Il 08/06/2012 20:13, Dinar Temirbulatov ha scritto:
> that I have to add convert_to_mode () to DImode after
> emit_store_flag_force (), since emit_store_flag_force () returns
> "carry" in SImode and without convert_to_mode () call compiler fails
> with this error:
Yes, that makes sense. The new p
Oleg Endo wrote:
> The attached patch adds support for the fmasf4 pattern on SH.
> Tested against rev 188280 with
>
> make info dvi pdf
>
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,
> -m4-single/-ml,-m4-single/-mb,-m4a-single
> From: Gerald Pfeifer
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:27:21 +0200
> This is only a review wearing my web hat; it is orthogonal to the
> discussion with the ARM guys. ;-)
>
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > +On ARM, when compiling for ARMv6 (but not ARMv6-M), ARMv7-A,
> > +
> From: Michael Hope
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:04:19 +0200
> On 8 June 2012 16:53, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> >> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> >> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 06:29:04 +0200
> >
> >> > From: Michael Hope
> >> > Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 05:50:52 +0200
> >> > The combination of
> >> > old
This is only a review wearing my web hat; it is orthogonal to the
discussion with the ARM guys. ;-)
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> +On ARM, when compiling for ARMv6 (but not ARMv6-M), ARMv7-A,
> +ARMv7-R, or ARMv7-M, the default of the new option
> +-munaligned-accesse
On 8 June 2012 16:53, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
>> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 06:29:04 +0200
>
>> > From: Michael Hope
>> > Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 05:50:52 +0200
>> > The combination of
>> > older Linux ARM kernels and GCC 4.7 gives a faulty kernel.
>>
>> We're in agreemen
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
> I udpated the powerpc changes in the GCC 4.7 summary:
Thanks, Michael! I just realized that I had not made two editorial
changes I spotted at that time. Done now. Better late than never. :-)
On the following I am not sure how to best go about, but
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 06/06/12 17:33, rbmj wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> This patch series is the result of this [1] thread about fixincludes on
>> VxWorks.
>> It resolves bugs 53457 and 53378, and a few other issues that previously
>> required manual inter
On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 13:50 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > I've tried some of the cases mentioned in
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
> > with Sandra's patch applied. Unfortunately it didn't help much.
>
> But thanks for checking!
On 06/04/12 17:19, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Another usage is FDO performance tuning trying build with different
options/parameters, so it is common.
This is in our build system for build reproducibility.
If you're trying different options, your builds are not repeatable, so I'm not
totally
On 06/06/12 17:33, rbmj wrote:
Hi everyone,
This patch series is the result of this [1] thread about fixincludes on VxWorks.
It resolves bugs 53457 and 53378, and a few other issues that previously
required manual intervention to fix for VxWorks header files.
From a vxworks POV these all look
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Oleg Endo wrote:
> I've tried some of the cases mentioned in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
> with Sandra's patch applied. Unfortunately it didn't help much.
But thanks for checking!
> There
> seem to be other things going wrong with auto-inc-dec.
Yeah
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 22:33 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> > (1) While the address cost computation is assuming in some situations
> > that pre/post increment/decrement addressing will be used if
> > supported by the target, it isn't actually usi
The fix for PR53331 caused a degradation to 187.facerec on
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. The following simple patch reverses the
degradation without otherwise affecting SPEC cpu2000 or cpu2006.
Bootstrapped and regtested on that platform with no new regressions. Ok
for trunk?
Thanks,
Bill
2012-
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:43 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> This moves fold-consts conversion folding to forwprop, our tree
>> pattern matcher & optimizer. In addition to what fold-const
>> does this makes us canonicalize unsigned truncations
Hello,
The attached patch adds support for the fmasf4 pattern on SH.
Tested against rev 188280 with
make info dvi pdf
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,
-m4-single/-ml,-m4-single/-mb,-m4a-single/-ml,-m4a-single/-mb}"
an
Hello,
currently, tree-ssa-ifcombine handles pairs of imbricated "if"s that share
the same then branch, or the same else branch. There is no particular
reason why it couldn't also handle the case where the then branch of one
is the else branch of the other, which is what I do here.
Any comme
Alessandro Fanfarillo wrote:
with the priceless support of Tobias I've almost realized the patch
for this PR. In attachment there's the second draft. During the
regression test I have only one error with select_type_4.f90. The
problem is in the destroy_list subroutine when it checks
associated(no
*ping*
Ditto for: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-05/msg00171.html
On 30 May 2012 18:35, Tobias Burnus wrote:
This patch is related to today's check.c patch, but independent (also
order wise).
The patch ensures that for scalar coarrays, the array path is taken in
trans-intrinsic. Thus, "t
19 matches
Mail list logo
