On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:15 PM, FX wrote:
>> After lengthy IRC discussions, what Richard and I can live with is
>> && !defined(__clang__) in this particular case that uses longlong.h
>> in GCC sources, with a comment why.
>
> I’ll test this patch and commit if there is no problem. But right now,
ically, work back
from the ICE ...
Richard.
> Best regards,
> Benedikt
>
> On 27 May 2014, at 17:35, Benedikt Huber
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27 May 2014, at 17:25, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Benedikt Huber
>>>
Status
==
The GCC 4.7 branch is now frozen as I am preparing a first release
candidate for GCC 4.7.4. All changes from now on require release
manager approval. After GCC 4.7.4 is released the branch will be
closed.
Previous Report
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-04/msg001
GCC 4.7.4 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.4 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.4-RC-20140602
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 211126.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> I have few questions regarding genmatch:
>
> a) Why is 4 hard-coded here: ?
> in write_nary_simplifiers:
> fprintf (f, " tree captures[4] = {};\n");
Magic number (this must be big enough for all cases ...). Honestly
this should b
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni skribis:
>
>> Example:
>> /* x & 0 -> 0 */
>> (match_and_simplify
>> (bit_and @0 @1)
>> if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0)) && (@1 == integer_zero_node))
>> { integer_zero_node; })
>>
>> /* x & -1 -> x */
On June 2, 2014 11:30:20 PM CEST, "Joseph S. Myers"
wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> On 05/31/2014 08:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>>
>> > > It's fine to change ABI when compiling an old-style function
>> > > definition for which a prototype exists (relative to the
>> > > non-p
tion but it
> seems strange.
> Do you have any guess why this happens?
It probably vanishes because this is the function you ICE for?
> Thank you,
> Benedikt
>
> On 28 May 2014, at 15:50, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Benedikt Huber
>>
__N_bar then compilation stops - passes after IPA
are executed for one function all to the end, so this just means the
original bar
wasn't processed yet.
Richard.
> On 03 Jun 2014, at 15:14, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Benedikt Huber
>> wro
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Niranjan Hasabnis
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was studying i386 machine description for my research purpose,
> and I stumbled upon following MD entry for 'shrdl' x86 instruction.
> It is obtained from the most recent i386.md file.
>
> (define_insn "x86_shrd"
> [(set (m
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> I have few questions regarding genmatch:
>>>
>&
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
>>
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> With recent changes to it, the bswap pass can now replace a series of
> (probably aligned) load + bitwise operation (AND, OR and shifts) + casts
> by a (potentially unaligned) load and a bswap. I was rightfully pointed
> o
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
>>
On June 10, 2014 8:04:13 PM CEST, Steven Noonan wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>>> We have been chasing a memory corruption bug, which turned out to be
>>> caused by very old gcc (4.3.4), which happily turne
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:16 PM
>>
>
>> In general this is impossible to do. I don't have a good answer on
>> how to determine
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:09 PM
>
>> >
>> > Oh I see. Doing it there would mean instead of two independent
>> > operat
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>&
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> 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!
The gcc.gnu.org page has a news item but it doesn't contain a l
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 6/11/14, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 10
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> I noticed there is below code/comments about may_be_zero field in loop
> niter desc:
>
> tree may_be_zero;/* The boolean expression. If it evaluates to true,
>the loop will exit in the first iteration (i.e.
>
The GCC 4.7 branch is now closed, please refrain from committing anything
there now.
Richard.
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.7.4 has been released.
GCC 4.7.4 is the last bug-fix release from the GCC 4.7 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 4.7.3 with more than 134 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the FTP serv
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Zdenek Dvorak
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> > I noticed there is below code/comments about may_be_zero field in loop
>>> > niter desc:
>>> >
>>> > tree may_be_zero;/* The boolean expression. If it evaluates to
On June 13, 2014 11:48:13 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/11/14, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014
On June 13, 2014 11:48:13 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/11/14, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> I have attached patch that tries to implement decision tree using the
> above algorithm.
> (haven't done for built-in function yet, but that would be sim
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> I have worked on the Open64 compiler where the Register Pressure Guided
> Unroll and Jam gave a good amount of performance improvement for the C and
> C++ Spec Benchmark and also Fortran benchmarks.
>
> The Unroll and J
On June 16, 2014 6:39:58 PM CEST, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 7:55 PM
>To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
>Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Vladimir Makarov; Michael Eager; Vinod K
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> > * Patterns requiring GENERIC support like cond_expr
>> > I am not sure about how to handle these patterns. I was thinking about
&g
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Biener
>> >
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi,
> I am looking at a performance regression in our code. A big loop produces
> and uses a lot of temporary variables inside the loop body. The problem
> appears that IVOPTS pass creates even more induction variables (from original
> 2 to 27
e hack of special handling according to operator classes.
