On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> My PR52533 patch fixed unsigned comparisons, but not signed ones
> where the maximum is different.
> Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux,
> ok for trunk?
>
> 2012-04-23 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR tr
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Andrew Pinski
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Andrew Pinski
>> wrote:
>>> This time with the patch and describing what the bug was. The problem
>>> was defcodefor_name does not always set a
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:56:11AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > output_addressed_constants isn't able to output constants addressed
> > with &MEM_REF<&something, X> and similarly compute_reloc_for_constant
> > doesn't handle
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> output_addressed_constants isn't able to output constants addressed
> with &MEM_REF<&something, X> and similarly compute_reloc_for_constant
> doesn't handle it. Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and
> i686-linux, o
This patch to the Go compiler issues error messages for some invalid
uses of ... in function calls. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline and 4.7 branch.
Ian
diff -r a69e43eba4d7 go/expressions.cc
--- a/go/expressions.cc Mon Apr 23 14:35:45 2012 -0
> > Per request from IBM...
> >
> > * config/s390/s390.h (LINK_SPEC): Remove, no longer needed.
> > (LIBSTDCXX): Change to CPP2.
>
> Ok.
>
> Bye,
>
> -Andreas-
Thanks! Committed.
On 21 April 2012 00:57, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
> Hi,
> Here is the patch that adds support for divide 64-bit by constant for
> 32-bit target machines, this patch was tested on arm-7a with no new
> regressions, also I am not sure on how to avoid for example i686
> targets since div operation the
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> The addition of -ftree-pre-partial-partial is ok if you change its name to
> -ftree-partial-pre and add documentation to invoke.texi.
...and the GCC 4.8 release notes (gcc-4.8/changes.html). ;-)
Gerald
This fixes two more occurrences per Rainer's earlier observation.
Installed.
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-3.4/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.158
diff -u -3 -p -r1.158 changes.html
--- ch
Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Index: gcc/config/mips/gnu-user.h
> > ===
> > --- gcc/config/mips/gnu-user.h (revision 186580)
> > +++ gcc/config/mips/gnu-user.h (working copy)
> > @@ -45,8 +45,10 @@
> > /* A standard GNU/Linu
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
func
On 04/23/2012 11:36 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
this work from Daniel implements the missing
std::is_nothrow_destructible trait and implements LWG 2049. Tested
x86_64-linux, committed to mainline.
Oops. These improvements leads to tidier diagnostics for noexcept15.C
and I have to adjust it a
On Apr 23, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> The version of 'find' in the GCC farm does not traverse symlinked
> directories unless they have a trailing slash.
>
> OK?
Ok.
On 04/23/12 15:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2012-04-23 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR middle-end/52999
> * varasm.c (get_section): Don't ICE for section conflicts with
> built-in section kinds.
Ok everywhere.
r~
On 04/23/12 16:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> PR middle-end/53084
> * varasm.c (compute_reloc_for_constant): Handle ADDR_EXPR
> of MEM_REF.
> (output_addressed_constants): Likewise.
>
> * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr53084.c: New test.
Ok.
r~
Hi!
output_addressed_constants isn't able to output constants addressed
with &MEM_REF<&something, X> and similarly compute_reloc_for_constant
doesn't handle it. Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux, ok for trunk/4.7?
2012-04-23 Jakub Jelinek
PR middle-e
Hi!
My PR52533 patch fixed unsigned comparisons, but not signed ones
where the maximum is different.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux,
ok for trunk?
2012-04-23 Jakub Jelinek
PR tree-optimization/53058
* tree-vrp.c (register_edge_assert_for_2)
Hi!
If a user decl conflicts with a use of a section without a decl
(usually rtx constant), then we can ICE in get_section.
This patch fixes it, to print the error that has been printed in older gcc
versions. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux,
ok for trunk/4.7?
2012-04-23 Ja
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Great, thanks. Patch is OK with the ChangeLog entries filled-in. Not sure
> if you'd rather wait for the trunk commit to go in, though. It may be better
> to put this version in google/integration and deal with the merge later.
