Re: [ARM] fix for PR49423

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote: > Hi Ramana, > Here is obvious fix for PR49423, I just added pool range for Sorry for the late response - I've been on vacation. No it's not ok. These were removed deliberately and subsequent efforts to put these back on have been rejec

[RFC PATCH] Add support for sparc compare-and-branch.

Starting with SPARC-T4 we have support for fused compare-and-branch instructions. These are documented at: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/systems/opensparc/sparc-architecture-2011-1728132.pdf But, to summarize the form is: c{w,x}b{$COND} rs1, {rs2,imm5}, LABEL 'w' means 32-bit, 'x

Re: [PATCH] Rs6000 infrastructure cleanup (switches), revised patch #4

I decided to see if it was possible to simplify the change over by adding another flag word in the .opt handling to give the old names (TARGET_ and MASK_). For Joseph Myers and Neil Booth, the issue is when changing all of the switches that use Mask(xxx) and InverseMask(xxx) to also use Var(xxx),

Re: [SH] PR 54680

Oleg Endo wrote: > The attached patch fixes PR 54680. > Tested on rev 192200 with > make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim > \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}" > > and no new failures. > OK? OK. Regards, kaz

Re: [SH] PR 54602

Oleg Endo wrote: > This fixes the issue of PR 54602 as proposed in the PR. > Tested on rev 192200 with > make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim > \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}" > > and no new failures. > OK? OK. Regards, kaz

Re: Fix twolf -funroll-loops -O3 miscompilation (a semi-latent web.c bug)

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> > 1) computing liveness with REG_EQUAL included prior RD that means a lot >> > of shuffling of REG_DEAD notes >> >> I was already working on a patch for this. I'll send it here lat

Re: [asan] Small cleanups

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:37:09PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > >--- gcc/passes.c.jj 2012-10-11 19:10:39.0 +0200 > >+++ gcc/passes.c 2012-10-12 10:03:18.523456291 +0200 > >@@ -1545,6 +1545,7 @@ init_optimization_passes (void) > >NEXT_PASS (pass_tm_edges); > > } > >NEX

PR54915 (ssa-forwprop, vec_perm_expr)

Hello, apparently, in the optimization that recognizes that {v[1],v[0]} is a VEC_PERM_EXPR, I forgot to check that v is a 2-element vector... (not that there aren't things that could be done if v has a different size, just not directly a VEC_PERM_EXPR, and not right now, priority is to fix the

Re: Fix twolf -funroll-loops -O3 miscompilation (a semi-latent web.c bug)

> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > 1) computing liveness with REG_EQUAL included prior RD that means a lot > > of shuffling of REG_DEAD notes > > I was already working on a patch for this. I'll send it here later tonight. Great, thanks! This is probably most sensibl

Re: Fix twolf -funroll-loops -O3 miscompilation (a semi-latent web.c bug)

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > 1) computing liveness with REG_EQUAL included prior RD that means a lot > of shuffling of REG_DEAD notes I was already working on a patch for this. I'll send it here later tonight. Ciao! Steven

Re: Fix twolf -funroll-loops -O3 miscompilation (a semi-latent web.c bug)

> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > Hi, > > I finally tracked down twolf misoptimization triggered by my loop-unroll.c > > changes. It has turned out to be semi-latent wrong code issue in webizer. > > What happens is: > > > > 1) gcse.c drop REG_EQUAL note on the induction va

Re: Fix twolf -funroll-loops -O3 miscompilation (a semi-latent web.c bug)

Hi, On your test case, I have this: Web oldreg=72 newreg=111 Web oldreg=72 newreg=112 Web oldreg=72 newreg=139 Web oldreg=72 newreg=145 Web oldreg=72 newreg=151 Web oldreg=72 newreg=157 Web oldreg=72 newreg=163 Web oldreg=72 newreg=169 --- t.c.182r.loop2_done 2012-10-12 22:23:59.0 +0200

Re: Fix twolf -funroll-loops -O3 miscompilation (a semi-latent web.c bug)

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > I finally tracked down twolf misoptimization triggered by my loop-unroll.c > changes. It has turned out to be semi-latent wrong code issue in webizer. > What happens is: > > 1) gcse.c drop REG_EQUAL note on the induction variable > 2) lo

Re: Fix twolf -funroll-loops -O3 miscompilation (a semi-latent web.c bug)

