PATCH RFA: Correct toplevel configury

2011-07-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
One of my recent patches broke the toplevel configury. I moved a test of $configdirs to a point before nonexistent directories have been removed from configdirs. The test was for whether gcc is being configured. The test is fine in the gcc repository, but not in the src repository. This patch f

Re: Allow Tru64 UNIX bootstrap with C++

2011-07-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Rainer Orth writes: > diff --git a/gcc/system.h b/gcc/system.h > --- a/gcc/system.h > +++ b/gcc/system.h > @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. > #ifndef GCC_SYSTEM_H > #define GCC_SYSTEM_H > > +#ifdef __cplusplus > +extern "C" { > +#endif > + > /* We must include stda

Re: PATCH RFA: Build stages 2 and 3 with C++

2011-07-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
David Edelsohn writes: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> Presumably the fix will be to use -frandom-seed.  Does this patch fix >> the problem?  (The only real change is to fragment.am, the other changes >> are all generated by automake). > > This patch gets the buil

Re: PATCH [8/n] X32: Convert to Pmode if needed

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:47 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > So, since copy_to_reg & co. expects x in Pmode or VOIDmode constant > (due to force_reg that won't do mode conversion), we have to implement > them with a mode conversion... > >> This patch a

Re: PATCH [3/n] X32: Promote pointers to Pmode

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 07/21/2011 04:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: On 07/21/2011 03:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >       * config/i386/i386.c (functi

[v3] testsuite renames

2011-07-21 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
Some shortened pathnames from doc cleanup branch. tested x86/linux -benjamin2011-07-21 Benjamin Kosnik * testsuite/ext/pb_ds/regression/tree_no_data_map_rand.cc: Move... * testsuite/ext/pb_ds/regression/tree_set_rand.cc: ... here. * testsuite/ext/pb_ds/regression/tree_no_data_

Re: [PATCH, testsuite]: Fix detection of ifunc support

2011-07-21 Thread Mike Stump
On Jul 21, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Actually, we can use existing testsuite infrastructure to simplify the > function substantially. > > 2011-07-21 Uros Bizjak > >* lib/target-supports.exp (check_ifunc_available): Rewrite. > > The patch is tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,

re: Fix argument pushes to unaligned stack slots

2011-07-21 Thread matthew green
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, matthew green wrote: > > > i'm having a problem with GCC 4.5.3 on netbsd-m68k target. i've tracked > > it down to this change from several years ago: > > > > > 2007-02-06 Joseph Myers > > > > > > * expr.c (emit_push_insn): If STRICT_ALIGNMENT, copy to an > > > una

[PATCH] Fixed some compilation warnings

2011-07-21 Thread Diogo Sousa
Hi, This patch fixes 3 compiling warnings. One of them was actually a wrong assert (operator precedence mistake). Diogo Sousa 2011-07-22 Diogo Sousa * natObject.cc: Fixed an expression inside an assert (it always yield true). This was also a compiler warning. * libcaf

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/21/2011 10:39 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> IMO, it is OK to disable 64bit relocations, and that compiler is at >> fault here. Consider that something gets written to the d field (see >> example of PR49798). Reading a pointer from *m f

Re: PATCH [3/n] X32: Promote pointers to Pmode

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/21/2011 04:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >>> On 07/21/2011 03:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:       * config/i386/i386.c (function_value_64): Always return pointers       in Pmod

Re: [RFC, cfg/dataflow] Properly split EH edges for -freorder-blocks-and-partition

2011-07-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 07/21/2011 03:11 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/21/2011 03:05 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> >>> Suggestions for something better than the df_finish_pass hack >>> that I added at the end of partition_hot_cold_basic_blocks are >>

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Move Graphite to CLooG 0.16.3 with isl backend.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
Hi Tobias, On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 18:00, Tobias Grosser wrote: > Hi, > > I propose to switch to the official cloog.org cloog version with isl backend > and > at the same time to remove support for both CLooG-PPL legacy as well as > CLooG-Parma. > Many thanks for implementing this cleanup. > W

Re: PATCH [3/n] X32: Promote pointers to Pmode

2011-07-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 07/21/2011 04:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 07/21/2011 03:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> * config/i386/i386.c (function_value_64): Always return pointers >>> in Pmode. >>> (ix86_promote_function_mode): New. >>> (TARGET

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Remove code that supported legacy CLooG.

