On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
- cfi_register(%rip, %rdx)
+ cfi_offset(%rip, 56)
>>>
>>> Hm, we just defined new CFA as rcx+0, so we should define location of
>>> rip relative to new CFA. Since CFA points to stack slot just before
>>> return address was pushed, new
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
- movq 56(%rsi), %rdx
movl %edi, %eax
cfi_def_cfa(%rcx, 0)
- cfi_register(%rip, %rdx)
movq %rcx, %rsp
- jmp *%rdx
+ jmp *56(%rsi)
>>>
>>> If you're going
Hi,
This patch was submitted as part of PR 52235.
It increases the preference of a register for first operand of a
commutative operator.
2012-02-13 Paulo Matos
* gcc/rtlanal.c: Increase preference of a register for the
first operand in a commutative operator.
--- gcc46/gcc/rt
Committed.
2012-02-14 Walter Lee
* MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval): Add myself.
Index: MAINTAINERS
===
--- MAINTAINERS (revision 184193)
+++ MAINTAINERS (working copy)
@@ -428,6 +428,7 @@ Asher Langton
Hello Gerald,
Thank you for this suggestion.
I have not worked on these changes before. Therefore, can you please review
the attached patch and let me know if any changes are required to be done in
it.
Thanks and Regards,
Jayant Sonar
[KPIT Cummins, Pune]
cr16-htdocs2.diff
Description: cr1
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:37 PM
> To: Bin Cheng
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH ARM] backport r174803 from trunk to 4.6 branch
>
> On 08/02/12 08:29, Bin Cheng wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Julian Brown once posted a patch
> The patch uses the weak version of compare_exchange universally, which
> is incorrect in a number of cases. You wouldn't see this on x86_64;
> you'd have to use a ll/sc target such as powerpc.
>
> In addition to changing several uses to strong compare_exchange, I
> also optimize the idiom
>
Thanks Andrew. I will take a look at that.
-Doug
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Doug Kwan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch adds support for powerpc*-grtev2-linux-gnu. The changes
>> include:
>>
>> 1. Relocating the dynamic linker using a
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Doug Kwan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch adds support for powerpc*-grtev2-linux-gnu. The changes
> include:
>
> 1. Relocating the dynamic linker using a run-time root prefix.
> 2. Using different library setting in static linking.
>
> This is tested by building Power
Hi,
This patch adds support for powerpc*-grtev2-linux-gnu. The changes
include:
1. Relocating the dynamic linker using a run-time root prefix.
2. Using different library setting in static linking.
This is tested by building PowerPC64 and PowerPC toolchains and ran
some tests with the resulting
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this completes the half-implemented linking scheme of libitm and makes it
> mimic
> that of libgomp entirely. We need the -pthread thing on Solaris 8.
It broke all targets that don't implement threads and as such
don't support -pthread. And yo
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:15:26 +0100
> +static inline void
> +cpu_relax (void)
> +{
> + __asm volatile ("" : : : "memory");
> +}
We probably want to do some nop'ish thing here which will yield the
cpu thread on Niagara cpus, I'd recommend something along the lines of
"rd %c
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:15:26 +0100
> + load[%o1 + OFFSET (JB_CFA)], %fp
> + cfi_def_cfa(%fp, 0)
> +#if STACK_BIAS
> + sub %fp, STACK_BIAS, %fp
> + cfi_def_cfa_offset(STACK_BIAS)
> +#endif
I think you really need to put the proper value into the %fp
This patch fixes this particular bug, but there are some issues.
First, non_static_member_function_p only checks the first function in
the overload set, which may not be representative of all of them. It
really shouldn't look through OVERLOADs, we need to defer this decision
until build_over_
OK.
Jason
PR 50654 points out that many Go tests fail on systems that use emutls.