On 2012.10.12 at 21:43 +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > I finally tracked down twolf misoptimization triggered by my loop-unroll.c > changes. It has turned out to be semi-latent wrong code issue in webizer. > What happens is: > > 1) gcse.c drop REG_EQUAL note on the induction variable > 2) loop optimi

Re: [testsuite] gcc.target/arm: skip 5 tests for flag conflicts

On 10/10/2012 03:43 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 21/09/12 03:51, Janis Johnson wrote: >> This patch adds test directives to skip 5 tests in gcc.target/arm if the >> flags specified for the test would be overridden by or conflict with >> flags used for all tests, such as multilib flags. >> >> Te

Fix twolf -funroll-loops -O3 miscompilation (a semi-latent web.c bug)

Hi, I finally tracked down twolf misoptimization triggered by my loop-unroll.c changes. It has turned out to be semi-latent wrong code issue in webizer. What happens is: 1) gcse.c drop REG_EQUAL note on the induction variable 2) loop optimizer unrolls the loop enabling webizer to cleanup 3) webiz

Re: [PATCH] Adjust target for vect/pr48765.c

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Janis Johnson wrote: > On 10/12/2012 08:05 AM, Joe Seymour wrote: >> I'm observing vect/pr48765.c fail for non 64-bit PowerPC targets: >> >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr48765.c:1:0: error: -m64 not supported in this >> configuration >> >> This patch restricts the

Re: Use conditional casting with symtab_node

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Xinliang David Li > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >>> On 10/10/12, Xinliang David Li wrote: In a different thread, I proposed the following alternative to 'try_xxx

Re: [PATCH] Adjust target for vect/pr48765.c

On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:17 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote: > No, the test should not add -m64, and -mcpu=power6 might conflict > with multilib options. I proposed a different fix for this test in > and then > didn't follow up on it. > > I've

Re: [testsuite] Prune irrelevant warning from pr53060.c

On 10/12/2012 11:31 AM, Joe Seymour wrote: > The pr53060.c test for excess errors fails on some PowerPC targets with an > unexpected warning: "GCC vector returned by reference: non-standard ABI > extension with no compatibility guarantee" > > This patch prunes the irrelevant warning as in pr34856.

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > I don't see how can their testcase be used if not converted to Dejagnu > though, most of their testcases are full of LLVM testcase markup > (// RUN, // CHECK*, etc.). So, if we import the library unmodified, > we'll need to setup some dire

[testsuite] Prune irrelevant warning from pr53060.c

The pr53060.c test for excess errors fails on some PowerPC targets with an unexpected warning: "GCC vector returned by reference: non-standard ABI extension with no compatibility guarantee" This patch prunes the irrelevant warning as in pr34856.c. I don't have commit access, so perhaps someone cou

Re: Move statements upwards after reassociation

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote: >> Thanks for the comments. As David wrote, the intent of the patch is >> not to do a general purpose scheduling, but to compensate for the >> possible live range lengthening introduced

Re: [asan] Protection of stack vars

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:52:04AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: >> This is related to the way how you implement it. Emitting the stack >> shadow initialization code in GIMPLE would solve the problem. I think >> that would be cleaner. > >

[PATCH] Fix up vector CONSTRUCTOR verification ICE (PR tree-optimization/54889)

Hi! Apparently vectorizable_load is another spot that could create vector CONSTRUCTORs that wouldn't pass the new CONSTRUCTOR verification. Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? 2012-10-11 Jakub Jelinek PR tree-optimization/54889 *

Re: [asan] Protection of stack vars

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:52:04AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: > This is related to the way how you implement it. Emitting the stack > shadow initialization code in GIMPLE would solve the problem. I think > that would be cleaner. You'd need to duplicate all the stack slot sharing code, or adju

[RFC] find_reloads_subreg_address rework triggers i386 back-end issue

Hello, I was running a couple of tests on various platforms in preparation of getting the find_reload_subreg_address patch needed by aarch64 upstream: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01421.html This unfortunately uncovered a regression in vect-98-big-array.c on i386. It seems to me t

Re: [asan] Protection of stack vars

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > This is not finished completely yet, but roughly implements protection > of stack variables. As testcase I was using: > extern void *malloc (__SIZE_TYPE__); > > int > main () > { > char buf1[16]; > char buf2[256]; > char buf3[3

Re: [PATCH] Adjust target for vect/pr48765.c

On 10/12/2012 08:05 AM, Joe Seymour wrote: > I'm observing vect/pr48765.c fail for non 64-bit PowerPC targets: > >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr48765.c:1:0: error: -m64 not supported in this > configuration > > This patch restricts the test to 64-bit PowerPC targets. I don't have commit > access,