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Grosser
On 07/22/2011 01:46 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 18:00, Tobias Grosser wrote: static void create_params_index (htab_t index_table, CloogProgram *prog) { - CloogNames* names = cloog_program_names (prog); - int nb_parameters = cloog_names_nb_parameters (names); - char *

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Remove code that supported legacy CLooG.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 18:00, Tobias Grosser wrote: >  static void >  create_params_index (htab_t index_table, CloogProgram *prog) { > -  CloogNames* names = cloog_program_names (prog); > -  int nb_parameters = cloog_names_nb_parameters (names); > -  char **parameters = cloog_names_parameters (na

Re: PATCH [3/n] X32: Promote pointers to Pmode

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/21/2011 03:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>       * config/i386/i386.c (function_value_64): Always return pointers >>       in Pmode. >>       (ix86_promote_function_mode): New. >>       (TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE): Likewise. > > Much be

[PATCH 3/3] Remove code that supported legacy CLooG.

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Grosser
2011-07-21 Tobias Grosser * configure: Regenerated. * config/cloog.m4: Do not define CLOOG_ORG and in gcc/ 2011-07-21 Tobias Grosser * Makefile.in (graphite-clast-to-gimple.o, graphite-cloog-util.o): Remove graphite-cloog-util.h. * graphite-clast-to

[PATCH 1/3] Make CLooG isl the only supported CLooG version.

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Grosser
2011-07-21 Tobias Grosser * configure: Regenerated. * config/cloog.m4: Remove support for CLooG-ppl and CLooG-parma, both cloog.org and legacy versions. The only supported version will be CLooG with the isl backend. --- ChangeLog |7 ++ config/cloog.m4

[PATCH 2/3] Require cloog 0.16.3

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Grosser
2011-07-21 Tobias Grosser * configure: Regenerated. * configure.ac: Require cloog isl 0.16.3 --- ChangeLog|5 + configure|6 +++--- configure.ac |2 +- 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index a08a780..3d

[PATCH 0/3] Move Graphite to CLooG 0.16.3 with isl backend.

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Grosser
Hi, I propose to switch to the official cloog.org cloog version with isl backend and at the same time to remove support for both CLooG-PPL legacy as well as CLooG-Parma. We want to switch to cloog-isl as it is the only officially maintained version of cloog. Furthermore, it provides features that

[PATCH] GNU/kFreeBSD systems running on MIPS

2011-07-21 Thread Robert Millan
This patch adds support for GNU/kFreeBSD systems running on MIPS. -- Robert Millan 2011-07-22 Robert Millan Support for GNU/kFreeBSD systems running on MIPS. * config.gcc: Detect mips*-*-kfreebsd*-gnu. * config.host: Likewise. * config/mips/kfreebsd-gnu.h: New file. * config/mips/kfreeb

Re: [PATCH, testsuite]: Fix detection of ifunc support

2011-07-21 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Revision 164725 [1] broke detection of ifunc support in the testsuite > [2] due to extra "#endif" without if in the test function. Attached > patch fixes this up. Actually, we can use existing testsuite infrastructure to simplify the functio

[patch] attribute to reverse bitfield allocations

2011-07-21 Thread DJ Delorie
Seeing little opposition, I plod further... now with documentation and a test case. OK yet? Index: doc/extend.texi === --- doc/extend.texi (revision 176586) +++ doc/extend.texi (working copy) @@ -5089,12 +5089,74 @@ Note t

Re: [RFC, cfg/dataflow] Properly split EH edges for -freorder-blocks-and-partition

2011-07-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 07/21/2011 03:05 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > >> Suggestions for something better than the df_finish_pass hack >> that I added at the end of partition_hot_cold_basic_blocks are >> very welcome. > > Is it not enough to just call df_b