This turns out to be a subtle issue involving the use of setcontext and
getcontext. When a particular invocation is moved to run on a different
thread via getcontext and setcontext, it must reload the thread-local
variables m
Uros Bizjak writes:
> alpha linux does not have expected "/proc/net/igmp" and
> "/proc/net/igmp6" files, so "func interfaceMulticastAddrTable(ifindex
> int)" from interface_linux.go always returns (nil, nil), failing
> net/test with:
>
> --- FAIL: net.TestListenMulticastUDP (4.71 seconds)
>
On 02/13/2012 04:09 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 02/13/2012 02:54 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> - movq56(%rsi), %rdx
>>> movl%edi, %eax
>>> cfi_def_cfa(%rcx, 0)
>>> - cfi_register(%rip, %rdx)
>>> movq%r
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 02:54 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> - movq 56(%rsi), %rdx
>> movl %edi, %eax
>> cfi_def_cfa(%rcx, 0)
>> - cfi_register(%rip, %rdx)
>> movq %rcx, %rsp
>> - jmp *%rdx
>> + jmp *5
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Seeing as how Uros is starting to go down the path of cleaning up the
> flags handling for x86, I thought I'd go ahead and knock up the idea
> that I've been tossing around to help automate the process of building
> patterns that match bo
Hi,
this patch fixes typo I introduced in my patch fixing infinte recursion of
predict_paths_for_bb.
While converting the check from aux pointers to bitmaps, I got bitmap_set_bit
wrong.
Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, comitted.
PR middle-end/52214
* predict.c (predict_paths_
On Feb 13, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Walter Lee wrote:
> Thanks for the review. Do I have permission to commit,
Yes, you do. Richard can approve this, and when he says, Ok., you're good to
go.
> or is there anything else I need to do?
Nope. (Assuming you have write after approval to the tree.)
On 02/13/2012 03:17 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2012-02-13 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR bootstrap/52172
> * cselib.h (cselib_subst_to_values_from_insn): New prototype.
> * cselib.c (cselib_subst_to_values_from_insn): New function.
> * sched-deps.c (add_insn_mem_dependence,
>
Hi!
To avoid -fcompare-debug failures, we promote_debug_loc VALUEs looked
up from DEBUG_INSNs when they are looked from some other insns.
Unfortunately, the scheduler after cselib_lookup_from_insn from
DEBUG_INSN calls cselib_subst_to_values, which may e.g. cselib_lookup_mem
(with create=0). As t
On 02/13/2012 03:03 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> -// The default TM method used when starting a new transaction.
> -static GTM::abi_dispatch* default_dispatch = 0;
> +// The default TM method used when starting a new transaction. Initialized
> +// in number_of_threads_changed() below.
> +static std
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 12:56 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> FWIW, the mode of flags in users doesn't matter at all on x86, but
>> which way is correct?
>
> As far as I know, it doesn't matter anywhere. We don't even bother to have
> perfect harmony
On 02/02/2012 11:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Ping for:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01564.html
>
> which fixes a MIPS va_arg regression (admittedly a long-standing one)
> on zero-sized types. There are no functional changes to other targets
> and I'm as confident as
This patch fixes a race condition in how transactions previously chose
the dispatch at transaction begin: default_dispatch in retry.cc was
read by transaction before they became either serial or nonserial
transactions (with the serial_lock). A concurrent change of
default_dispatch was possible to
On 02/11/2012 12:56 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> FWIW, the mode of flags in users doesn't matter at all on x86, but
> which way is correct?
As far as I know, it doesn't matter anywhere. We don't even bother to have
perfect harmony between integer modes in hard registers -- think about what
happens
On 02/13/2012 02:54 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> - movq56(%rsi), %rdx
> movl%edi, %eax
> cfi_def_cfa(%rcx, 0)
> - cfi_register(%rip, %rdx)
> movq%rcx, %rsp
> - jmp *%rdx
> + jmp *56(%rsi)
If you're going to do that, the correct fix for the unwind i
Hello!
We can jump indirect from memory address, sparing a couple of cycles.
2012-02-14 Uros Bizjak
* config/x86/target.h (GTM_longjmp): Jump indirect from memory address.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu {,-m32}.
OK for mainline?
Uros.
Index: config/x86/sjlj.S
===
On 02/13/2012 01:47 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> + else {
Watch the formatting.
> + // Location-to-orec mapping. Stripes of 16B mapped to 2^19 orecs.
