Re: [PATCH] prune warn_compact_unwind warnings on darwin

On Mar 12, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > Xcode 4.0's linker now defaults on... > > -warn_compact_unwind So, if this is a flag, and we can turn the warning off, and we truly don't care about the warnings, why not just use -no_warn_compact_unwind? That would be preferable, I think

Re: [objc++] RFH: PR 48167 gengtype failure (issue4291054)

On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Nicola Pero wrote: > This all looks ugly. Anyhow, until someone refactors everything, the > following > patch fixes ObjC++ bootstrap in trunk by processing cp/parser.h in the same > way > as the other C++ headers are processed. :-) > > Ok to commit ? Ok for the Ob

Re: [PATCH, 4.7] Have all inlining destinations "analyzed"

Hi, On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 03:30:53PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > Index: src/gcc/cgraph.c > > === > > --- src.orig/gcc/cgraph.c > > +++ src/gcc/cgraph.c > > @@ -2495,11 +2495,11 @@ cgraph_add_new_function (tree fndecl, bo > >

Disallow redefinition of variably modified typedefs

This week's London WG14 meeting decided that typedef redefinition should not be allowed in the case of variably modified types. This patch implements this, giving an error for such redefinitions. Bootstrapped with no regressions on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Applied to mainline. Any comments fro

[PATCH, 4.7] PR 48192, Make conditional macros not defined for #ifdef

This patch makes conditional macros that are used in the PowerPC and SPU ports not be 'defined' for the #ifdef, #ifndef, and #if defined(...) tests. The way the PowerPC and SPU uses conditional macros is provide conditional keywords to support the vector systen (i.e. if the next token after vector

Re: [patch, fortran] Function call optimization

Thomas Koenig wrote: + if (!(*e)->value.function.esym->attr.pure + && !(*e)->value.function.esym->attr.implicit_pure + && !(*e)->value.function.esym->attr.elemental) + return 0; I have not followed the discussion nor have I fully read the patch, but what's the reason f

Re: 4.7 deprecated targets removal patch

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > - and the general reason for not > > > > removing the empty cases is that there are plenty of such cases already > > > > there, some for truly ancient targets. > > > > > > I can understand keeping them when there are later case matches that >

Re: Make C1X anonymous structs/unions follow N1549

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:16:55PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > This week's London WG14 meeting agreed to disallow the use of typedefs > > in declaring anonymous structure and union fields, as per N1549. This > > patch implements this, restricting

Re: [Committed] S/390: Handle GOTOFF unspecs in delegitimize_address

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:37:38PM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > Hi, > > the attached patch adds handling for GOTOFF unspecs to > delegitimize_address. > > A lot of "note: non-delegitimized UNSPEC 112" messages disappear with > this. However not all of them. Please look at http://gcc.gnu.org/

Re: Can't use SImode as Pmode for x32

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:32:45PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > > On 03/18/2011 02:56 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> X86 backend uses Pmode for hardware pointer size. Changes > >> it to 32bit for x32, which is really 64bit process, breaks many > >> a

Re: Can't use SImode as Pmode for x32

On 03/18/2011 03:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > I don't have a complete list. gen_push is one of them: ... > You can only push/pup 64bit in hardware 64bit mode. Ok, seems an easy enough place to use word_mode instead. r~

Re: PATCH: PR rtl-optimization/47502: Never combine asm statement

On 03/18/2011 02:51 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > See analysis in: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47502 You're patching the wrong place. See can_combine_p, which can test for specific sources, rather than cant_combine_insn_p which has no access to sources. r~

Re: 4.7 deprecated targets removal patch

* Joseph S. Myers wrote on Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:09:04PM CET: > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:46:56PM CET: > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > Why not also remove the line before and after this one? > > > >

Re: Can't use SImode as Pmode for x32

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 03/18/2011 02:56 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> X86 backend uses Pmode for hardware pointer size. Changes >> it to 32bit for x32, which is really 64bit process, breaks many >> assumptions of x86 backend. push/pop/call is just the tip of >> the