Re: [RFC, cfg/dataflow] Properly split EH edges for -freorder-blocks-and-partition

2011-07-21 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > Suggestions for something better than the df_finish_pass hack > that I added at the end of partition_hot_cold_basic_blocks are > very welcome. Is it not enough to just call df_bb_refs_record and df_analyze manually after you have creat

Re: PATCH [3/n] X32: Promote pointers to Pmode

2011-07-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 07/21/2011 03:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > * config/i386/i386.c (function_value_64): Always return pointers > in Pmode. > (ix86_promote_function_mode): New. > (TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE): Likewise. Much better, thanks. r~

Re: PATCH [3/n] X32: Promote pointers to Pmode

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/13/2011 08:35 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: >>> On 07/13/2011 07:02 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: Hi Richard, Is my patch OK? >>> >>> No, I don't think it is. >>> >> >> What is

[PATCH, testsuite]: Fix detection of ifunc support

2011-07-21 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! Revision 164725 [1] broke detection of ifunc support in the testsuite [2] due to extra "#endif" without if in the test function. Attached patch fixes this up. 2011-07-21 Uros Bizjak * lib/target-supports.exp (check_ifunc_available): Fix test function. The patch is tested on x8

cp/cvt: don't assume pointer sizes

2011-07-21 Thread DJ Delorie
Some targets (m32c, tpf, mips) have more than one pointer size. It is not correct to assume that a pointer is POINTER_SIZE. Index: gcc/cp/cvt.c === --- gcc/cp/cvt.c(revision 176554) +++ gcc/cp/cvt.c(working copy) @@

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49715, (float)unsigned -> (float)signed

2011-07-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 07/21/2011 01:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> Patch also handling wider modes and not starting with SImode but >> the mode of int: > > Use of target int for anything not about C ABIs is certainly wrong. This > might be about what operations t

Re: PATCH RFA: Build stages 2 and 3 with C++

2011-07-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Basile Starynkevitch writes: > Using the md5sum of the file is probably not bad neither. I would understand > that you > find it being perhaps too complex for your need, but it is much more random > than just the > file name (because the md5sum changes with the file content). Granted, but I am

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> Expand generates: >>> >>> (insn 8 6 9 (set (reg:SI 68) >>>        (symbol_ref:SI ("") [flags 0x40]  >> >)) p >>> r49798.c:12 -1 >>>     (nil)) >>> >>> (insn 9 8 10 (set (reg:DI 67)

[RFC, cfg/dataflow] Properly split EH edges for -freorder-blocks-and-partition

2011-07-21 Thread Richard Henderson
Ignoring all of the other problems that partitioning might have, it does Just So Happen to work for the single most popular target. So let's see about keeping the pass limping along for a while longer. The problem I'm attempting to solve here is the gross hack in convert_to_eh_region_ranges, whic

[PATCH,fortran] remove duplicate word in documentation

2011-07-21 Thread Steve Kargl
I committed the following patch as obvious. 2011-07-21 Steven G. Kargl * gfortran.texi: Remove a duplicate word. Index: gfortran.texi === --- gfortran.texi (revision 176586) +++ gfortran.texi (working copy) @@

RE: AVX generic mode tuning discussion.

2011-07-21 Thread Jagasia, Harsha
> >> We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to > generate 128-bit > >> AVX instead of 256-bit AVX. > > > > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256. > > How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2? > > Will the next AMD generation have a useable avx256? > > > > I'm n

Re: [google] fix global vars incorrectly marked as read-only in LIPO mode (issue4798045)

2011-07-21 Thread Xinliang David Li
Ok. David On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Rong Xu wrote: > Please review the new patch attached to this email. > > thanks, > > -Rong > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Rong Xu wrote: >> wait a second. this still won't work if we disable the whole-program >> pass (like my original change, th

Re: [Patches, Fortran] ALLOCATE & CAF library.