Thanks
On 4/23/12, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 03:29 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > - load_n.c:
> > >- I'm concerned about the CAS on read-only mprotected pages?
> > > Why again do we think this is safe? Does the standard
> > > explicitly allow this? Or should we just use a
The Go spec calls for the precision of untyped floating point constants
to use 256 bits, but gccgo was only using 128 bits. This patch fixes
that. This required adjusting one of the tests so that a floating point
expression remains an integer as required. Bootstrapped and ran Go
testsuite on x86
On 24 April 2012 03:35, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 22/04/12 23:20, Michael Hope wrote:
>> Change the dynamic linker path for ARM hard float executables.
>> Matches the path discussed and agreed on last week[1]. Carlos will
>> follow up with the matching patch to GLIBC[2]. I'm happy to if he's
Hi,
this work from Daniel implements the missing
std::is_nothrow_destructible trait and implements LWG 2049. Tested
x86_64-linux, committed to mainline.
Thanks,
Paolo.
2012-04-23 Daniel Krugler
* include/std/type_traits (is_nothrow_destructible): Implemen
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Andrew Pinski
> wrote:
>> This time with the patch and describing what the bug was. The problem
>> was defcodefor_name does not always set arg1 and arg2. This fixes it
>> so it is always set to NULL if t
Hello!
Based on discussion at [1], there was an oversight when r/r/0
alternative was added to add*_1 patterns. This alternative should also
be added to other add*_X patterns, otherwise combined add+compare
patterns won't be matched post-reload.
2012-04-23 Uros Bizjak
PR target/53020
The following patch makes GCC bootstrap on PA-RISC successful.
Committed as rev. 186724.
2012-04-23 Vladimir Makarov
* targhooks.h (default_different_addr_displacement_p): Declare.
* targhooks.c (default_different_addr_displacement_p): New
function.
* target.
On 04/23/2012 03:29 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
- load_n.c:
- I'm concerned about the CAS on read-only mprotected pages?
Why again do we think this is safe? Does the standard explicitly
allow this? Or should we just use a lock in this case?
Andrew, you had a bit of back-and-fort
On 4/23/12 3:53 PM, Ollie Wild wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
This would be for google/main, right? It does not seem fit for
google/integration.
It needs to be in google/integration because it blocks nearly all of
our code from compiling with -std=gnu++11, and
This patch to the Go frontend corrects the handling of negative zero
when using untyped constants. Go's untyped constants are ideal floating
point numbers, and don't have negative zero or infinity or NaN. The Go
frontend was incorrectly representing the negative of zero as a negative
zero, since
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>>>
>>> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
>>> functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>>> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>>
>> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
>> functi
On 04/23/12 08:27, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> Ulrich, can you please provide some guidelines on how you think this
>> proposed functionality should be implemented?
>
> Well, you do not *have* to have a keyword for a special address space.
>
> One possible implementation might be:
>
> - You define
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> Change the dynamic linker path for ARM hard float executables.
> Matches the path discussed and agreed on last week[1]. Carlos will
> follow up with the matching patch to GLIBC[2]. I'm happy to if he's
> busy.
I'm testing a glibc patch with
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> This would be for google/main, right? It does not seem fit for
> google/integration.
It needs to be in google/integration because it blocks nearly all of
our code from compiling with -std=gnu++11, and there's no way to turn
this behavior
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
>> I don't have any problems with proposed order, but in my failed
>> attempt to convert x86 to post-reload compare elimination,
>> constrain_operands failed to recognize generated combined add+compare
>> pattern, when c
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 22:54, Ollie Wild wrote:
> Add new option, -Wreserved-user-defined-literal.
>
> This option, which is enabled by default, causes the preprocessor to warn
> when a string or character literal is followed by a ud-suffix which does
> not begin with an underscore. According to
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> * config/i386/i386.c (build_processor_features_struct): New function.
> (build_processor_model_struct): New function.
> (make_var_decl): New function.
> (get_field_from_struct): New function.