Re: Make C1X anonymous structs/unions follow N1549

On 3/18/2011 2:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> This week's London WG14 meeting agreed to disallow the use of typedefs >> in declaring anonymous structure and union fields, as per N1549. This >> patch implements this, restricting the use of typedefs in this case to >> -fms-extensions and -fplan9-ex

Re: Can't use SImode as Pmode for x32

On 03/18/2011 02:56 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > X86 backend uses Pmode for hardware pointer size. Changes > it to 32bit for x32, which is really 64bit process, breaks many > assumptions of x86 backend. push/pop/call is just the tip of > the iceberg. Please enumerate "many assumptions". I can't think of

Re: Can't use SImode as Pmode for x32

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 03/17/2011 03:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> It will require very extensive changes to x86 backend since stack pointer >> and frame pointer are really in DImode for x32 as x32 process runs in >> 64bit mode. If you can make it to work, please

Re: Make C1X anonymous structs/unions follow N1549

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:16:55PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > This week's London WG14 meeting agreed to disallow the use of typedefs > in declaring anonymous structure and union fields, as per N1549. This > patch implements this, restricting the use of typedefs in this case to > -fms-extensio

Re: PATCH: PR rtl-optimization/47502: Never combine asm statement

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 03/18/2011 01:56 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eric Botcazou >> wrote: Is this patch OK for trunk? >>> >>> This has always worked for the other ports AFAIK so I don't think we should >>> disable it with

Re: [patch i386,c,c++]: PR/12171 - calling convention omitted in error message

OK. Jason

Re: C++0x PATCH to add -fconstexpr-depth

Thanks for the feedback; fixed. Jason

Make C1X anonymous structs/unions follow N1549

This week's London WG14 meeting agreed to disallow the use of typedefs in declaring anonymous structure and union fields, as per N1549. This patch implements this, restricting the use of typedefs in this case to -fms-extensions and -fplan9-extensions as in 4.5 and earlier releases. Bootstrapped w

Re: [objc++] RFH: PR 48167 gengtype failure (issue4291054)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 16:17, Nicola Pero wrote: > >>> +  /* cp/parser.h gives gt-cp-parser.h for cp/parser.c !  */ >>> +  { DIR_PREFIX_REGEX "cp/parser\\.h$", >>> +    REG_EXTENDED, NULL_REGEX, >>> +    "gt-cp-parser.h", "cp/parser.c", NULL_FRULACT }, >> >> But cp/parser.c also gets its own gt-c

Re: 4.7 deprecated targets removal patch

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:46:56PM CET: > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > > @@ -744,7 +744,6 @@ case "${target}" in > > > > libgloss_dir=cris > > > > ;; > > > >crx-*-*) > > > > -noconfi

Re: [PATCH, i386]: Use indirect functions some more

On 03/18/2011 01:40 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >if (mode == SFmode) > - insn = gen_truncxfsf2 (operands[0], reg); > + insn = gen_truncxfsf2; >else if (mode == DFmode) > - insn = gen_truncxfdf2 (operands[0], reg); > + insn = gen_truncxfdf2; >else > gcc_unrea

Re: PATCH: PR rtl-optimization/47502: Never combine asm statement

On 03/18/2011 01:56 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>> Is this patch OK for trunk? >> >> This has always worked for the other ports AFAIK so I don't think we should >> disable it without evaluating the impact on them. If reload has so many >> problems

Re: Can't use SImode as Pmode for x32

On 03/17/2011 03:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > It will require very extensive changes to x86 backend since stack pointer > and frame pointer are really in DImode for x32 as x32 process runs in > 64bit mode. If you can make it to work, please let me know. Yes, the stack pointer uses all 64 bits for e.g.

