a first try I create an new and empty function.
> Which in turn will be filled
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Jeff Law wrote:
> 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
> > syn
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 April 2014 11:22, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
>> virtual method is reachable from a call site. If type information
>> indicates that it is not, devirt marks the site as unr
On April 25, 2014 4:54:28 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>Hi,
>I have a daft question to ask. I was looking through genmatch, I
>couldn't figure out why is tree code class (TYPE) stringified in call
>to add_operator () ?
>
>#define DEFTREECODE (SYM, STRING, TYPE, NARGS) \
>add_operat
On April 25, 2014 5:54:09 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am trying to print points-to information for SSA variables as below.
>
> for (i = 1; i < num_ssa_names; i++)
> {
> tree ptr = ssa_name (i);
> struct ptr_info_def *pi;
>
> if (ptr == NULL_TREE
> ||
On April 25, 2014 6:56:00 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On April 25, 2014 4:54:28 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>I have a daft question to ask. I was looking through genmatch
On April 26, 2014 12:31:34 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
wrote:
>
>On Friday 25 April 2014 11:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On April 25, 2014 5:54:09 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am trying to print points-to information for SSA var
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On April 26, 2014 12:31:34 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
> wrote:
>>
>>On Friday 25 April 2014 11:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On April 25, 2014 5:54:09 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
>> wrote:
>>>> He
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Swati Rathi wrote:
> On Monday 28 April 2014 02:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On April 26, 2014 12:31:34 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
>>> wrote:
>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've recently noticed that GCC generates suboptimal code for Asan on ARM
> targets. E.g. for a 4-byte memory access check
>
> (shadow_val != 0) & (last_byte >= shadow_val)
>
> we get the following sequence:
>
> movr2, r0
internally operate on that,
not on the eventually slow int64_t. But that's a separate
issue.
So - any objections?
Thanks,
Richard.
2014-04-29 Richard Biener
libcpp/
* configure.ac: Always set need_64bit_hwint to yes.
* configure: Regenerated.
* config.gcc: Alw
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Kyrill Tkachov writes:
> > On 28/04/14 18:03, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> >> At this point we have believe that we have addressed all of the concerns
> >> that the community has made about the wide-int branch. We have also
> >> had each of the section
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 t
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:03 PM, BELBACHIR Selim
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I encountered a problem on test 'gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-7.c' (gcc4.7.3)
> on my private port during test case "-O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects"
>
> Here is the tested code :
>
> void foo (unsigned int n)
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Benedikt Huber
wrote:
> Thank you for the hint. I managed to extract the basic blocks to a helper
> function and put
> a call to this helper function at the place of the removed basic blocks in
> the original function.
> All this is done with help of move_sese_re
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>assuming the need to generate code in which
> almost everything is used 3x (e.g. 3x registers,
> 3 times data, etc.) for a specific purpose (*) for any
> given target,
> what would be the best way to implement it?
>
> (let's name t
Status
==
After releasing GCC 4.9.0 it is now time to think about a GCC 4.8.3
release. The branch remains in release-branch mode for now until
we do a first release candidate somewhen next week. This means you
have about a week to do backports of important regression fixes - now
that GCC 4.
ws the issue?
Richard.
>
>
> On Tuesday 29 April 2014 02:47 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Swati Rathi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday 28 April 2014 02:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 08:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> It really depends on how "3x" should materialize in the end.
>> How do you triplicate ops with side-effects? If you only
>> triplicate ops without side-effe
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Swati Rathi wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2014 04:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Swati Rathi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In some cases, GCC's pta pass does not dump the points-to informatio
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 21:11, Roman Gareev wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tobias,
>>
>> thank you for your reply! I have questions about types. Could you
>> please answer them?
>
>
> I looked through them and most seem to be related to how we derive types in
> graph
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 06/05/2014 10:19, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Hi Richi,
>
> thanks for the comments.
>
>
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/05/2014 21:11, Roman Gareev wro
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I would like to resurrect -Wunreachable, using an algorithm which is roughly
> based on the Java rules for reachable statements and normal completion,
> augmented to deal with labels and gotos, no-return functions, statement
> expressions, an
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 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 t
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/06/2014 04:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Like I have suggested in the past a good point to do this kind of analysis
>> on the (mostly, as you say) unoptimized IL is right after going into SSA
>> form and im
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 02:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Depends on what "trivially" unreachable is. Yes,
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>if (0)
>> foo ();
>> }
>>
>> will a
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 02:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> Precisely. But optimizing this:
>>>
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> if (0)
>>> foo ();
>>> els
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> I have few questions regarding genmatch:
>
> a) When simplification fails, we continue pattern matching with the next
> pattern
> in the order they appear in match.pd. Is that necessary ?
> Could we not simply return false fro
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:21 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Given this in tree.h:
>
> struct int_n_trees_t {
> tree signed_type;
> tree unsigned_type;
> };
Mark with GTY(())
> extern struct int_n_trees_t int_n_trees[NUM_INT_N_ENTS];
Likewise. See how global_trees is marked for example.
