Hi
Here is a patch with vector comparison only.
Comparison is expanded using VEC_COND_EXPR, conversions between the
different types inside the VEC_COND_EXPR are happening in optabs.c.
The comparison generally works, however, the x86 backend does not
recognize vectors of all 1s of type float and d
The attached patch allows gfortran to compile the
attached testcase. The resulting executable runs
as expected.
Short story:
character(len=20) :: string = 'some text here'
character(len=:), allocatable :: s
n = 5
allocate(s, source=string(:n))
The length of s is determined from the ex
> Hello,
>
> Could I have a review for the trivial patch posted in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01123.html
>
> -fprofile-use sets flag_branch_probabilities.
>
> But we should also be able to use -fbranch-probabilities on its own
> using the information generated by -fprofile-arc
On Aug 26, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Michael Meissner wrote:
>>> The alternative is something like what Kenney and Mike are doing in their
>>> private port, where they have new syntax in the MD file for builtins.
>>
>> But are those user-exposed builtins? Certainly interesting to combine
>> builtin defin
Hello!
No functional change.
2011-08-26 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_build_const_vector): Rewrite using loop
with RTVEC_ELT accessor.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed to mainline.
Uros.
Index: config/i386/i386.c
=
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> Another missed piece, exposed by less MEM_REF -> ARRAY_REF folding.
>> Interestingly only for Ada testcases.
>
> I think this also fixed
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
IFUNC selector will need to call get_cpu_indicator (as proposed by HJ
or something similar), while in other contexts, the implementation
should find a way to make sure the indicator is already initialized
such that the builtins accessing the features can be directly used
(See also Michael and Richa
Hello!
Attached patch enables vectorization of round function using sse4.1
round insn. AZ stands for "Away from Zero".
2011-08-26 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/sse.md (round2): New expander.
* config/i386/i386.c (enum ix86_builtins): Add
IX86_BUILTIN_ROUND{PS,PD}_AZ{,256}.
LRA on ppc32 had some code size degradation in comparison with the
reload pass. The reason for that is systematic usage of moves from
memory to memory through two integer registers for DFmode instead of one
floating point register as reload does.
The following patch solves the problem. I
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> Another missed piece, exposed by less MEM_REF -> ARRAY_REF folding.
> Interestingly only for Ada testcases.
I think this also fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50116 but I don't know
for sure.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
This is a "slight" update from the last revision, with your issues
addressed as I explained in the last email. However, everything turned
out to be much tricker than I expected (variable length offsets with
arrays, bit fields spanning multiple words, surprising padding
gymnastics by GCC, etc e
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Sriraman Tallam
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri,
Is there a standard way to force this init function to be called
before all ctors? Adding a ctor in one crtx.o ?
David
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Au
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Sriraman Tallam
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Sriraman Tallam
wrote:
>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Sriraman Tallam
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, A
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Sriraman Tallam
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Sriraman Tallam
wrote:
>>>
On 26 August 2011 18:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26 August 2011 14:09, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> On 8/26/11 2:59 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Paolo,
>>>
> Ok for mainline if bootstraps pass?
Not a comment strictly about this patch, but why we have things like #if
__cpluspl
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Sriraman Tallam
>>> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for all the comments. I am attaching a new p
On 26 August 2011 14:09, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 8/26/11 2:59 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paolo,
>>
Ok for mainline if bootstraps pass?
>>>
>>> Not a comment strictly about this patch, but why we have things like #if
>>> __cplusplus>= 199711L anywhere? For sure the library is not suppose
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the comments. I am attaching a new patch
>>> incorporating all of the changes mentioned, mainly :
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for all the comments. I am attaching a new patch
>> incorporating all of the changes mentioned, mainly :
>>
>> 1) Make __cpu_indicator_init a constructor in libgcc and gu
Hi Paolo,
>> I'm pretty sure this is the case for Solaris. The other changes we've
>> made to support __cplusplus 199711L were no-ops without the last one to
>> change __cplusplus from 1 to the C++ 98 value. So, redefining
>> __cplusplus to 1 should return us back to the old status.
>
> I see,
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:31:21 +0100
Julian Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:46:50 +0100
> Julian Brown wrote:
>
> > So, OK to apply this version, assuming testing comes out OK? (And
> > the followup patch [2/2], which remains unchanged?)