Re: PATCH: PR rtl-optimization/47502: Never combine asm statement

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> Is this patch OK for trunk? > > This has always worked for the other ports AFAIK so I don't think we should > disable it without evaluating the impact on them.  If reload has so many > problems with x32, maybe more fundamental changes shoul

[PATCH, i386]: Use indirect functions some more

Hello! Just a trivial cleanup, no functional changes. 2011-03-18 Uros Bizjak * config/i386/i386.md (float2): Rewrite using indirect functions. (lwp_slwpcb): Ditto. (avx_vextractf128): Ditto. (avx_vinsertf128): Ditto. Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu {,-m3

Re: [objc++] RFH: PR 48167 gengtype failure (issue4291054)

>> +  /* cp/parser.h gives gt-cp-parser.h for cp/parser.c !  */ >> +  { DIR_PREFIX_REGEX "cp/parser\\.h$", >> +    REG_EXTENDED, NULL_REGEX, >> +    "gt-cp-parser.h", "cp/parser.c", NULL_FRULACT }, > > But cp/parser.c also gets its own gt-cp-parser.h. Won't they > conflict? Doesn't this mean tha

[google] Cherry pick rev 171161

I have cherry picked rev 171161 (http://codereview.appspot.com/4273077/) from trunk to fix the last testsuite failure we were getting in libstdc++. I've committed the change to google/main. I will commit the same change to google/integration and google/gcc-4_6. Diego.

Re: [PATCH] recog.c: Fix RTX unsharing in change groups

> The attached patch prevents that by doing RTX unsharing for all > subsequent changes after finding a single change where unsharing has > been explicitly requested. This looks like a big hammer. Why not doing it in canonicalize_change_group, i.e. calling validate_unshare_change instead of valid

Re: 4.7 deprecated targets removal patch

* Joseph S. Myers wrote on Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:46:56PM CET: > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > @@ -744,7 +744,6 @@ case "${target}" in > > > libgloss_dir=cris > > > ;; > > >crx-*-*) > > > -noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs target-libstdc++-v3 target-mudflap > >

Re: PATCH: PR rtl-optimization/47502: Never combine asm statement

> Is this patch OK for trunk? This has always worked for the other ports AFAIK so I don't think we should disable it without evaluating the impact on them. If reload has so many problems with x32, maybe more fundamental changes should be made to the x86 back-end to support it. -- Eric Botcaz

Re: [objc++] RFH: PR 48167 gengtype failure (issue4291054)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:59, Nicola Pero wrote: > >> The Obj-C++ FE is kind of weird as it shares files from cp/ and objc/, >> so I'm missing some other connection I need to make to fix this. >> >> Any ideas? > > As far as I can see, the problem is that header files (such as cp/parser.h) > gener

Re: [libstdc++] Split testsuite/decimal/mixed-mode_neg.cc (issue4273077)

Hi, > Like this? Tested on my insanely deep tree and on mainline on x86_64. Sure. Thanks, Paolo

Re: 4.7 deprecated targets removal patch

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > @@ -744,7 +744,6 @@ case "${target}" in > > libgloss_dir=cris > > ;; > >crx-*-*) > > -noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs target-libstdc++-v3 target-mudflap > > ${libgcj}" > > ;; > > Why not also remove the line before and after this

Re: 4.7 deprecated targets removal patch

Hello Joseph, * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:12:09PM CET: > Bootstrapped with no regressions on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK to > commit? The build system changes look OK from a build system technical POV, with a couple of comments below. > 2011-03-17 Joseph Myers > >

Re: [libstdc++] Split testsuite/decimal/mixed-mode_neg.cc (issue4273077)

On 03/18/2011 01:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: On 03/18/2011 06:34 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: I can split it any way you prefer. You mean create 14 files? Or two files, one with all the bad_ another with the bad_ ? Please split out the comparisons and create mixed-mode-comp_neg.cc, rename the exist