> (fold_builtin_t
On 04/16/12 11:15, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Richard, Andrew,
>
> I had a look at libatomic yesterday, focusing primarily on
> synchronization issues in it. Here are some comments. And I think
> there is a bug in it too. Notes are in no particular order. Let me know
> what you think.
>
> - seq_c
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>>
>> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
>> functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
>> bit, but IIRC, there was no clear decision. Without this
The version of 'find' in the GCC farm does not traverse symlinked
directories unless they have a trailing slash.
OK?
2012-04-23 Manuel López-Ibáñez
* contrib/compare_tests: Append '/' to make 'find' traverse
symlinked directories.
compare_tests.diff
Description: Binary data
Hello Everyone,
This patch is for the Cilkplus branch affecting the C and C++ compilers.
This patch fixes a bug that occurs when low-cost annotations is enabled. The
bug only occurs when the user is using an assembler later than 2.20.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
Index: gcc/final.c
==
So, apart from the type of the flag, are there any other comments on
the patch? Is the approach acceptable?
On 21 April 2012 17:51, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>> On 21 Ap
On 04/23/2012 11:42 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I have a mixed feeling with the patch. I've tried it on SPEC2000 on
x86/x86-64 and ARM. Model algorithm generates bigger code up to 3.5%
(SPECFP on x86), 2% (SPECFP on 86-64), and 0.23% (SPECFP on ARM) in
comparison with the
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this is second part of cleanup of the callgraph/varpool reachability code.
>
> As I wrote in previous email, the callgraph was originally written with
> reachability code built in. This code was used by non-unit-at-a-time (to drop
> unnec
Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I don't have any problems with proposed order, but in my failed
> attempt to convert x86 to post-reload compare elimination,
> constrain_operands failed to recognize generated combined add+compare
> pattern, when commutative matched operands were swapped (e.g. the
> perfectly
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
>> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>
> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
> functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
> bit, bu
This patch to the libgo Makefile makes sure that the directory where we
place a .o file exists before we try to use it. Bootstrapped on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline and 4.7 branch.
Ian
diff -r e746e3770f15 libgo/Makefile.am
--- a/libgo/Makefile.am Sun Apr 22 13:07:04 2012 -07
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
>> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>
> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
> functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
> bi
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> > 2011-11-17 Andreas Krebbel
>> >
>> > * reload.c (find_reloads): Change the loop nesting when trying an
>> > alternative with swapped operands.
>>
>> I would just like to point out that constran_operands will have
>> problems t
> 2012-04-20 Andreas Krebbel
>
> * recog.c (insn_invalid_p): Add IN_GROUP parameter and use
> validate_change to add clobbers if IN_GROUP is nonzero.
> (verify_changes): Set IN_GROUP parameter to true.
> * recog.h (insn_invalid_p): Add IN_GROUP parameter to function
>
On 04/23/2012 12:17 AM, Naveen H. S wrote:
Some of my colleagues here do have checkin rights but not me.
I have now requested for checkin after approval rights.
Is this ok?
Great. I approved it this morning and it looks like your account was
created soon thereafter. Please add yourself to the
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> I have a mixed feeling with the patch. I've tried it on SPEC2000 on
> x86/x86-64 and ARM. Model algorithm generates bigger code up to 3.5%
> (SPECFP on x86), 2% (SPECFP on 86-64), and 0.23% (SPECFP on ARM) in
> comparison with the current algorithm. It is slower too. Alth
On 22/04/12 23:20, Michael Hope wrote:
> Change the dynamic linker path for ARM hard float executables.
> Matches the path discussed and agreed on last week[1]. Carlos will
> follow up with the matching patch to GLIBC[2]. I'm happy to if he's
> busy.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
> -- Michael
> [1] http:
Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 03/27/12 09:37, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >>> > Now, in this particular case, there might be another option to
> >>> > avoid this hassle completely: =A0I understand that this UNSPEC is
> >>> > simply a magic marker to
Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > 2011-11-17 Andreas Krebbel
> >
> > * reload.c (find_reloads): Change the loop nesting when trying an
> > alternative with swapped operands.