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Burnus
Daniel Carrera wrote: On 07/21/2011 07:22 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote: Doesn't compile here: gcc/fortran/trans.c:656:8: error: unused variable 'status_type' [-Werror=unused-variable] Hmm... I really wish that my Makefile was as picky as yours. But last time I tried to change my configure flag every

RE: AVX generic mode tuning discussion.

2011-07-21 Thread Jagasia, Harsha
> On 07/12/2011 02:22 PM, harsha.jaga...@amd.com wrote: > > We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to generate > 128-bit > > AVX instead of 256-bit AVX. > > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256. > How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2? We see these % diff

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Expand generates: >> >> (insn 8 6 9 (set (reg:SI 68) >>        (symbol_ref:SI ("") [flags 0x40]  > >)) p >> r49798.c:12 -1 >>     (nil)) >> >> (insn 9 8 10 (set (reg:DI 67) >>        (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 68))) pr49798.c:12 -1 >>     (

Re: [PATCH 00/10] Second attempt to fix PR47654 and PR49649

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Grosser
On 07/21/2011 08:31 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: Hi, This patch-set addresses the comments from Tobias on fixing PR47654. The first patches are cleanups: - Start counting nesting level from 0 and use the standard "Polyhedral SCattering Transformed" psct_* interface. - Do not compute twice typ

Re: [google] fix global vars incorrectly marked as read-only in LIPO mode (issue4798045)

2011-07-21 Thread Rong Xu
Please review the new patch attached to this email. thanks, -Rong On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Rong Xu wrote: > wait a second. this still won't work if we disable the whole-program > pass (like my original change, the visibility analysis change won't > kick in). we also need to change varp

Re: safe unordered local iterators

2011-07-21 Thread François Dumont
Attached patch applied: 2011-07-21 François Dumont * include/debug/safe_unordered_sequence.h, safe_unordered_sequence.tcc: Rename respectively in... * include/debug/safe_unordered_container.h, safe_unordered_container.tcc: ...those. _Safe_unordered_sequence

Re: [RFC PATCH] -grecord-gcc-switches (PR other/32998)

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > So > > gcc_checking_assert (save_decoded_options[j].canonical_option[0][0] == > '-'); > switch (save_decoded_options[j].canonical_option[0][1]) > > instead? The reason for checking the option text instead of code Yes. > was just becaus

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> /* Represents viewing something of one type as being of a second type. >>>   This corresponds to an "Unchecked Conversion" in Ada and roughly to >>>   the idiom *(type2 *)&X in C.  The onl

Re: [RFC PATCH] -grecord-gcc-switches (PR other/32998)

2011-07-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:06:49PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > Ideally we'd just include explicitly passed options from command line that > > haven't been overridden by other command line options, and would sort them, > > so that there are higher

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> /* Represents viewing something of one type as being of a second type. >>   This corresponds to an "Unchecked Conversion" in Ada and roughly to >>   the idiom *(type2 *)&X in C.  The only operand is the value to be >>   viewed as being of anothe

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49715, (float)unsigned -> (float)signed

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > Patch also handling wider modes and not starting with SImode but > the mode of int: Use of target int for anything not about C ABIs is certainly wrong. This might be about what operations the target does efficiently, or what functions are present

Re: PATCH RFA: Disable -Wstrict-overflow for unevaluated expressions

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > This patch to the C frontend disables warnings about -Wstrict-overflow > when handling expressions which will not be evaluated. This fixes PR > 49705. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > OK for mainline? OK. -- Joseph S.

Re: [RFC PATCH] -grecord-gcc-switches (PR other/32998)

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Ideally we'd just include explicitly passed options from command line that > haven't been overridden by other command line options, and would sort them, > so that there are higher chances of DW_AT_producer strings being merged > (e.g. -O2 -ffast-math vs.