Re: [objc++] RFH: PR 48167 gengtype failure (issue4291054)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:59:47 +0100 (CET) "Nicola Pero" wrote: > > > The Obj-C++ FE is kind of weird as it shares files from cp/ and objc/, > > so I'm missing some other connection I need to make to fix this. > > This all looks ugly. Anyhow, until someone refactors everything, the > following

Re: [PATCH][C] Fix PR47939

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > > What I think is safe in grokdeclarator is using TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT here if > > *either* the type given in the declaration specifiers is an array type > > (TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE, as in your previous patch) *or* the first > > declarator tha

Re: RFA: fix PR c/48116

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Tom Tromey wrote: > It seems ok to me to accept it as a GNU extension. > But, it still doesn't warn with -std=c89 or -std=c99. > -pedantic seems too heavy for this, to me. It is not the function of -std to enable diagnostics for extensions; that's the function of -pedantic.

Re: [PATCH] Fix -fcrossjumping at -O1 (PR rtl-optimization/48156)

i see your point.I had forgotten that crossjumping is not really a pass, it is more of an infectious agent. On 03/18/2011 01:45 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:23:11PM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: I believe that this

Re: [PATCH] Fix -fcrossjumping at -O1 (PR rtl-optimization/48156)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:45:57PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > Is the live problem so much more useful for crossjumping than lr problem? > > All it wants to prove is if it can safely move a couple of instructions > > across some other instructions, and the live_union bitmap that is computed > >

Re: [Patch][AVR]: Support tail calls

2011/3/18 Georg-Johann Lay : >> Is it tested for regressions ? >> >> Denis. > > I ran tests against svn 170942 (latest 4.7.0 snapshot). Besides > timestamps, the diff looks like this: > > 1435a1436,1437 >> XPASS: gcc.dg/sibcall-3.c execution test >> XPASS: gcc.dg/sibcall-4.c execution test > 1630,

Re: C++0x PATCH to add -fconstexpr-depth

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Jason Merrill wrote: > +/* Likewise, for constexpr function call evaluations. N3225 specifies a > + minimum of 512. */ > > +int max_constexpr_depth = 512; Since all you're doing in the option handler is setting a global variable, it's better to declare the option in th

RE: [objc++] RFH: PR 48167 gengtype failure (issue4291054)

> The Obj-C++ FE is kind of weird as it shares files from cp/ and objc/, > so I'm missing some other connection I need to make to fix this. > > Any ideas? As far as I can see, the problem is that header files (such as cp/parser.h) generate GC stuff that gets put into gtype-{lang}.h, where {lang}

[PATCH,committed] Update config.guess and config.sub

I have imported the latest config.guess and config.sub from upstream repository and committed to both GCC Subversion repository and SRC CVS repository. Among other changes, this allows configure to recognize AIX 7.1. * config.guess: Update to version 2011-02-02 * config.sub: Updat

Re: [DOC PATCH] 4.6 branching changes

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > --- c99status.html6 Apr 2010 11:34:44 - 1.55 > +++ c99status.html14 Mar 2011 13:52:00 - 1.56 > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ paragraph 6) do not count as library iss > > This page describes the C99 support in mainline GCC, not in any >

Re: [PATCH] Fix -fcrossjumping at -O1 (PR rtl-optimization/48156)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:23:11PM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: >> I believe that this is not the right way to go. >> >> if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on >> live for the duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.

[Committed] S/390: Handle GOTOFF unspecs in delegitimize_address

Hi, the attached patch adds handling for GOTOFF unspecs to delegitimize_address. A lot of "note: non-delegitimized UNSPEC 112" messages disappear with this. However not all of them. Committed to mainline. Bye, -Andreas- 2011-03-18 Andreas Krebbel * config/s390/s390.c (s390_deleg

[Committed] S/390: Don't split litpool between call and call_arg_location note

Hi, java bootstrap currently fails on s390 with: /build3/gcc-head/libjava/classpath/javax/swing/plaf/basic/BasicLookAndFeel.java:1649:0: internal compiler error: in dwarf2out_var_location, at dwarf2out.c:21972 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See