>
> FWIW, all tests pass, apart from
> gcc.target/ar
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>> "H.J." == H J Lu writes:
>>
>> H.J.> Can you take a look at my patch:
>> H.J.> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg01829.html
>>
>> I looked at this today. I don't understand w
Again, arm-tables.opt is generated - so the log entry should just be
* config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate.
and the file should be what you get from regeneration.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch adds support for -mcpu=native, -mtune=native, and -march=native for
> ARM Linux hosts.
>
> So far, it only recognises Cortex-A8 and Cortex-A9, so I really need to find
> out what the magic part numbers are for other cpus before t
Hi all,
This patch is step 1 towards having generic (best-blend) tuning on ARM.
The patch adds an option '-mtune=generic-armv7-a' but does not actually
do any tuning tweaks yet - those are for follow up patches.
x86 has simply '-mtune=generic', and from that (the documentation
suggests) the
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> While you are touching it, I think we should also optimize it as in the
> patch below. I'm afraid no string length optimization would be able to
> figure out that it doesn't have to call strlen twice, because the
> htab_find_slot isn't pure.
Su
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:47 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
>> Done.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also fixed changelog:
>>
>> 2011-08-26 Ilya Tocar
>>
>> * config/i386/fmaintrin.h: New.
>> * config.gcc: Add fmaintrin.h.
>> * config/
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> Done.
>
>
>
> Also fixed changelog:
>
> 2011-08-26 Ilya Tocar
>
> * config/i386/fmaintrin.h: New.
> * config.gcc: Add fmaintrin.h.
> * config/i386/i386.c
> (enum ix86_builtins) : New.
>
Hi!
This patch adds (tiny) code to handle procedure pointers in !$omp
threadprivate plus a testcase. This is outside of the scope of OpenMP
standard, i.e. an extension so far, hopefully OpenMP 4.0 will cover at least
F2003, C++11 and maybe also F2008. Haven't touched any other OpenMP places
wrt.
Hi,
> I'm pretty sure this is the case for Solaris. The other changes we've
> made to support __cplusplus 199711L were no-ops without the last one to
> change __cplusplus from 1 to the C++ 98 value. So, redefining
> __cplusplus to 1 should return us back to the old status.
I see, then I think
Hi all,
This patch adds support for -mcpu=native, -mtune=native, and
-march=native for ARM Linux hosts.
So far, it only recognises Cortex-A8 and Cortex-A9, so I really need to
find out what the magic part numbers are for other cpus before this
patch is complete. I couldn't just find this inf
Hi Paolo,
>> exactly: just g++ -D__cplusplus=1 or something.
>
> Irrespective of what the Standard strictly says, I think the latter would
> only make sense if it would allow the user to return, consistently, to the
> pre-4.7 behavior, for compatibility reasons or something. Is it the case? Is
Hi,
> exactly: just g++ -D__cplusplus=1 or something.
Irrespective of what the Standard strictly says, I think the latter would only
make sense if it would allow the user to return, consistently, to the pre-4.7
behavior, for compatibility reasons or something. Is it the case? Is the above
enou
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> progmem_section is a section to put jump tables in.
>
> This patch puts jump tables in individual sections if
> -ffunction-section is on and does some more cleanup around
> that, i.e. implement TARGET_ASM_FUNCTION_RODATA_SECTION hook.
>
> progmem_section is renamed to pr
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:35:18PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Ok for mainline?
Yes.
>
> 2011-08-26 Rainer Orth
>
> PR target/50166
> * acinclude.m4 (gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY): Check count in main.
> * configure: Regenerate.
>
Jakub
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>> What support do you need on the Linux side for .init_array/.fini_array
>> to work? I'd have expected that gld 2.21 is enough, or is ld-linux.so.2
>> support required, too?
>
> You need the latest Linux binutils. Mixing init_array/,ctors sections support
> was added after bin
On 16 August 2011 15:20, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While looking at a failure with regrename and
> mvectorize-with-neon-quad I noticed that the early-clobber in this
> vec_pack_trunc pattern is superfluous given that we can use
> reg_overlap_mentioned_p to decide in which order we want
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>>> 2011-08-26 Rainer Orth
>>>
>>> PR target/50166
>>> * acinclude.m4 (gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY): Check count in main.
>>> * configure: Regenerate.
>>
>> That explains why init_array was enabled on AIX.
In rest_of_reorder_blocks, we avoid reordering if
!optimize_function_for_speed_p. However, we still call
insert_section_bounary_note, which can cause problems because now, if we
have a sequence of HOT-COLD-HOT blocks, the second set of HOT blocks
will end up in the cold section. This causes assembl
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>> 2011-08-26 Rainer Orth
>>
>> PR target/50166
>> * acinclude.m4 (gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY): Check count in main.