> + static const gtm_word L2O_ORECS = 1 << 19;
> + static const gtm_word L2O_SHIFT = 4;
Is it just easier to say "16B" or did we really wa
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>> Do we need an update for http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/porting_to.html
>> as well?
> I don't know. The deprecation of access declarations only raises a
> warning -- unless -Werror is used.
> Is porting_to.html appropriate to describe the way to fix the warni
Mikael,
This is OK for trunk with one proviso; could you move
is_class_container_ref to gfc_is_class_container_ref in class.c?
Thanks for the patch
Paul
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this is the next PR50981 fix:
> when passing polymorphic scalar actual arg
On 02/13/2012 05:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The following tiny patch fixes testsuite regressions on x86-64 occurred
after latest merge (this weekend).
Hello Vladimir,
Could you please also update http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html#devbranc
Per http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html we should use
dependent, not dependant. This fixes this for the new GCC 4.7
porting notes as well as one old news entry.
Committed.
Gerald
Index: gcc-4.7/porting_to.html
===
RCS file: /
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The following tiny patch fixes testsuite regressions on x86-64 occurred
> after latest merge (this weekend).
Hello Vladimir,
Could you please also update http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html#devbranches ?
It still mentions "ira" as an active dev
The following tiny patch fixes testsuite regressions on x86-64 occurred
after latest merge (this weekend).
The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86/x86-64.
Committed as rev. 184173.
2012-02-13 Vladimir Makarov
* lra.c (check_rtl): Ignore addr with UNSPEC.
Index: lra.c
===
This patch adds a new TM method, ml_wt, which uses an array of locks
with version numbers and runs a write-through algorithm with time-based
validations and snapshot time extensions.
patch1 adds xcalloc as a helper function for allocations (used in the
new TM method).
patch2 improves TM method re
2012/2/12 Gerald Pfeifer :
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>> I get back to you for the snippet about deprecated access
>> declarations. I would also find it sensible to advertise about the fix
>> of c++/14258, a popular bug I have hit myself many times. OK to commit
>> the below ?
>
> Y
On 2/13/2012 3:02 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/13/2012 07:42 AM, Walter Lee wrote:
1/6 toplevel: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01860.html
2/6 contrib: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01855.html
3/6 gcc: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01494.html
4/6
On 02/11/2012 06:14 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> 2012-02-11 Eric Botcazou
>
> * gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC): Deal with -fgnu-tm.
> (GTM_SELF_SPECS): Define if not already defined.
> (driver_self_specs): Add GTM_SELF_SPECS.
> * config/darwin.h (GTM_SELF_SPECS): Define.
>
This patch re-writes the streaming of binding levels to guarantee that
the whole tree of binding levels in each file is written and merged-in
before anything else.
With this re-factoring, we now write all the binding levels, the merge
keys for symbols/types and their other contents at the start of
Hello
Thanks for the feedback. By the time I finally had access to the
CVS repo but I definitely prefer that you take care of it.
Here is what I compiled from your proposal, Paolo's feedback and my
initial blurb:
This branch carries all the C++ Runtime Library (libstdc++-v3)
pa
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Janne Blomqvist
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the attached patch changes the low-level libgfortran IO dispatching
> mechanism to use shared vtables for each stream type, instead of all
> the function pointers being replicated for each unit. This is similar
> to e.g. how the C++
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> Jakub asked to have a closer look at the problem, and I found we could
> do somewhat better. The first thing I noticed was that the problem was
> that, in each block that computed a (base+const), we created a new VALUE
> for the expression (with the same const and global
Hello world,
the attached patch xfails the offencing test case on architectures
which do not allow unaligned access for vecorization. OK for trunk?
Any other architectures which should be XFAILed?
Regression-tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
Thomas
2012-02-13 Thom
On 02/12/2012 12:15 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> 2012-02-12 Eric Botcazou
>
> * configure.tgt (target_cpu): Handle sparc and sparc64 & sparcv9.
> * config/sparc/cacheline.h: New file.
> * config/sparc/target.h: Likewise.