Re: [libstdc++] Split testsuite/decimal/mixed-mode_neg.cc (issue4273077)

On 03/18/2011 06:34 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: I can split it any way you prefer. You mean create 14 files? Or two files, one with all the bad_ another with the bad_ ? Please split out the comparisons and create mixed-mode-comp_neg.cc, rename the existing file as mixed-mode-arith_neg.cc. Paolo

Re: [libstdc++] Split testsuite/decimal/mixed-mode_neg.cc (issue4273077)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:31, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 03/18/2011 06:29 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >> Will do.  Thanks. > > Sorry again - otherwise I have to do it myself anyway: why don't you split > it a more meaningful way, like splitting out all the comparisons? That would > avoid the namin

Re: [libstdc++] Split testsuite/decimal/mixed-mode_neg.cc (issue4273077)

On 03/18/2011 06:29 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: Will do. Thanks. Sorry again - otherwise I have to do it myself anyway: why don't you split it a more meaningful way, like splitting out all the comparisons? That would avoid the naming issue in the first place. Thanks, Paolo.

Re: [libstdc++] Split testsuite/decimal/mixed-mode_neg.cc (issue4273077)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:23, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 03/18/2011 06:16 PM, dnovi...@google.com wrote: >> >> Paolo, >> >> Splitting this test fixes the failures I described in >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2011-03/msg00076.html >> >> OK for trunk? > > Sure, it's Ok. A nit, however: we have

Re: [libstdc++] Split testsuite/decimal/mixed-mode_neg.cc (issue4273077)

On 03/18/2011 06:16 PM, dnovi...@google.com wrote: Paolo, Splitting this test fixes the failures I described in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2011-03/msg00076.html OK for trunk? Sure, it's Ok. A nit, however: we have been using quite consistently the *_neg suffix for such kind of testcases,

[libstdc++] Split testsuite/decimal/mixed-mode_neg.cc (issue4273077)

Paolo, Splitting this test fixes the failures I described in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2011-03/msg00076.html OK for trunk? Thanks. Diego. 2011-03-18 Diego Novillo * mixed-mode_neg-1.cc: Rename from mixed-mode_neg.cc * mixed-mode_neg-2.cc: Factor out of mixed-mode_neg

Re: [Patch, IRA]: Use LOCAL_REGNO in cost computation for pro/epilogue

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/22/11 07:41, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > This patchlet was proposed by Paolo Bonzini in > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-10/msg00427.html > > Hard regs for which LOCAL_REGNO is true do not cause costs in > prologue/epilogue because they need no

[build] Remove unused check-consistency target in gcc/Makefile.in

While looking at the check-* targets, I noticed check-consistency. Further investigation revealed that it is completely unused. It was introduced in 2001 as poart of the consistency.vlad testsuite (i960-only, it seems) 2001-02-12 Geoffrey Keating [...] * Makefile.in (check-consistency)

Re: [PATCH] Fix -fcrossjumping at -O1 (PR rtl-optimization/48156)

I could be happy with both patches. On 03/18/2011 12:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:23, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: I believe that this is not the right way to go. if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live for the duration of the pass just as ifc

Re: [PATCH] Fix -fcrossjumping at -O1 (PR rtl-optimization/48156)

Hi, On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > I believe that this is not the right way to go. > > if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live for the > duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.If they ask for crossjumping you > should give them crossjumping and n

Re: [PATCH] Fix -fcrossjumping at -O1 (PR rtl-optimization/48156)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:23, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > I believe that this is not the right way to go. > > if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live for > the duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.    If they ask for crossjumping > you should give them crossjumping a

Re: [PATCH] Fix -fcrossjumping at -O1 (PR rtl-optimization/48156)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:23:11PM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > I believe that this is not the right way to go. > > if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on > live for the duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.If they ask > for crossjumping you should give them cro