Re: [PATCH] -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess improvements (PR c/54381)

OK. Jason

Re: [PATCH] PR 53528 c++/ C++11 Generalized Attribute support

Dodji Seketeli writes: > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-52.C > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-52.C > new file mode 100644 > index 000..0f87fd4 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-52.C > @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ > +// { dg-do compile { target c++11

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On 2012-10-12 12:40 , Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:51:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: On 2012-10-12 11:01 , Rainer Orth wrote: Diego Novillo writes: 3- To run ASAN's testsuite, I propose a simple wrapper script that executes it using the just-built gcc. I don't think it'

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:51:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > On 2012-10-12 11:01 , Rainer Orth wrote: > >Diego Novillo writes: > > > >>3- To run ASAN's testsuite, I propose a simple wrapper script that executes > >>it using the just-built gcc. I don't think it's worth the pain to convert > >>

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:05:54PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: >> Was: >> Type global; >> Now: >> struct { // at least 32-byte aligned >>Type orig; >>char redzone[32 + required_for_alignment]; >> } global; >>

Re: [asan] Small cleanups

On 2012-10-12 12:19 , Jakub Jelinek wrote: 2012-10-12 Jakub Jelinek * asan.c (build_check_stmt): Rename join_bb variable to else_bb. (gate_asan_O0): New function. (pass_asan_O0): New variable. * passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Add pass_asan_O0. *

[asan] Protection of stack vars

Hi! This is not finished completely yet, but roughly implements protection of stack variables. As testcase I was using: extern void *malloc (__SIZE_TYPE__); int main () { char buf1[16]; char buf2[256]; char buf3[33]; char *p = malloc (16); asm ("" : "+r" (p)); int i; for (i = 0; i

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 09:30:33AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: >> > Yeah, I think the stack check shouldn't be that hard and can hack it up, >> > I'll perhaps leave the global vars stuff to Dodji or others if he has time. >> >> Since the

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 09:30:33AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: > > Yeah, I think the stack check shouldn't be that hard and can hack it up, > > I'll perhaps leave the global vars stuff to Dodji or others if he has time. > > Since the stack part is relative self contained, might it be better >

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:19:18PM -0700, Wei Mi wrote: >> Here is the initial test results of gcc asan patch, and it shows us >> some missing features in gcc but existing in llvm. >> [1]. gcc regression test for gcc-asan passes. >> [2]. llv

[asan] Small cleanups

Hi! Just tiny cleanup and -fasan support for -O0. Ok for asan? 2012-10-12 Jakub Jelinek * asan.c (build_check_stmt): Rename join_bb variable to else_bb. (gate_asan_O0): New function. (pass_asan_O0): New variable. * passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Add pass

Re: RFC: LRA for x86/x86-64 [7/9] -- continuation

Vladimir Makarov writes: >>> +/* Info about pseudo used during the assignment pass. Thread is a set >>> + of connected reload and inheritance pseudos with the same set of >>> + available hard reg set. Thread is a pseudo itself for other >>> + cases. */ >>> +struct regno_assign_info >> May

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On 2012-10-12 11:01 , Rainer Orth wrote: Diego Novillo writes: 3- To run ASAN's testsuite, I propose a simple wrapper script that executes it using the just-built gcc. I don't think it's worth the pain to convert the testsuite into DejaGNU. If the testsuite is not converted (which can be ug

Re: [PATCH] -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess improvements (PR c/54381)

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > This is something Florian requested on ml and Gerard in bugzilla > after -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess has been added in August for the C FE, > but I've been deferring the work until C++ FE support will be in too. > > It adds diagnostics to some m

Re: Add the Hoyt and the arcsine distributions as extensions.

On 10/12/2012 10:50 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: On 10/12/2012 04:19 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: These are my last two random distribution extensions for now. Thanks a lot! The main on is the Hoyt distribution (AKA the Nakagami-q distribution). It uses the arcsine with specified basis. The arcs

[PATCH] Adjust target for vect/pr48765.c

I'm observing vect/pr48765.c fail for non 64-bit PowerPC targets: > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr48765.c:1:0: error: -m64 not supported in this configuration This patch restricts the test to 64-bit PowerPC targets. I don't have commit access, so if this OK perhaps someone could commit it for me?