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >> ".quad  symbol" isn't really valid for 32bit. > > Why not?  We ce

Re: Allow Tru64 UNIX bootstrap with C++

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Rainer Orth wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/system.h b/gcc/system.h > --- a/gcc/system.h > +++ b/gcc/system.h > @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. > #ifndef GCC_SYSTEM_H > #define GCC_SYSTEM_H > > +#ifdef __cplusplus > +extern "C" { > +#endif > + I don'

Re: [wwwdocs, 4.6] Announce NetWare obsoletion, removal

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Rainer Orth wrote: > Index: htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html > === > RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html,v > retrieving revision 1.22 > diff -u -p -r1.22 changes.html > --- htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.htm

Re: [PATCH Atom][PR middle-end/44382] Tree reassociation improvement

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > * doc/tm.texi.in (reassociation_width): New hook documentation. Unless the documentation for a new hook is based on pre-existing GFDL-only text, it should go in target.def not tm.texi.in, with the only thing added to tm.texi.in being a single @h

Re: CFT: [build] Move soft-fp support to toplevel libgcc

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Rainer Orth wrote: > One odd thing out is that the lm32 snippet misses > > softfp_exclude_libgcc2 := y > > compared to the new t-softfp-sfdf. I'm currently handling this since I > cannot tell if this is intentional or just an accident. The general rule is that softfp_exclu

Re: PATCH RFA: Build stages 2 and 3 with C++

2011-07-21 Thread Basile Starynkevitch
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:13:00 -0700 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jakub Jelinek writes: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:51:46AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> Basile Starynkevitch writes: > >> > >> > I have a similar issue in the MELT branch, and I am passing to > >> > -frandom-seed the md5

Re: [google] fix global vars incorrectly marked as read-only in LIPO mode (issue4798045)

2011-07-21 Thread Rong Xu
wait a second. this still won't work if we disable the whole-program pass (like my original change, the visibility analysis change won't kick in). we also need to change varpool_node_link() to merge the local attribute. -Rong On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Thu, J

Re: [google] fix global vars incorrectly marked as read-only in LIPO mode (issue4798045)

2011-07-21 Thread Xinliang David Li
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rong Xu wrote: > this is a good point. ipa_discover_readonly_nonaddressable_vars() is > called in two passes. whole-program (whole program visibility > analysis) and static-var. The one in whole-program is ok here as it is >  bundled together with the analysis. th

Re: [PATCH (2/7)] Widening multiplies by more than one mode

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > (**) We really ought to forbid any arithmetic on types that have non-mode > precision and only allow conversions to/from such types. Arithmetic on such types is a perfectly reasonable notion to have in language-independent code and carry out languag

re: Fix argument pushes to unaligned stack slots

2011-07-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, matthew green wrote: > i'm having a problem with GCC 4.5.3 on netbsd-m68k target. i've tracked > it down to this change from several years ago: > > > 2007-02-06 Joseph Myers > > > > * expr.c (emit_push_insn): If STRICT_ALIGNMENT, copy to an > > unaligned stack sl

Re: [google] fix global vars incorrectly marked as read-only in LIPO mode (issue4798045)

2011-07-21 Thread Rong Xu
this is a good point. ipa_discover_readonly_nonaddressable_vars() is called in two passes. whole-program (whole program visibility analysis) and static-var. The one in whole-program is ok here as it is bundled together with the analysis. the invocation in static-var can go wrong. should we add a

Re: [google] fix global vars incorrectly marked as read-only in LIPO mode (issue4798045)

2011-07-21 Thread Xinliang David Li
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Rong Xu wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM,   wrote: >> >> http://codereview.appspot.com/4798045/diff/1/ipa.c >> File ipa.c (right): >> >> http://codereview.appspot.com/4798045/diff/1/ipa.c#newcode1034 >> ipa.c:1034: { >> Has varpool node linking happened a

Re: [Patches, Fortran] ALLOCATE & CAF library.