Re: [PATCH] Fix -fcrossjumping at -O1 (PR rtl-optimization/48156)

I believe that this is not the right way to go. if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live for the duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.If they ask for crossjumping you should give them crossjumping and not some crippled version of it. kenny On 03/18/201

[PATCH] Fix -fcrossjumping at -O1 (PR rtl-optimization/48156)

Hi! The testcase below is miscompiled on x86_64-linux. The problem is that try_head_merge_bb uses df_get_bb_dirty to see if it can use df_get_live_out () info (through simulate_backwards_to_point) reliably, but as at -O1 the live problem isn't computed, only lr problem, df_get_live_out () returns

[testsuite] Properly XFAIL gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-2.c on Solaris 2/SPARC

I noticed that gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-2.c is failing on Solaris 8/x86 with Sun as: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-2.c (test for excess errors) WARNING: gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-2.c compilation failed to produce executable Excess errors: Assembler: slp-multitypes-2.c "/var/tmp//ccm

Re: [objc++] RFH: PR 48167 gengtype failure (issue4291054)

I will be able to look into this on Monday, not earlier, sorry. 2011/3/18 Diego Novillo : > I think gengtype is failing me here, but I'm not sure.  In PR 48167 we > are failing to link cc1objplus because of undefined references: > > cp/parser.o:(.rodata+0x2b18): undefined reference to `gt_ggc_mx_c

[objc++] RFH: PR 48167 gengtype failure (issue4291054)

I think gengtype is failing me here, but I'm not sure. In PR 48167 we are failing to link cc1objplus because of undefined references: cp/parser.o:(.rodata+0x2b18): undefined reference to `gt_ggc_mx_cp_parser' cp/parser.o:(.rodata+0x2b20): undefined reference to `gt_pch_nx_cp_parser' cp/tree.o: In

C++ PATCH for c++/48162 (ICE on call to function pointer returning a class)

My assert that there wouldn't be any more wrappers around the CALL_EXPR was overconfident; cp_build_function_call_vec still does argument conversions and uses build_cxx_call, which calls build_cplus_new to wrap a call returning a class in TARGET_EXPR. That should be fixed, but in the meantime

PATCHes for c++/48118 (accepts-invalid with volatile class), 23372 and 35315

48118 turned out to be caused by the patch for 23372; if we skip the ck_rvalue, then we never determine that there is no suitable constructor to use for copying from a volatile variable. Removing that code fixes 48118. But that reintroduces 23372 (redundant copying of PODs on argument passin

Re: [PATCH] Document --with-plugin-ld

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Rainer Orth wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > > > --- 1666,1676 > > Enable support for link-time optimization (LTO). This is enabled by > > default, and may be disabled using @option{--disable-lto}. > > > > ! @item --with-plugin-ld=@var{pathname} > > ! Enable

Re: [testsuite] Skip gcc.dg/torture/20090618-1.c on IRIX (PR middle-end/47405)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Rainer Orth wrote: > As described in the PR, gcc.dg/torture/20090618-1.c fails on IRIX 5 and > 6 due to undefined references to mempcpy, which doesn't exist in libc. > This might be a target bug. Richard suggested to skip the test, which > this patch does. > > Tested with th

[PATCH][RFC] Add gimple_fold

This tries to extend the previously posted CCP folding patch by introducing a generic interface for non-tree-building, GIMPLE SSA aware folding. The low-level interface for folding regular operations is /* Fold the expression composed by *CODEP, TYPE and valueized operands *OP0P, *OP1P and *

[testsuite] Skip gcc.dg/torture/20090618-1.c on IRIX (PR middle-end/47405)

As described in the PR, gcc.dg/torture/20090618-1.c fails on IRIX 5 and 6 due to undefined references to mempcpy, which doesn't exist in libc. This might be a target bug. Richard suggested to skip the test, which this patch does. Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations. Applied to mainli