>> * configure: Regenerate.
>
> That explains why init_array was enabled on AIX. It looks good to me and
> still works on Fedora 15.
What sup
On 26 August 2011 15:36, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 08/26/11 16:32, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On 24 August 2011 18:23, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 08/24/11 19:17, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> You mean the introduction of simple_return patterns for ARM? The patch
> is split up further (this on
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> As detailed in the PR, H.J.'s .init_array/.fini_array patch
>
> 2011-08-20 H.J. Lu
>
> PR other/46770
> * config.gcc (tm_file): Add initfini-array.h if
> .init_arrary/.fini_array are supported.
>
> broke Solaris bootstra
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 00:45:55 +0200
> SPARC maintainers, any objection to me eliminating this SETJMP_VIA_SAVE_AREA
> kludge? This would make it possible to have a shared implementation with the
> flat mode and remove specific support in a few locations. Even IA-64 does
On 08/26/11 16:32, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 24 August 2011 18:23, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 08/24/11 19:17, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> OK with that change from a MIPS and rtl and perspective.
>>
>> Thanks. What else is in there? Trivial x86 changes, and a slightly less
>> trivial but st
As detailed in the PR, H.J.'s .init_array/.fini_array patch
2011-08-20 H.J. Lu
PR other/46770
* config.gcc (tm_file): Add initfini-array.h if
.init_arrary/.fini_array are supported.
broke Solaris bootstrap since the testcase incorrectly succeeds on
Solaris, failing to
On 24 August 2011 18:23, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 08/24/11 19:17, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> OK with that change from a MIPS and rtl and perspective.
>
> Thanks. What else is in there? Trivial x86 changes, and a slightly less
> trivial but still tiny ARM bit, I suppose. Richard/Ramana?
Sorry ab
Hi!
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 06:04:20AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Please check ALL AVX2 tests to see if they have similar problems.
Checking all current i386 tests revealed another problematic testcase:
grep scan-assembler' "[a-z0-9]*"' testsuite/gcc.target/i386/*.c | grep
'\(.*\).*"\1"'
(minmax-*
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As the following testcase shows, if the last expression in statement
> expression is array, mark_exp_read wasn't called on it.
> Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux,
> ok for trunk/4.6?
OK.
--
Joseph S. Myers
j
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:19:24AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:06:55AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> This basically would make DECL_BUILT_IN_CLASS no longer necessary
> >> if all targets where con
this looks right to me. ok for commit.
On 08/26/2011 09:54 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
As described here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-08/msg00294.html
df is currently failing to create REG_DEAD notes for the last use
of a multi-reg hard register. This appears to be a typo:
df_set_
On 08/25/2011 06:21 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 07/18/11 18:47, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
But I guess comb-vector is popular for a reason. We could tolerate slow
compression time because it is done once but worse compression and
slower access would have a really bad impact on the compiler time.
Uros,
> I will wait for the confirmation from Rainer before committing the patch.
an i386-pc-solaris2.9 bootstrap just finished, and all the failures are
gone.
Thanks.
Rainer
--
-
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotec
Paolo,
Ok for mainline if bootstraps pass?
>>> Not a comment strictly about this patch, but why we have things like #if
>>> __cplusplus>= 199711L anywhere? For sure the library is not supposed to be
>>> used together with old C++ front-ends.
>> I thought about this myself, but at least the ov
As described here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-08/msg00294.html
df is currently failing to create REG_DEAD notes for the last use
of a multi-reg hard register. This appears to be a typo:
df_set_dead_notes_for_mw is supposed to handle uses, and the comment
above it says so, but df_note_bb_
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Thanks for your objections.
>
> HJ, I scanned all AVX2 tests. So, every tests has at least which
> distinguishes it from filename:
> $ pwd
> /export/users/kyukhin/ws/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386
> $ grep "scan-assembler" avx2
Hi guys,
Thanks for your objections.
HJ, I scanned all AVX2 tests. So, every tests has at least which
distinguishes it from filename:
$ pwd
/export/users/kyukhin/ws/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386
$ grep "scan-assembler" avx2-* |grep -v "\t" |wc -l
0
Uros, you're right. Patch contains usless f
On 08/14/2011 03:03 PM, Jie Liu wrote:
Hi,
I have add the boehm-gc patch and the configure for gcc patch to the
patch attached. So we can add this patch and then compile gcj for
RTEMS.