2011-07-21 Thread Daniel Carrera
On 07/21/2011 07:22 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote: On 07/21/2011 06:46 PM, Daniel Carrera wrote: Ok. Updated patch and updated ChangeLog attached. Compiles fine and I'm about to start running the test suite again. Doesn't compile here: gcc/fortran/trans.c: In function 'tree_node* gfc_allocate_using

Re: [google] fix global vars incorrectly marked as read-only in LIPO mode (issue4798045)

2011-07-21 Thread Rong Xu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, wrote: > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4798045/diff/1/ipa.c > File ipa.c (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4798045/diff/1/ipa.c#newcode1034 > ipa.c:1034: { > Has varpool node linking happened at this point? If not, the new code > here is not excersised

[PATCH 10/10] Infer types based on lb and ub.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-21 Sebastian Pop PR middle-end/47654 PR middle-end/49649 * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (type_for_clast_term): Pass v1 and v2 in parameter. Initialize v1 and v2 based on the values returned by clast_name_to_lb_ub. (type_for_clast_red): Pass

[PATCH 08/10] Compute once and cache the LB and UB for each clast_name.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-21 Sebastian Pop * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (struct clast_name_index): Add lb and ub fields. (new_clast_name_index): Add lb and ub parameters. (free_clast_name_index): New. (clast_name_to_lb_ub): New. (save_clast_name_index): Add lb and

[PATCH 06/10] Rename gcc_type_for_clast_* into type_for_clast_*

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-21 Sebastian Pop * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (gcc_type_for_interval): Renamed type_for_interval. (gcc_type_for_value): Renamed type_for_value. (gcc_type_for_clast_term): Renamed type_for_clast_term. (gcc_type_for_clast_expr): Renamed type_for_cla

[PATCH 04/10] Cleanup function params using a struct.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-21 Sebastian Pop * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (struct ivs_params): New. (clast_name_to_gcc): Use ivs_params to pass around parameters. (clast_to_gcc_expression): Same. (clast_to_gcc_expression_red): Same. (gcc_type_for_clast_term): Same. (

[PATCH 07/10] Remove max_signed_precision_type.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-21 Sebastian Pop * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (max_signed_precision_type): Removed. (max_precision_type): Inline max_signed_precision_type. (type_for_clast_red): Use max_precision_type. (type_for_clast_bin): Same. (type_for_clast_for): Same. ---

[PATCH 09/10] Generate signed types whenever possible.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-21 Sebastian Pop * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (type_for_interval): Generate signed types whenever possible. --- gcc/ChangeLog |5 + gcc/graphite-clast-to-gimple.c | 13 +++-- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --gi

[PATCH 03/10] Record the loop level that defines a clast_name.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-21 Sebastian Pop * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (struct clast_name_index): Add level. (new_clast_name_index): Add level parameter. (clast_name_to_level): New. (save_clast_name_index): Add level parameter. (newivs_to_depth_to_newiv): Removed.

[PATCH 05/10] Add fixme comment.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-21 Sebastian Pop * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (clast_get_body_of_loop): Add fixme comment. --- gcc/ChangeLog |5 + gcc/graphite-clast-to-gimple.c | 19 ++- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/Cha

[PATCH 02/10] Do not compute twice type, lb, and ub.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-05 Sebastian Pop * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (graphite_create_new_loop): Do not recompute type, lb, and ub. Get them from... (graphite_create_new_loop_guard): ...here. Pass in parameter pointers to type, lb, and ub. (translate_clast_for_loop):

[PATCH 01/10] Start counting nesting level from 0 and use the standard "Polyhedral SCattering Transformed" psct_* interface.

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
2011-07-05 Sebastian Pop * graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (compute_bounds_for_level): Call psct_dynamic_dim. (translate_clast_for_loop): Pass loop level to dependency_in_loop_p. (gcc_type_for_iv_of_clast_loop): Update use of level. (gloog): Start counting nes

[PATCH 00/10] Second attempt to fix PR47654 and PR49649

2011-07-21 Thread Sebastian Pop
Hi, This patch-set addresses the comments from Tobias on fixing PR47654. The first patches are cleanups: - Start counting nesting level from 0 and use the standard "Polyhedral SCattering Transformed" psct_* interface. - Do not compute twice type, lb, and ub. - Record the loop level that defi

Re: [PATCH] Attempt to increase RLIMIT_STACK in the driver as well as compiler (PR c++/49756, take 3)