>
> I would just like to point out that constran_operands will have
> problems to re-recognize alternative with swapped comm
Tom> Here is a new patch for gcc.
Tom> I still haven't updated the src side, but there's little to do there
Tom> that isn't already done in this patch.
Tom> Ok?
Tom> Ping.
Tom> Ping.
This is the third ping.
Please review the patch.
There are two choices:
1. Approve the original patch, adding
On 04/20/2012 01:57 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
> Here is the patch that adds support for divide 64-bit by constant for
> 32-bit target machines, this patch was tested on arm-7a with no new
> regressions, also I am not sure on how to avoid for example i686
> targets since div operation there is f
The vectorizer ends up emitting tons of
D.1234 = 0;
if (D.1234 != 0)
tests. Those do not get cleaned up by the cfg-cleanup run after it
but only during the next constant propagation pass. Easily fixed
by avoiding not necessary temporary stmts as follows.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-lin
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Jay Foad wrote:
> On 23 April 2012 14:30, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Well, CCP simply tracks known-bits and derives the alignment
> > value from that. If tem & -tem computes as zero that means
> > val->mask.low is all zeros.
>
> Doesn't that mean that all bits are known? S
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 11:09 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 11:32 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:58 PM, William J. Schmidt
> > > wrote:
> > > > This enhances constant folding for division by complex
On 23 April 2012 14:30, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Well, CCP simply tracks known-bits and derives the alignment
> value from that. If tem & -tem computes as zero that means
> val->mask.low is all zeros.
Doesn't that mean that all bits are known? So you could set:
pi->align = 1 << 32; // or som
Hello!
> 2011-11-17 Andreas Krebbel
>
> * reload.c (find_reloads): Change the loop nesting when trying an
> alternative with swapped operands.
I would just like to point out that constran_operands will have
problems to re-recognize alternative with swapped commutative
operands. The
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:50:51PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
> > > the expected alignment of ob
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Ollie Wild wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ollie Wild wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you still want me to shorten in?
>>
>> yes.
>
> Done. Updated patch attached.
>
> Ollie
Thanks. Tom, I am satisfied
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ollie Wild wrote:
>>
>> Do you still want me to shorten in?
>
> yes.
Done. Updated patch attached.
Ollie
commit 3f53671fb7fc7811277f047e7914f78e127031a6
Author: Ollie Wild
Date: Sun Apr 22 21:37:08 2
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:50:51PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
> > the expected alignment of objects and pointers we have and he
> > suggested that get_obje
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 11:33 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > We're still hitting the overzealous assert identified in PR49246 that is
> > looking for empty LTO partitions, even after the change to a checking
> > assert.
> > How about we b
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ollie Wild wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Ollie Wild wrote:
>>> Add new option, -Wreserved-user-defined-literal.
>>
>> Just shorten it to -Wliteral-suffix.
>
> I chose -Wreserved-user-defin
Hi,
I've re-tested the patch from:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01819.html
on s390x and x86_64.
Ok for mainline?
Bye,
-Andreas-
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Ollie Wild wrote:
>> Add new option, -Wreserved-user-defined-literal.
>
> Just shorten it to -Wliteral-suffix.
I chose -Wreserved-user-defined-literal because that's the name used
by Clang. It seemed be
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Ollie Wild wrote:
> Add new option, -Wreserved-user-defined-literal.
Just shorten it to -Wliteral-suffix.
>
> This option, which is enabled by default, causes the preprocessor to warn
> when a string or character literal is followed by a ud-suffix which does
> n
if-conversion fails to free a basic-block predicates (notably that
of the latch).
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Richard.
2012-04-23 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/53070
* tree-if-conv.c (combine_blocks): Free predicates in all blocks.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:38:41PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Per request from IBM...
>
> * config/s390/s390.h (LINK_SPEC): Remove, no longer needed.
> (LIBSTDCXX): Change to CPP2.
Ok.
Bye,
-Andreas-
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Jay Foad wrote:
> On 20 April 2012 16:54, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
>> the expected alignment of objects and pointers we have and he
>> suggested that get_object_alignment_1 and get_pointer_align
Hi,
tested x86_64-linux, committed.