> For now, I added op:c syntax to denote operator op as commutative.
Good, otherwise we really get too many permutes.
> Example: (does not commutate outer plus since it's not marked commutative).
> (plus (plus:c@0 @1 @2))
> gener
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
Replying to the last mail in the th
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
&
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>> Thanks for nice benchmarks. Vladimir.
>>>
>>> Why is GCC code size so much bigger than LLVM? Does -Ofast have more
>>> unrolling
>>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 2014-06-25, 5:32 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
>>
>> On 25 June 2014 10:26, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is GCC code size so much bigger than LLVM? Does -Ofast have more
>>> unrolling
>>> on GCC? It doesn't seem increasing code size help
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, 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
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> Sergey Boldyrev writes:
>
>> I've tried to download the latest 4.7.4 version from
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-4.7.4
>> and couldn't successfully check the MD5 sum,
>> which is given there in the "md5.sum" file.
>> gcc-4.7.4.tar
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:13 PM, 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
>>
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> Greetings everybody,
>
> I'm seeking your advice on how to best solve a bug. The issue has to do with
> folding a bitfield contained in a union. Consider the following example:
>
> union U {
> unsigned int a:24;
> unsigned int b:20;
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:32 PM
>> > 4) Cast value stored in a according to the size of b by removing bits of
>> > highest weight (vi
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Using LTO to create a DSO works fine (i.e., it performs the expected
> optimizations) for symbols which are marked with visibility
> attributes. It does not work, though, when the symbol is not
> restricted in its visibility in the source f
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:10 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Revisiting an old thread, as I still want to get this feature in...
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00099.html
>
>> >> Why do you need to change varasm.c at all? The hunks seem to be
>> >> completely separate of the attribute.
>> >
>
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Currently GCC permanently reserves EBX as the GOT register.
>
> (config/i386/i386.c:4289)
>
> /* The PIC register, if it exists, is fixed. */
> j = PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM;
> if (j != INVALID_REGNUM)
>
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Andrew Engelbrecht wrote:
>> there are no .sig files here:
>>
>> http://www.netgull.com/gcc/releases/gcc-4.8.2/
>>
>> i assumed that gcc didn't use gpg for releases, and became very
>> discouraged about the idea of build
On July 9, 2014 12:49:15 PM CEST, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>Hi,
>I noticed recent GCC adds ivdep pragma support. We have our own
>implementation for ivdep for a couple of years now. As GCC
>implementation is much cleaner and we want to migrate to it. Ivdep is
>consumed in two places in our implementati
On July 10, 2014 8:31:54 AM CEST, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm trying to get to the bottom of a bug when using the D front-end
>with -flto.
>
>When compiling anything, it always ICEs at in
>streamer_get_pickled_tree, at tree-streamer-in.c.
>
>The of it appears to be that the LTO frontend seems t
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 10 July 2014 08:26, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On July 10, 2014 8:31:54 AM CEST, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I'm trying to get to the bottom of a bug when using the D front-end
>>>wit
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 10 July 2014 10:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>> On 10 July 2014 08:26, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On July 10, 2014 8:31:54 AM CEST, Iain Buclaw
>&
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 10 July 2014 10:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Iain Buclaw
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10 July 2014 08:26, Richar
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
>I have attempted to add syntax for symbol to denote multiple operators.
>
> I tried it with few bogus patterns and it appears to work hopefully -:)
> eg: (bogus pattern):
> (for op in plus minus
> (match_and_simplify
>
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> I was wondering if it was a good idea to implement
> predicate on expressions ?
>
> Sth like:
> (match_and_simplify
> (op (op2:predicate @0))
> transform)
>
> instead of:
> (match_and_simplify
> (op (op2@1 @0))
> if (predicate
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> I was wondering if it was a good idea to implement
>>> predica
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> I was wondering if it was a good idea to implement
>> predicate on expressions ?
>>
>> Sth like:
>> (match_and_simplify
>>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
&
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> This is not a patch review, lets move this to gcc@gcc.gnu.org.