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

Diego Novillo writes: > 3- To run ASAN's testsuite, I propose a simple wrapper script that executes > it using the just-built gcc. I don't think it's worth the pain to convert > the testsuite into DejaGNU. If the testsuite is not converted (which can be ugly for maintainers since it needs separ

Re: [lra] patch from Richard Sandiford's review of lra-assigns.c

Vladimir Makarov writes: >The following patch implements most Richard's proposals for LRA > lra-spills.c and lra-coalesce.c files. > >The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86/x86-64. > >Committed as rev. 192389. Thanks for the updates. Looks good to me. Just one comment thoug

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Fix missing gthr-default.h issue on libstdc++ configure

On 10/12/2012 04:20 PM, Pavel Chupin wrote: Please see attached patch (applicable after revert). I've moved libgcc libstdc++ common configure thread header chunk into separate gthr.m4. Could you please try it on AIX? Is it OK for trunk? Looks Ok. If David can test is successfully on AIX I can a

Re: [RFA] Support common C++ declarations inside GTY'd structures

>>> - if (s->u.s.line.file != NULL >>> - || (s->u.s.lang_struct && (s->u.s.lang_struct->u.s.bitmap & >>> bitmap))) >>> + if (s->u.s.lang_struct && (s->u.s.lang_struct->u.s.bitmap & bitmap)) >>> { >>> error_at_line (pos, "duplicate definition of '%s %s'", >>>

Re: [RFA] Support common C++ declarations inside GTY'd structures

On 2012-10-11 13:55 , Laurynas Biveinis wrote: static void -consume_until_semi (bool immediate) +consume_until_eos (void) { - if (immediate && token () != ';') -require (';'); for (;;) switch (token ()) { case ';': advance (); return; - d

Re: RFC: LRA for x86/x86-64 [7/9] -- continuation

Hi Vlad, Comments for the rest of ira-constraints.c. Vladimir Makarov writes: > + saved_base_reg = saved_base_reg2 = saved_index_reg = NULL_RTX; > + change_p = equiv_address_substitution (&ad, addr_loc, mode, as, code); > + if (ad.base_reg_loc != NULL) > +{ > + if (process_addr_reg >

Re: Make try_unroll_loop_completely to use loop bounds recorded

> > > * f95-lang.c (gfc_init_builtin_functions): Build __builtin_unreachable. > > > > I wonder if other languages need similar adjustment? > > I also wondered ;) Only Fortran triggered, I will take a look. > > > > + /* Now destroy the loop. First try to do so by cancelling the > > + patc

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Fix missing gthr-default.h issue on libstdc++ configure

Please see attached patch (applicable after revert). I've moved libgcc libstdc++ common configure thread header chunk into separate gthr.m4. Could you please try it on AIX? Is it OK for trunk? Is it OK for 4.7 after a week testing in trunk? Fix-missing-gthr-default.h.2.patch Description: Binary

Re: [patch][IRA] Really record loop exits

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > Ops. Sorry, Steven. I did a wrong conclusion because I thought I would > have found such code generation problem if it had an affect. Oh, the patch shouldn't (and doesn't) change the generated code, that is not how cfgloops works: record

Re: [patch][IRA] Really record loop exits

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 12-10-12 4:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > > On 12-10-11 4:17 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > IR

Re: Constant-fold vector comparisons

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Marc Glisse wrote: 1) it handles constant folding of vector comparisons, 2) it fixes another place where vectors are not expected Here is a new version of this patch. In a first try, I got bitten by the operator priorities in "a && b?c:d", which g++ doesn't warn about.

Re: [patch][IRA] Really record loop exits

On 12-10-12 4:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote: On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: On 12-10-11 4:17 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: Hello, IRA uses record_loop_exits() to cache the loop exit edges, but due to a code ordering bug the edg

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On 2012-10-11 19:19 , Wei Mi wrote:> Hi, > > Here is the initial test results of gcc asan patch, and it shows us > some missing features in gcc but existing in llvm. > [1]. gcc regression test for gcc-asan passes. > [2]. llvm regression tests for gcc-asan: 18 failures in 123 for tests > written in

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 24449

OK. Jason

Re: [C++] PR53055

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Jason Merrill wrote: Let's use RO_ARROW_STAR to be more readable. I now realize that I have no idea what RO_ARROW_PM was supposed to stand for (Pointer to Member?), which proves that it was a bad name ;-) OK with that change. Thanks. -- Marc Glisse