2011-07-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Jakub Jelinek writes: > 2011-07-21 Jakub Jelinek > > PR c++/49756 > * libiberty.h (stack_limit_increase): New prototype. > > * stack-limit.c: New file. > * Makefile.in: Regenerate deps. > (CFILES): Add stack-limit.c. > (REQUIRED_OFILES): Add ./stack-limit.$(

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >> ".quad  symbol" isn't really valid for 32bit. > > Why not?  We ce

Re: PATCH RFA: Build stages 2 and 3 with C++

2011-07-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Jakub Jelinek writes: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:51:46AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Basile Starynkevitch writes: >> >> > I have a similar issue in the MELT branch, and I am passing to >> > -frandom-seed the md5sum >> > of relevant source files. With such a trick, the seed is reproduci

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/21/2011 10:39 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> IMO, it is OK to disable 64bit relocations, and that compiler is at >> fault here. Consider that something gets written to the d field (see >> example of PR49798). Reading a pointer from *m f

[google] fix global vars incorrectly marked as read-only in LIPO mode (issue4798045)

2011-07-21 Thread davidxl
http://codereview.appspot.com/4798045/diff/1/ipa.c File ipa.c (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4798045/diff/1/ipa.c#newcode1034 ipa.c:1034: { Has varpool node linking happened at this point? If not, the new code here is not excersised. http://codereview.appspot.com/4798045/diff/1/ipa.c#ne

[PATCH, pre-approved] Fix operand scan problems for PR49749

2011-07-21 Thread William J. Schmidt
This patch fixes part of PR tree-optimization/49749. The operand scans in tree-ssa-reassoc.c:get_rank() can be prematurely halted by two erroneous conditions, which this patch removes. Patch pre-approved by IRC communication with Richard Guenther, 7/21/11. The wider issue of biasing reassociatio

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 07/21/2011 10:39 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > IMO, it is OK to disable 64bit relocations, and that compiler is at > fault here. Consider that something gets written to the d field (see > example of PR49798). Reading a pointer from *m fileld in DImode, we > will get non-zero bits in high 32bits of a

Re: [RFC] More compact (100x) -g3 .debug_gnu_macro (take 4)

2011-07-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/21/2011 04:22 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Currently, the patch emits 3 byte section headers at the start of > > the .debug_gnu_macro chunks referenced from .debug_info (through > > DW_AT_GNU_macros), containing version numb

Re: [PATCH] C++0x, warnings for uses of override/final in non-c++0x mode, add __final for non-c++0x mode

2011-07-21 Thread Ville Voutilainen
At Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:34:35 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 21 July 2011 18:23, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > +struct F : E {}; { dg-error "cannot derive from ‘final’ base" } > Urgh, botched. Will send a new patch after I finish the test run. Note This one seems to work... diff --git a/gcc/

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/21/2011 09:28 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: >>> On 07/21/2011 09:20 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: ".quad  symbol" isn't really valid for 32bit. >>> >>> Why not?  We certainly know what va

Re: [RFC ARM ivopts] : Check valid auto-inc addressing modes while looking at ivopts candidates

2011-07-21 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On 21/07/11 18:13, Steven Bosscher wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:47 PM, wrote: * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (rtl.h): Include. Please don't do this. The goal should be that GIMPLE is independent of RTL, and almost no tree-* files include rtl.h for this reason. Including rtl.h in tree-ss

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/21/2011 09:28 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: >>> On 07/21/2011 09:20 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: ".quad  symbol" isn't really valid for 32bit. >>> >>> Why not?  We certainly know what va

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 07/21/2011 09:28 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 07/21/2011 09:20 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> ".quad symbol" isn't really valid for 32bit. >> >> Why not? We certainly know what value to put there. >> > > x32 doesn't support 64bit relocation, li

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > ".quad  symbol" isn't really valid for 32bit. Why not?  We certainly know what value to put there. >>> >>> x32 doesn't

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > ".quad  symbol" isn't really valid for 32bit. >>> >>> Why not?  We certainly know what value to put there. >>> >> >> x32 doesn't support 64bit relocation, like R_X86_64_64. >> In many cau

Re: [Patches, Fortran] ALLOCATE & CAF library.