Paolo.
///
2012-04-23 Chris Jefferson
PR testsuite/53046
* testsuite/25_algorithms/stable_partition/mem_check.cc: Fix size
of array A.
* testsuite/25_algorithms/stable_sort/mem_check.cc: Likewise.
Index: tes
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
> the expected alignment of objects and pointers we have and he
> suggested that get_object_alignment_1 and get_pointer_alignment_1
> should return whether the alignment is a
This fixes a typo.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
Richard.
2012-04-23 Richard Guenther
PR c/53060
* c-typeck.c (build_binary_op): Fix typo.
* gcc.dg/pr53060.c: New testcase.
Index: gcc/c-typeck.c
=
> You do know that at least rtl hoisting is dependent upon calls_setjmp being
> set, right? :-(
Sure, clearly a straightforward dependency. ;-)
> This part breaks my port. I think you read the comment and thought it was
> exhaustive, I don't believe it is.
I think it should, though. __builtin
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I see that no one responded when I posted this in February.
> Ok to commit, now?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> 2012-02-24 Jim Meyering
>
> * genattrtab.c (gen_attr): Avoid NULL-deref after diagnosing
> absence of an define_enum ca
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Andrew Pinski
wrote:
> This time with the patch and describing what the bug was. The problem
> was defcodefor_name does not always set arg1 and arg2. This fixes it
> so it is always set to NULL if they don't exist.
Ok with ...
+ if (code1 == SSA_NAME)
+{
+
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> I noticed a missed simple optimization on the tree level where the
> and expression could be commoned out.
> This patch implements the optimization in tree-ssa-forwprop.c. I
> thought it would be good to get it in even before my tree
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> We're still hitting the overzealous assert identified in PR49246 that is
> looking for empty LTO partitions, even after the change to a checking assert.
> How about we backport Honza's mainline patch that stops the creation of empty
> partit
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Xinliang
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Greta Yorsh wrote:
> Here is a patch to fix the failing test gcc.dg/pr52283.c.
> Adding the missing dg-warning and dg-options.
>
> OK?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> 2012-04-20 Greta Yorsh
>
> * gcc.dg/pr52283.c: Add missing dg-wa
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This patch fixes ICE in adjust_bool_pattern, trueval in that case has
> the vector type's element type, which is full precision of mode,
> so when we see a smaller precision, we need to use build_nonstandard_type.
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> when building Mozilla we ICE in expr_invariant_in_loop_p walking ARRAY_REF,
> because one of the
> fields is NULL (that is allowed)
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, OK?
Ok with breaking the like before && - lines need to be less than 80
c
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 11:32 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:58 PM, William J. Schmidt
> > wrote:
> > > This enhances constant folding for division by complex and vector
> > > constants. When -freciprocal-math is present, such d
> 2012-04-16 Martin Jambor
>
> * expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Remove setting parent's alias set for
> temporaries created for a bitfield (reverting revision 122014).
OK, thanks.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/27/12 09:37, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> > Now, in this particular case, there might be another option to
>>> > avoid this hassle completely: I understand that this UNSPEC is
>>> > simply a magic marker to make the address use the fs: o
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
bit, but IIRC, there was no clear decision. Without this decision, I
am
On 23 April 2012 04:10, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Could you try to get this into mainline instead of just the google
> branches? In http://gcc.gnu.org/PR52538, Jonathan sounded like he'd
> consider accepting it.
I think it's useful, but I can't approve front-end patches.
Denis Chertykov schrieb:
This patch adds a new file ./gcc/doc/avr-mmcu.texi that lists all valid
-mmcu= settings and replaces the respective text in invoke.texi by
@include avr-mmcu.texi
Up to now, there is no complete list of -mmcu= options, and a list is
hard to maintain by hand because it c
> Otherwise, OK as far as x86 is concerned, but you will need separate
> approval for middle-end part.
Hi guys, this is a ping
Could anybody from middle-end please have a look?
Thanks, K
93 matches
Mail list logo