Re: [C++] PR53055

Let's use RO_ARROW_STAR to be more readable. OK with that change. Jason

Re: [patch][IRA] Really record loop exits

On 12-10-12 4:12 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: On 12-10-11 4:17 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: Hello, IRA uses record_loop_exits() to cache the loop exit edges, but due to a code ordering bug the edges are not actually recorded. record_loop_exi

Add usage documentation for hash_table

Add usage documentation for hash_table. Andrew, does this help? Lawrence, I think I've gotten the details right, but please confirm. Tested by re-building stage 1. * hash-table.h: Add usage documentation. Tidy formatting. diff --git a/gcc/hash-table.h b/gcc/hash-table.h index

Re: Make try_unroll_loop_completely to use loop bounds recorded

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > * f95-lang.c (gfc_init_builtin_functions): Build __builtin_unreachable. > > > > I wonder if other languages need similar adjustment? > > I also wondered ;) Only Fortran triggered, I will take a look. > > > > + /* Now destroy the loop. First try

Re: Make try_unroll_loop_completely to use loop bounds recorded

> > * f95-lang.c (gfc_init_builtin_functions): Build __builtin_unreachable. > > I wonder if other languages need similar adjustment? I also wondered ;) Only Fortran triggered, I will take a look. > > + /* Now destroy the loop. First try to do so by cancelling the > + patch from exit co

Re: Silecne array bounds warnings in duplicated code

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > this patch address problem I run into with strenghtened cunroll pass. > > > > I made > > > > cunroll to use loop_max_iterations bounds into an account that makes us > > > > to >

Re: Silecne array bounds warnings in duplicated code

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > this patch address problem I run into with strenghtened cunroll pass. I > > > made > > > cunroll to use loop_max_iterations bounds into an account that makes us to > > > occasionally produce

Re: Silecne array bounds warnings in duplicated code

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > Hi, > > this patch address problem I run into with strenghtened cunroll pass. I > > made > > cunroll to use loop_max_iterations bounds into an account that makes us to > > occasionally produce out of bounds loop accesses in loop like: > > > > for

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Fix missing gthr-default.h issue on libstdc++ configure

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Pavel Chupin wrote: > How about this patch? > > 2012/10/11 Rainer Orth : >> Pavel Chupin writes: >> >>> Could you try this fix? >> >> Duplicating this much info from libgcc is certainly the wrong (read: >> unmaintainable) approach. The patch allows AIX to bootstr

[PATCH] Fix PR54898

This fixes PR54898, we can't disregard comparing or hashing TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT when we rely on intact variant relationships. LTO bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress. Richard. 2012-10-12 Richard Biener PR lto/54898 * lto.c (gimple_types_compatible_p_1

[PATCH] Move more bit streaming to bitpacks

This moves the target and optimize data to the bitfield blob as appropriate. LTO bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Richard. 2012-10-12 Richard Biener * tree-streamer-out.c (pack_ts_target_option): Rename from ... (write_ts_target_option): ... this.

[C++ Patch] PR 24449

Hi, a pretty old and minor issue, but it seems easy to fix. When we check for wrong declarations of ::main in grokfndecl we use processing_template_decl to reject ::main as template and we end up wrongly rejecting: template class Foob { friend int main(); }; (whereas we normally accept:

[PATCH, alpha]: Trivial alpha.md macroizations, part 3

Hello! 2012-10-12 Uros Bizjak * config/alpha/alpha.md (vecmodesuffix): New mode attribute. (modesuffix): Handle V8QI and V4HI modes. (any_maxmin): New code iterator. (maxmin): New code attribute. (3): Macroize insn from {smax,smin,umax,umin}{qi,hi}3

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Fix missing gthr-default.h issue on libstdc++ configure

Reverted. Trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-10/msg00516.html 4.7: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-10/msg00517.html K

Re: PR/54893: allow volatiles inside relaxed transactions

On 10/11/12 17:15, Richard Henderson wrote: On 10/11/2012 01:56 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: PR middle-end/54893 * trans-mem.c (diagnose_tm_1_op): Allow volatiles inside relaxed transactions. Ok. r~ Sorry for the noise, but Torvald pointed out that the transaction must

Re: Ping^3: [PATCH 3/6] Thread pointer built-in functions, arm

On 26/09/12 09:59, Chung-Lin Tang wrote: On 2012/9/16 05:15 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Second ping for the ARM part of Chung-Lin's __builtin_thread_pointer patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg01914.html I think this is the only part that hasn't been approved. Thanks, Ri