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Burnus
On 07/21/2011 06:46 PM, Daniel Carrera wrote: Ok. Updated patch and updated ChangeLog attached. Compiles fine and I'm about to start running the test suite again. Doesn't compile here: gcc/fortran/trans.c: In function 'tree_node* gfc_allocate_using_lib(stmtblock_t*, tree, tree, tree, tree)':

Re: PR 45819 - possible fix?

2011-07-21 Thread DJ Delorie
> The patch is not correct, it papers over a problem elsewhere (maybe > in forwprop). > > I can't btw reproduce the issue on either the 4.5 or the 4.6 branch or trunk > with the testcase from the PR. I always get > > v_2 ={v} st_1(D)->ptr; > > in the .optimized tree dump which correctly stat

Re: [PATCH] C++0x, warnings for uses of override/final in non-c++0x mode, add __final for non-c++0x mode

2011-07-21 Thread Jason Merrill
On 07/21/2011 11:34 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote: Urgh, botched. Will send a new patch after I finish the test run. Note to self: it's not a good idea to run check-c++ target with make -j3. One might think tests pass when they don't.. :) Heh. I run check-c++ with -j N, but tee the make output

Re: [RFC ARM ivopts] : Check valid auto-inc addressing modes while looking at ivopts candidates

2011-07-21 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:47 PM, wrote: >        * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (rtl.h): Include. Please don't do this. The goal should be that GIMPLE is independent of RTL, and almost no tree-* files include rtl.h for this reason. Including rtl.h in tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c is a very big step in the wr

Re: [RFC] More compact (100x) -g3 .debug_gnu_macro (take 4)

2011-07-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 07/21/2011 04:22 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Currently, the patch emits 3 byte section headers at the start of > the .debug_gnu_macro chunks referenced from .debug_info (through > DW_AT_GNU_macros), containing version number (2 byte, 4 ATM) and > 1 byte section offset, but the DW_GNU_MACRO_transp

Re: [build, ada] Allow Solaris bootstrap with C++ (PR bootstrap/49794)

2011-07-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Rainer Orth writes: > 2011-07-20 Rainer Orth > Ralf Wildenhues > > gcc: > PR bootstrap/49794 > * configure.ac: Test AM_ICONV with CXX. > * configure: Regenerate. > * config/sol2-c.c (solaris_format_types): Use EXPORTED_CONST. > > gcc/ada: >

Re: PATCH [9/n] X32: PR target/49798: Zero-extend symbol address to 64bit if needed

2011-07-21 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> ".quad  symbol" isn't really valid for 32bit. >> >> Why not?  We certainly know what value to put there. >> > > x32 doesn't support 64bit relocation, like R_X86_64_64. > In many causes,  generate > > .long symbol > .long 0 > > for ".quad symbol"

Re: Don't use LANGUAGE_C in CLooG (PR bootstrap/49797)

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Grosser
On 07/21/2011 06:09 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 07:37, Rainer Orth wrote: As described in the PR, the use of LANGUAGE_C in CLooG breaks C++ bootstrap on IRIX 6.5. Both MIPS and Alpha C compilers predefine LANGUAGE_C themselves, which clashes with the CLooG macro in .

Re: [Patches, Fortran] ALLOCATE & CAF library.

2011-07-21 Thread Daniel Carrera
Ok. Updated patch and updated ChangeLog attached. Compiles fine and I'm about to start running the test suite again. Cheers, Daniel. On 07/21/2011 06:37 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote: On 07/21/2011 06:01 PM, Daniel Carrera wrote: I was using Mercurial wrong. I've been experimenting with using Mer

Re: [Patches, Fortran] ALLOCATE & CAF library.

2011-07-21 Thread Tobias Burnus
On 07/21/2011 06:01 PM, Daniel Carrera wrote: I was using Mercurial wrong. I've been experimenting with using Mercurial to work with GCC and was doing the diff wrong. The attached file should be correct (fingers crossed). Looks better :-) The patch is OK after regtesting and fixing the follow

  1   2   >