> * config/sparc/sjlj.S: Likewise.
> * config/l
On 02/13/2012 11:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2012-02-13 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR c++/52215
> * c-common.c (sync_resolve_params): Don't decide whether to convert
> or not based on TYPE_SIZE comparison, convert whenever arg_type
> is unsigned INTEGER_TYPE.
>
> * g++.d
On 02/13/2012 11:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> * cselib.c (expand_loc): Return sp, fp, hfp or cfa base reg right
> away if seen.
Looks good.
r~
On 02/13/2012 11:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> * cselib.c (dump_cselib_val): Don't assume l->setting_insn is
> non-NULL.
Ok.
r~
On 02/13/2012 07:42 AM, Walter Lee wrote:
> 1/6 toplevel: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01860.html
> 2/6 contrib: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01855.html
> 3/6 gcc: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01494.html
> 4/6 libcpp: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
Hi!
If omp for loop body doesn't fallthru (which doesn't make much sense),
then we would call GOMP_loop_static_start with wrong number of arguments
if collapse is 1, static scheduling without chunk size and no ordered
clause.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux,
co
Hello!
alpha linux does not have expected "/proc/net/igmp" and
"/proc/net/igmp6" files, so "func interfaceMulticastAddrTable(ifindex
int)" from interface_linux.go always returns (nil, nil), failing
net/test with:
--- FAIL: net.TestListenMulticastUDP (4.71 seconds)
???:1: IPv4 multicast in
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:21:38PM +, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> Alias analysis by DSE based on CSELIB expansion assumes that
> references to the stack frame from different base registers (ie FP, SP)
> never alias.
>
> The comment block in cselib explains that cselib does not allow
> substituti
Hi!
While debugging PR52172, I've noticed ICE when dumping RTL, all of
cselib seems to test setting_insn for NULL, but this spot doesn't.
Ok for trunk?
2012-02-13 Jakub Jelinek
* cselib.c (dump_cselib_val): Don't assume l->setting_insn is
non-NULL.
--- gcc/cselib.c.jj 20
Ping 5...
> Ping 4...
>
> > Ping 3? It's been months with no feedback...
> >
> > > Ping 2 ?
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01889.html
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg02555.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00529.html
http://gcc.gn
Hi!
As the testcase shows, deciding on whether to convert an argument or not
based on TYPE_SIZE is wrong. While the old __sync_* builtins in the
_[1248]/_16 variants only had a VPTR as first argument and optionally
I[1248]/I16 argument or arguments that should be converted, the new
__atomic_* bui
Hi!
The PR50912 changed vect_get_and_check_slp_defs dt from
array into scalar, which fails when calling vect_model_simple_cost
which looks at two array members. I believe even 4.6 checked just
the first operand, as it called it when processing the first operand,
so IMHO this patch doesn't regress
Hi,
the attached patch changes the low-level libgfortran IO dispatching
mechanism to use shared vtables for each stream type, instead of all
the function pointers being replicated for each unit. This is similar
to e.g. how the C++ frontend implements vtables. The benefits are:
- Slightly smaller
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> I've committed this patch to describe the MIPS changes in GCC 4.7.
>> Corrections, comments, and help with wordsmithing are all welcome.
>
> Nice! How about the small follow-up below?
The first definitely looks good, thanks
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Indeed. But note that the transform is not valid as *this_node may cross
> a page boundary and thus either pointer load may trap if the other does not
> (well, unless the C standard (and thus our middle-end) would require that
> iff ptr->component do
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the German team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/de.po
(This file, 'gcc-4.7-b20120128.de.po', h
On 02/13/2012 01:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2012 01:44 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> What is the reason to keep a GIMPLE_TRANSACTION stmt after
>>> TM lowering and not lower it to a builtin function call?
>>
>> Because "real" opti
This patch set removes __builtin_avr_map8 __builtin_avr_map16 built-ins and
implements a built-in __builtin_avr_insert_bits instead.
This has several reasons:
* From user feedback I learned that speed matters more than size here
* I found that the new built-in has better usability and fits bette
Committed to mainline.