Re: [PATCH][PR48170] Remove bogus asserts from gcse.c

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/18/11 05:09, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > PR48170 is about an ICE in code hoisting when using non-default parameter > value. The ICE is due to an outdated assert; the attached patch simply > removes it. I will commit the patch under the trivial ru

Re: [PATCH] Emit .debug_aranges when needed (PR debug/48176)

OK. Jason

Bug 47790 - [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] optimize_bitfield_assignment_op no longer works in 4.5.x

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew included a patch in this PR to make optimize_bitfield_assignment_op work again. I've fixed a couple indention problems and added a couple comments. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Applied to trunk. Interesting

[PING] 3 patches waiting for review

A problem causing wrong code to be generated for decimal floating point programs: [PATCH] Fix PR46399 - missing mode promotion for libcall args - updated http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00141.html To my understandig this is a testcase bug. Probably the warning is expected in that l

Re: [v3] Regenerate Solaris 2 baselines for GCC 4.6.0 release

Benjamin Kosnik writes: >> ... and I suppose the thinko alone should be fixed in 4_6-branch too, >> right? > > Yeah. The versioning for the latest symbols has to match, or be done > in a compatible way. But hang on, I'll wait on Rainer and move trunk to > branch if he can confirm trunk is version

[PATCH] Emit .debug_aranges when needed (PR debug/48176)

Hi! Eric changed dwarf2out_finish in January to fix PR46704, unfortunately that change means we often don't emit .debug_aranges at all even when it should be present and is needed for e.g. elfutils. In PR46704 there were 2 DECL_IGNORED functions with -O2 -g -fkeep-inline-functions, so fde_table_in

[PATCH Committed] [SH] Delegitimize more unspecs

On SH, there are many new warnings like note: non-delegitimized UNSPEC 46 found in variable location which are reported by dwarf2out.c:const_ok_for_output_1. The attached patch is a minimal fix. It's tested with the top level "make -k check" on cross sh4-unknown-linux-gnu. Currently, it's hard

[v3] Start random dists values testing

Hi, the below is a start on the long overdue task of checking the values produces by the random distributions. For the time being I'm simply adapting rather elementary code in GSL, already good enough to enable regression tests for libstdc++/48114. I expect that testing along similar lines t

[Committed] S/390: Use define_c_enum for the unspec constants

Hi, the attached patch uses define_c_enum for defining the unspec constant as it recently has been changed for other targets as well. Committed to mainline. Bye, -Andreas- 2011-03-18 Andreas Krebbel * config/s390/s390.md: Use define_c_enum for the unspec constant definitio

[PATCH][PR48170] Remove bogus asserts from gcse.c

PR48170 is about an ICE in code hoisting when using non-default parameter value. The ICE is due to an outdated assert; the attached patch simply removes it. I will commit the patch under the trivial rule if no one objects in 24 hours. The asserts used to verify an invariant that held true bef

Re: [PATCH] Document --with-plugin-ld

Richard Guenther writes: > --- 1666,1676 > Enable support for link-time optimization (LTO). This is enabled by > default, and may be disabled using @option{--disable-lto}. > > ! @item --with-plugin-ld=@var{pathname} > ! Enable an alternate linker to be used at link-time optimization

[PATCH] Document --with-plugin-ld

This documents --with-plugin-ld and removes the --enable-gold documentation (which is bogus now). Does this look ok? Thanks, Richard. 2011-03-18 Richard Guenther * doc/install.texi (--enable-gold): Remove. (--with-plugin-ld): Document. * doc/invoke.texi (-fuse-linke

Re: [build, lto] Only accept -fuse-linker-plugin if linker supports -plugin (PR lto/46944)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Rainer Orth wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > > > It's sort of historic ... with plugin support for GNU ld we can probably > > Could you or someone else who understands this stuff please document it > in install.texi then? Thanks. I'll try. > > drop this flag for 4.7 (

Re: [libgfortran, patch] More than 26 temporary files with weak mktemp()