Best Regards,
Jie
--- boehm-gc/include/private/gcconfig.h (revision 172224)
+++ boehm-gc/include/private/gcc
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch is needed for x32 and only affects x32. Any comments/objections
>> to apply this to finish x32 support?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> H.J.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:25 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
* Jie Liu wrote on Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:07:36PM CEST:
> > Looks OK, but there is no ChangeLog. Do you have copyright
> > assignment?
>
> Have added ChangeLog to the patch, please see the attachment. And I
> think I have copyright assignment, because I have Free Software
> Foundation paperwork,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> So if this is ok can someone please commit it?
>
> 2011/8/25 Ilya Tocar :
>> Fixed.
>>
>> Changelog:
>>
>> 2011-08-25 Ilya Tocar
>>
>> * config/i386/fmaintrin.h: New.
>> * config.gcc: Add fmaintrin.h.
>> *
On 8/26/11 2:59 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Paolo,
Ok for mainline if bootstraps pass?
Not a comment strictly about this patch, but why we have things like #if
__cplusplus>= 199711L anywhere? For sure the library is not supposed to be
used together with old C++ front-ends.
I thought about this
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> According to Jakub's input, I've updated test to scan instruction, not
> pattern name.
>
> Is it ok?
>
> Thanks, K
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Kirill Yukhin
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Here is a fix for http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
Hi Paolo,
>> Ok for mainline if bootstraps pass?
> Not a comment strictly about this patch, but why we have things like #if
> __cplusplus >= 199711L anywhere? For sure the library is not supposed to be
> used together with old C++ front-ends.
I thought about this myself, but at least the overload
Rather than using global variables and then copying them into a bb
structure, would it be possible to write directly into the bb structure?
The answer's probably "no", just asking. :-)
Bernd Schmidt writes:
> * regrename.c (struct du_head): Make nregs signed.
> (scan_rtx_reg, scan_rtx
Hi,
Ok for mainline if bootstraps pass?
Not a comment strictly about this patch, but why we have things like #if
__cplusplus >= 199711L anywhere? For sure the library is not supposed to
be used together with old C++ front-ends.
Paolo.
Another missed piece, exposed by less MEM_REF -> ARRAY_REF folding.
Interestingly only for Ada testcases.
Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Richard.
2011-08-26 Richard Guenther
* varasm.c (decode_addr_const): Handle MEM_REF[&X, OFF].
Index: gcc/varasm.c
===
On 19 August 2011 11:06, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>>
>> Regression test against cortex-M0/M3/M4 profile with "-mthumb" option
>> doesn't show any new failures.
>
> Please test on ARM state as well and make sure there are no
> regressions before committing.
>
Jiangning told me privately that th
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:09:53PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> On 26 Aug 2011, at 11:27, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> * Jack Howarth wrote on Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 01:27:21AM CEST:
>>> The following patch addresses
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42554#c15
>>> by extending the lo
All my testing of the __cplusplus 199711L patches had been on Solaris
8+/x86. During last weekend's bootstrap on the whole range of systems
(Solaris 8 to 11, SPARC and x86), it turned out that there are possible
variations of and between Solaris 8
FCS and patches, so we cannot statically configu
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> According to Jakub's input, I've updated test to scan instruction, not
> pattern name.
>
> Is it ok?
>
> Thanks, K
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Kirill Yukhin
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Here is a fix for http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 02:34:29PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > >> I am going to be sending the renaming patch later today or tomorrow.
> > >> In principle, the things I want to abstract are those that are
> > >> forcing me to include l
Am 26.08.2011 14:40, schrieb Thomas Koenig:
OK for trunk? Which branches should this be backported to?
I forgot - also regression-tested.
Thomas
Hello world,
the attached patch fixes the PR by doing comparisions for wide
characters as unsigned 4-byte ints.
I have put the comparison function into libgfortran.h because I will
need it for MINLOC and friends for characters.
OK for trunk? Which branches should this be backported to?
On 11-08-26 04:24 , Richard Guenther wrote:
This patch caused http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50165
it seems that LTO string hashing is seriously broken now.
Sorry about this. Bad timing as I will be away until 7/Sep. Would it
make things easier if the commit that introduced thi
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> I am going to be sending the renaming patch later today or tomorrow.