2012-02-13 Andreas Krebbel
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr51933.c: Modify for s390 31 bit.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr51933.c |8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr51933.c
===
Ping. Can someone please review these ports? Here is a summary of
the submission.
Summary of changes in latest submit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01854.html
Latest submit:
1/6 toplevel: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01860.html
2/6 contrib: http://gcc.gnu.org/m
On 02/12/2012 04:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Checked in the shortened version and changes. How thats?
seems better :-)
Yep, thanks! There is just a minor grammor I went ahead fixing.
On the title page, I was thinking to refer to the release notes
e
This fixes PR52178, the failure to bootstrap Ada with LTO (well,
until you hit the next problem). A self-referential DECL_QUALIFIER
makes us think that a QUAL_UNION_TYPE type is of variable-size which
makes us stream that type locally, wrecking type merging and later
ICEing in the type verifier.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:27:35PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Jakub asked to have a closer look at the problem, and I found we could
> do somewhat better. The first thing I noticed was that the problem was
> that, in each block that computed a (base+const), we created a new VALUE
> for the ex
Jakub asked to have a closer look at the problem, and I found we could
do somewhat better. The first thing I noticed was that the problem was
that, in each block that computed a (base+const), we created a new VALUE
for the expression (with the same const and global base), and a new
reverse operati
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerald Pfeifer
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 3:17 PM
> To: Georg-Johann Lay
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Denis Chertykov; Weddington, Eric
> Subject: Re: [Patch,wwwdocs,AVR]: AVR release notes
>
>
> This looks like an impressive release for AVR!
>
> Ge
On 13/02/12 12:54, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> this patch fixes PR52801.
>>
>> Consider test-case pr51879-12.c:
>> ...
>> __attribute__((pure)) int bar (int);
>> __attribute__((pure)) int bar2 (int);
>> void baz (int);
>>
>> int
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:44:04 +0200
Ira Rosen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am starting to work on a new project and won't be able to continue
> with vectorizer maintenance.
>
> I'd like to thank all the people I had a chance to work with for
> making my GCC experience so enjoyable.
Thanks for all the h
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Richard,
>
> this patch fixes PR52801.
>
> Consider test-case pr51879-12.c:
> ...
> __attribute__((pure)) int bar (int);
> __attribute__((pure)) int bar2 (int);
> void baz (int);
>
> int x, z;
>
> void
> foo (int y)
> {
> int a = 0;
> if (y
On 08/02/12 08:29, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> Julian Brown once posted a patch fixing ARM EABI violation, which I think
> also essential to 4.6 branch.
> I created a patch against 4.6 branch as attached. Is it ok to back port?
>
> You can refer following link for original patch.
> http://gcc.gnu.org
Committed as obvious.
Richard.
2012-02-13 Richard Guenther
PR translation/52211
* passes.c (enable_disable_pass): Fix typo.
Index: gcc/passes.c
===
--- gcc/passes.c(revision 184151)
+++ gcc/passes.c
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
>> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jiangning Liu
>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:07 PM
>> To: 'Richard Guenther'
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In July Richard changed reduce_bit_field BIT_NOT_EXPR expansion from
> NOT unop to XOR with all the bits in the bitfield's precision set.
> Unfortunately that is correct for unsigned bitfields only, for signed
> bitfields, where op0
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
>> I was looking at the routelookup EEMBC benchmark and it has code of the form:
>>
>> while ( this_node->cmpbit > next_node->cmpbit )
>> {
>> this_node = next_node;
>>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jiangning Liu
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:07 PM
> To: 'Richard Guenther'
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Improve SCEV for array element
>
> > It's
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 01:44 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > What is the reason to keep a GIMPLE_TRANSACTION stmt after
> > TM lowering and not lower it to a builtin function call?
>
> Because "real" optimization hasn't happened yet, and we hold
> out hope t
Mikael Morin wrote:
> there was no specific handling for absent arrays passed as argument
> to elemental procedures. So, because of scalarisation, we were passing
> an array element reference of a NULL pointer which was failing.
> These patches add a conditional to pass NULL when the data pointer
83 matches
Mail list logo