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 02:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> The more challenging issue with early GIMPLE is that loops have already
>>> been
>>> lowered to gotos, so adopting the syntax-based Java reachability
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>>
>>> a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
>>> in x_.\\\(D\\\) ? Why does x_.\(D\) not work ?
>>
>> Two of the three backslas
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wro
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wro
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>> So I came along the need to add another predicate for REAL_CST
>> leafs which makes me wonder if we should support tree codes
>> as predicates. Thus instead of writing
>>
>> (match_and_simplify
>> (plus (plus @0 INTEGER_CST_P@1) INTEGER_CST_P@2)
>> (plus @0 (plus @1 @2)))
>>
>> write
>>
>>
>>> * I have written test-cases for patterns in match.pd (attached patch), which
>>> result in PASS. Could you review them for me ?
>>
>> Sure. It looks good to me, though you can look at the changed match-1.c
>> testcase on the branch where I've changed the matching to look for the
>> debug outpu
Status
==
The 4.8 branch is now frozen as I am preparing a first release
candidate for 4.8.3. All patches to the branch now require
explicit approval from release managers.
Previous Report
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-05/msg00026.html
GCC 4.8.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
The first release candidate for GCC 4.8.3 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8.3-RC-20140515
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 210453.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ian Bolton wrote:
> Hi, fellow GCC developers!
>
> I was wondering if the "gcc" driver could be made to invoke
> "cc1" twice, with different flags, and then just keep the
> better of the two .s files that comes out?
I'd be interested in your .s comparison tool tha
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> To me predicate (and capture without expression or predicate)
>> differs from expression in that predicate is clearly a leaf of the
>> expression tree
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
>Unfortunately I shall need to take this week off, due to university exams,
> which are up-to 27th May. I will start working from 28th on pattern
> matching with decision tree, and try to cover up for the first week. I
> am extr
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>Unfortunately I shall need to take this week off, due to
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 20 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> > Syntaxwise I had this idea for adding generic predicates to expressions:
>> >
>> > (plus (minus @0 @1):predicate
>> > @2)
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is somebody already working on the regressions which appeared yesterday,
> see:
David, did you forget to run the testsuite?
Richard.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-05/msg01920.html
>
> ie:
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/dev
Status
==
GCC 4.8.3 has been released, the branch is now open again under the usual
release branch rules (regression fixes and documentation fixes only).
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.8.3 has been released.
GCC 4.8.3 is the third bug-fix release containing important fixes for
regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.8.2 with over 141 bugs fixed since
the previous release.
This release is available from the FTP servers listed at:
http://ww
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM, FX wrote:
>> > .././../gcc-4.10-20140518/gcc/wide-int.cc:1274:23: error: invalid use of a
>> > cast in a inline asm context requiring an l-value: remove the cast or
>> > build with -fheinous-gnu-extensions
>> > umul_ppmm (val[1], val[0], op1.ulow (), op2
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To attract more eyes, I should have used a scarier subject like "GCC's
> vectorizer is heading in the wrong direction on big-endian targets".
>
> The idea came from a simple vectorization case I ran into and a
> discussion with Richard.
Status
==
As GCC 4.9.0 is out it is time to retire the GCC 4.7 branch. Following
the established process we will do a last release from the branch and
close it afterwards. The plan is to do a release candidate for GCC 4.7.4
early next week.
The GCC 4.7 branch remains in regression and docu
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Benedikt Huber
wrote:
> (Sorry for the duplicate.)
>
> I managed to pass the needed parameters to the generated function.
> However I cannot pin down the reason why the compilation fails.
> It seems that the cfg is somehow broken, but I cannot tell how.
> Do you ha
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Benedikt Huber
wrote:
>
> On 27 May 2014, at 17:09, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Benedikt Huber
>> wrote:
>>> (Sorry for the duplicate.)
>>>
>>> I managed to pass the needed par
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:36:31AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On May 26, 2014, at 2:22 AM, FX wrote:
>> >> This causes GCC bootstrap to fail on Darwin systems (whose system
>> >> compiler is clang-based). Since PR 61146 was resolved as INV
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, FX wrote:
>> Yeah, a portable (C and C++) static assert would be nice. And also pushing
>> this to gmp then.
>>
>> In the meantime I see nothing wrong in "merging" from GMP.
>
> One question, one comment:
>
> 1. can I count your “I see nothing wrong” as an approv
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:36:31AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>>>> On May 26, 2014, at 2:22 AM, FX wrote:
>>>&g
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:36:31AM -0700, Mike Stump
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:38:55AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, FX wrote:
>> >> Yeah, a portable (C and C++) static assert would be nice. And also
>> >> pushing
>&
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:38:55AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, FX wrote:
>>> >> Yeah, a portable (C and
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
>>>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
401 - 500 of 2613 matches
Mail list logo