> >> In principle, the things I want to abstract are those that are
> >> forcing me to include lto-streamer.h from
> >> {tree,gimple,data}-streamer.*. I will know better w
According to Jakub's input, I've updated test to scan instruction, not
pattern name.
Is it ok?
Thanks, K
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hi,
> Here is a fix for http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
>
> testsuite/ChangeLog entry:
>
> 2011-08-26 Kirill Yukhin
Hi,
Here is a fix for http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
testsuite/ChangeLog entry:
2011-08-26 Kirill Yukhin
PR testsuite/50185
* gcc.target/i386/avx2-vmovmskb-2.c: Rename to ...
* gcc.target/i386/avx2-vpmovmskb-2.c: ... this. Update.
Test passes.
Ok fo
On 26 Aug 2011, at 11:27, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Jack Howarth wrote on Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 01:27:21AM CEST:
The following patch addresses
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42554#c15
by extending the logic used in...
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=15756
This handles &MEM_REF["foo", 17] similar to how we handle &"foo"[17].
The former also works when no arra-ref is reconstructed from "foo" + 17.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Richard.
2011-08-26 Richard Guenther
* expr.c (string_constant): Handle &MEM_
Hello,
Could I have a review for the trivial patch posted in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01123.html
-fprofile-use sets flag_branch_probabilities.
But we should also be able to use -fbranch-probabilities on its own
using the information generated by -fprofile-arcs, as documente
* Jack Howarth wrote on Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 01:27:21AM CEST:
>The following patch addresses
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42554#c15
> by extending the logic used in...
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157563
> Log:
> PR ada/42554
> * configure.a
On 09/05/11 17:23, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 06/05/11 12:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
OK with a change to do that.
Thanks, I can't commit this until my ADDW/SUBW patch has been committed.
There was a bug I found in final testing, so this has been delayed somewhat.
I've just committed this vers
On 16/06/11 10:13, Stubbs, Andrew wrote:
On 02/06/11 11:36, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
OK.
I've not yet committed this patch because my final testing revealed an
unexpected bootstrap failure. I'm still investigating.
I'll commit or post a replacement soon ... ish.
Ok, it wasn't very soon,
Double ping.
2011/8/19 Ilya Enkovich :
> Ping.
>
> 2011/8/10 Ilya Enkovich :
>> Hello,
>>
>> Here is a new version of the patch. Changes from the previous version
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg02240.html):
>> - updated to trunk
>> - TODO_remove_unused_locals flag was removed f
Test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c can pass for -O1 after Richard
Guenther fixed something in tree-ssa-dom. The
"link_error" should be optimized away for ARM targets as well.
The patch is:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c
in
Hi,
This fixes the missing scheduling descriptions for some of the DImode
multiply instructions. Tested on arm-linux-gnueabi and benchmarked with
SPEC2k showing minor improvements.
Will be committed shortly.
cheers
Ramana
2011-08-26 Ramana Radhakrishnan
* config/arm/cortex-a9.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:52, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> > Sound. ;) Looking forward to some bikeshedding about naming in (2) and
>> > overabstraction in (3) :)
>>
>> Heh, yeah.
>>
>> I am goi
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:06:55AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> This basically would make DECL_BUILT_IN_CLASS no longer necessary
>> if all targets where converted, right? (We don't currently have any
>> BUILT_IN_FRONTEND builtins).
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> thanks for the review.
>
> On 08/25/2011 12:45 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Tom de Vries
>> wrote:
>>> Jakub,
>>>
>>> This patch fixes a segmentation violation, which occurs when printing a
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >> As noted in the PR, we also have to protect conversion from
>> >> round->lround for non-TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS targets. Otherwise, gcc
>> >> chokes in fold_fixed_mathfn, trying to canonicalize iround to
>> >> (non-existent) lround. It l
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >> As noted in the PR, we also have to protect conversion from
> >> round->lround for non-TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS targets. Otherwise, gcc
> >> chokes in fold_fixed_mathfn, trying to canonicalize i
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> As noted in the PR, we also have to protect conversion from
>> round->lround for non-TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS targets. Otherwise, gcc
>> chokes in fold_fixed_mathfn, trying to canonicalize iround to
>> (non-existent) lround. It looks to me,
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> As noted in the PR, we also have to protect conversion from
> round->lround for non-TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS targets. Otherwise, gcc
> chokes in fold_fixed_mathfn, trying to canonicalize iround to
> (non-existent) lround. It looks to me, that we ca
95 matches
Mail list logo