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 01:14:31PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: >> On 2012-10-11 12:38 , Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> >- gimple_seq seq, stmts; >> >- tree shadow_type = size_in_bytes == 16 ? >> >- short_integer_type_node : char_type_node;

[SH] PR 54602

Hello, This fixes the issue of PR 54602 as proposed in the PR. Tested on rev 192200 with make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}" and no new failures. OK? Cheers, Oleg gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/54602 * confi

Re: [patch][IRA] Really record loop exits

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > On 12-10-11 4:17 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> IRA uses record_loop_exits() to cache the loop exit edges, but due to > >> a code ordering bug the edges are not actuall

[SH] PR 54680

Hello, The attached patch fixes PR 54680. Tested on rev 192200 with make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}" and no new failures. OK? Cheers, Oleg gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/54680 * config/sh/sh.c (sh_fsca_sf

Re: Move statements upwards after reassociation

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote: > Thanks for the comments. As David wrote, the intent of the patch is > not to do a general purpose scheduling, but to compensate for the > possible live range lengthening introduced by reassociation. > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Ric

Re: [RFA:] Fix frame-pointer-clobbering in builtins.c:expand_builtin_setjmp_receiver

> But, in the builtins.c:expand_builtin_setjmp_receiver, the > frame-pointer is *clobbered* for a mysterious and fuddy reason: > > /* This might change the hard frame pointer in ways that aren't >apparent to early optimization passes, so force a clobber. */ > emit_clobber (har

Re: VEC_COND_EXPR

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > this patch brings VEC_COND_EXPR closer to what the doc now says. The > non-comparison case and gimplification are dead paths currently, but it > seems convenient to introduce them now. Note that by using the generic > ternary gimpli

[C++ testcase] PR 52744

Hi, testcase committed, PR closed as fixed in mainline. Tested x86_64-linux. Thanks, Paolo. 2012-10-12 Paolo Carlini PR c++/52744 * g++.dg/cpp0x/pr52744.C: New. Index: g++.dg/cpp0x/pr52744.C ===

Re: [PATCH] Reduce conservativeness in REE using machine model (issue6631066)

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:44:12PM -0700, Teresa Johnson wrote: > Revised patch to address conservative behavior in redundant extend > elimination that was resulting in redundant extends not being > removed. Now uses a new target hook machine_mode_from_attr_mode > which is currently enabled only fo

Re: Use conditional casting with symtab_node

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> On 10/10/12, Xinliang David Li wrote: >>> In a different thread, I proposed the following alternative to 'try_xxx': >>> >>> template T* symbol::cast_to(symbol* p) { >>>if (p

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 40453: Enhanced (recursive) argument checking

Hi Thomas, >>> here is a rather straightforward patch, which does 'recursive' >>> checking of dummy procedures. >>> >>> Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? > > > This is OK. Thanks for the patch! thanks, committed as r192391. Cheers, Janus

RE: [PATCH RFA] Implement register pressure directed hoist pass

Hi, This is the updated patches split from original one according to Steven's suggestion. Also fixed spelling errors. Apart from this, I also implemented a draft patch simulating register pressure accurately during hoisting, unfortunately the size data isn't better than this patch. If it's right,

Re: [patch][IRA] Really record loop exits

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 12-10-11 4:17 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> IRA uses record_loop_exits() to cache the loop exit edges, but due to >> a code ordering bug the edges are not actually recorded. >> record_loop_exits() starts with: >> >>if

Re: Make try_unroll_loop_completely to use loop bounds recorded

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > while looking into RTL loop peeling micopmilation I found that we now do a > lot of > RTL loop peeling for loops of the form > > int a[2]; > test(int c) > { > int i; > for (i=0;i a[i]=5; > } > this is because tree-ssa-loop-niter is able to

[PATCH] Fix PR54894

This fixes PR54894. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2012-10-12 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/54894 * tree-vect-stmts.c (get_vectype_for_scalar_type_and_size): Handle over-aligned scalar types properly. * gcc.dg/to

Re: [asan] Emit GIMPLE directly, small cleanups

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:19:18PM -0700, Wei Mi wrote: > Here is the initial test results of gcc asan patch, and it shows us > some missing features in gcc but existing in llvm. > [1]. gcc regression test for gcc-asan passes. > [2]. llvm regression tests for gcc-asan: 18 failures in 123 for tests