>
>
> On 15/07/2014 17:03, Roman Gareev wrote:
>>
>> I've found out that int128_integer_type_node and
>> long_long_integer_type_node are NULL at the moment of definition of
>> th
On July 20, 2014 5:55:06 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>So, what versioning scheme have we actually agreed on, before I change
>it in
>wwwdocs? Is that
>5.0.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.0.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 5.1.0 in ~ April
>2016,
>or
>5.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 6
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>
>> Andreas Schwab writes:
>>> Richard Sandiford writes:
So if x.y.z is __GNU__.__GNU_MINOR__.__GNU_PATCHLEVEL__ then the positions
in the number stay the same but the meanings of __GNU_MINOR__ and
>>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 08:44:41AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> So why
>> not just stick to the current scheme and have 5.0.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2 etc.?
>
> Yes, why would we use a different numbering scheme now? There is no change
> in
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:56 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> I believe that sometimes gcc is promoting the ints to long longs when doing
> the overflow testing. If I try to overflow a long long, I get the trap as
> expected.
Yes, I think that's one issue - see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:20:23AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to make
>> them. Otherwise I think we should go with this plan.
>
> My preference was to keep the current ve
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> 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 id
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 07/24/2014 05:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 16:23 +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>> I would like to encapsulate all symtab_nodes to a class called
>>> 'symtab'.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> To respect
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 07/24/2014 05:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 16:23 +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hell
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Mertes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24 at 10:36 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Fact is that if somebody is interested in
>> -ftrapv he/she is welcome to contribute patches. Especially testing
>> coverage is poor.
>
> As I said I hav
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Mertes wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24 at 10:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> Fact is that if somebody is interested in
>>> -ftrapv he/she is welcome to contri
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Mertes wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 24 at 10:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> Fact is that
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Thomas Mertes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:35, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Mertes wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 24 at 10:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> > wrote:
>> >> Fact is that
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
>This patch adds support for outer-if expressions.
>
> Couple of issues:
> a) Doesn't interop with for-pattern, since we don't replace identifier
> in c-expr yet,
> and this gets more complicated with addition of outer-if.
Doe
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have the following syntax
> for literals:
> (type val) ?
> type would be one of the tree-codes representing cst types like
> INTEGER_CST, REAL_CST, etc.
>
> eg:
> (negate (integer
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> I am having few issues replacing op in c_expr.
> I thought of following possibilities:
>
> a) create a new vec vector new_code.
> for each token in code
> {
> if token.type is not CPP_NAME
> new_code.safe_push (token);
>
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Thomas Mertes wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Thomas Mertes wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:35, Richard Biener
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Fr
On July 29, 2014 6:45:13 PM CEST, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>> I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to
>make
>> them. Otherwise I think we should go with this plan.
>
>IMHO the cure is worse than the disease.
>
>> Given that there is no clear reason to ever change the major
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 PM, 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
> metadat
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
>Sorry to ask a stupid question, but I am having issues writing patterns
> involving casts. I am trying to write patterns from simplify_rotate.
>
> Could you show me how to write a patterns that involve
> casts ?
> for eg:
> ((
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>Sorry to ask a stupid question, but I am having issues writing patterns
>> involving casts. I am trying to write patterns from simplify
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
&g
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
&g
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>Sorry to ask a stupid question, but I am having issues wri
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
&
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>Sorry to ask a stupid question, but I am having issues writing patterns
>>> involving
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> I am having few issues replacing op in c_expr.
>>> I thought of follow
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> This patch adds the following rotate pattern:
> ((T) ((T2) X << CNT1)) + ((T) ((T2) X >> CNT2)) iff CNT1 + CNT2 == B
>
> Depends on the following patch (not yet committed):
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg00128.html
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> Please find my note attached for the presentation on "Unifying GENERIC
> and GIMPLE folding with pattern description" at Cauldron.
> I would be grateful if you would review it for me.
Looks good to me.
Richard.
> Thanks,
>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 09:25:48AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> > What do you propose that we do?
>>
>> Probably just jump to 5.0 (or 5.1) without the subsequent acceleration.
>
> That was my preference too.
What singles out 5.0 to warrant
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 10:44:11AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 09:25:48AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> >> &g
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 6 August 2014 10:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> > - libstdc++ ABI changes (it is a significant user visible change,
>>> > if you rebui
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 6 August 2014 10:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> > - libstdc++ ABI chang
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 6 August 2014 11:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 6 August 2014 10:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, so the problematical case is
>>>
>>> struct X { std::string s; };
>&g
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Currently, we treat predicates as "second-class" citizens:
> - assume any identifier as a valid predicate
> - cannot write more complex predicates than an identifier in match-op
>
> I was wondering whether it would be a good idea
> to av
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
&
501 - 600 of 2616 matches
Mail list logo