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 14:21, FX wrote: > Thanks for the review! > >> - Use the type size_t for tempdirlen as that is the return type of >> strlen() and argument type for get_mem(). >> >> - You can use a const size_t variable for the length of the string >> "slash" rather than calling strlen() in

Re: [build, lto] Only accept -fuse-linker-plugin if linker supports -plugin (PR lto/46944)

Richard Guenther writes: > It's sort of historic ... with plugin support for GNU ld we can probably Could you or someone else who understands this stuff please document it in install.texi then? Thanks. > drop this flag for 4.7 (eventually I'd even like to enforce the use > of the plugin all th

Re: [build, lto] Only accept -fuse-linker-plugin if linker supports -plugin (PR lto/46944)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Rainer Orth wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > > > It seemed to have disabled linker-plugin support for old binutils > > with --with-plugin-ld=/usr/local/bin/gold, explicit -fuse-linker-plugin says > > it is not supported. The system linker does not have plugin support > >

Re: [build, lto] Only accept -fuse-linker-plugin if linker supports -plugin (PR lto/46944)

Richard Guenther writes: > It seemed to have disabled linker-plugin support for old binutils > with --with-plugin-ld=/usr/local/bin/gold, explicit -fuse-linker-plugin says > it is not supported. The system linker does not have plugin support > (nor gold). /usr/local has gold from binutils 2.20.

Re: [PATCH][C] Fix PR47939

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > Indeed. I tried to let the array case alone (because it's so > > complicated) but failed to do so. Appearantly > > > > if (declarator->kind == cdk_array && TYPE_QUALS (element_type)) > > type

Re: [Patch][AVR]: Support tail calls

Denis Chertykov schrieb: > 2011/3/16 Georg-Johann Lay >> Richard Henderson schrieb: >>> On 03/16/2011 03:32 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>> Richard Henderson schrieb: > On 03/11/2011 05:43 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >> I did not find a way to make this work together wit

Re: [build, lto] Only accept -fuse-linker-plugin if linker supports -plugin (PR lto/46944)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >>> Ok for mainline if that passes, and perhaps also the 4.6 branch? >> >> I'm ok with this for mainline - Paolo, can you double-check the >> autofoo stuff?  As for 4.6 I'd like to give it a day or two on >> trunk t

Re: [build, lto] Only accept -fuse-linker-plugin if linker supports -plugin (PR lto/46944)

Richard Guenther writes: >> Ok for mainline if that passes, and perhaps also the 4.6 branch? > > I'm ok with this for mainline - Paolo, can you double-check the > autofoo stuff? As for 4.6 I'd like to give it a day or two on > trunk to allow people to report problems. The patch has been on main

Re: RX: 4.5 branch: Fix alignment and addressing issues.

Hi Mike, And why is that a problem? You get to write arbitrarily complex C code that can depend upon insn and operands. Ah - I did not know this. I thought that you had to stick to RTL expressions in the definition of attributes. Thanks for letting me know otherwise. Cheers Nick

Re: [PATCH] Fix hppa-* --enable-checking=release bootstrap (PR bootstrap/48161)

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:07:43PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> The following fixes the testcase in cross to hppa-* as well. >> I'll bootstrap/regtest it momentarily, ok if it passes? > > Now bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686

Re: PATCH: PR target/48171: Missing "Save" on -mavx and -mfma

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:51 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> All i386 ISA options, except for -mavx and -mfma, have Save.  This patch >> fixes it.  OK for trunk and 4.6? >> >> 2011-03-17  H.J. Lu   >> >>        PR target/48171 >>        * config/i386/

Re: RX: 4.5 branch: Fix alignment and addressing issues.

Hi Richard, What is length used for in the rx port? I don't see any branch shortening going on here; out of range branches are completely handled by the assembler. You might be better off simply deleting the length attribute, so that the compiler skips the bulk of the shorten_branches pass.

  1   2   >