On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 11:15 +0100, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> I am pinging again this documentation patch
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00074.html
> (pinged at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01002.html on
> febµ.17th 2014)
and also pinged at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/
So, to support things like this:
(define_constants
(C1_TEMP_REGNUM PROLOGUE_SCRATCH_1)
(C1_TEMP2_REGNUM PROLOGUE_SCRATCH_2)
I need the rtl reader to do less checking. We we turn off int validation, this
then works, and we get:
#define C1_TEMP_REGNUM PROLOGUE_SC
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> Do you know of any cases where xor is
> generated (except for destination in gather/scatter)
I don't have any code exhibiting this handy right now. I'll keep an eye out.
> but it also clobbers
> flags. Maybe just define it to setzero for no
Kai Tietz writes:
> 2014-03-17 21:50 GMT+01:00 Rainer Orth :
>> Hi Kai,
>>
>>> this patch fixes some regressions introduced by default-option
>>> -fms-extensions for mingw-targets.
>>
>> you should state in your submissions *which* regressions were
>> introduced/*which* problem you are fixing. W
2014-03-17 21:50 GMT+01:00 Rainer Orth :
> Hi Kai,
>
>> this patch fixes some regressions introduced by default-option
>> -fms-extensions for mingw-targets.
>
> you should state in your submissions *which* regressions were
> introduced/*which* problem you are fixing. While this may be obvious to
>
Hi Kai,
> this patch fixes some regressions introduced by default-option
> -fms-extensions for mingw-targets.
you should state in your submissions *which* regressions were
introduced/*which* problem you are fixing. While this may be obvious to
you, it's often not so to reviewers.
> ChangeLog
>
Hello,
this patch fixes some regressions introduced by default-option
-fms-extensions for mingw-targets.
ChangeLog
2014-03-17 Kai Tietz
* anon-struct-1.c: Add -fno-ms-extensions option for mingw targets.
* anon-struct-11.c: Likewise.
* anon-struct-2.c: Likewise.
* c11-anon-st
On 2014-03-13, 7:37 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
On 13/03/14 12:25, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
--- a/gcc/doc/md.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/md.texi
@@ -4720,6 +4720,17 @@ Add operand 2 and operand 1, storing the result in
operand 0. All operands must hav
Hi!
Since r163679 the pop pattern is no longer a PARALLEL, but uses POST_INC.
That commit fixed another spot where REG_CFA_ADJUST_CFA note has been
created from the pop insn pattern, but missed this spot which is rarely used
(requires popping > 64KB arguments by callee).
Bootstrapped/regtested on
On 03/17/2014 11:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2014-03-17 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR target/60516
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_epilogue): Adjust REG_CFA_ADJUST_CFA
> note creation for the 2010-08-31 changes.
>
> * gcc.target/i386/pr60516.c: New test.
Ok.
r~
Hi!
Apparently rest_of_decl_compilation only calls varpool_finalize_decl
if not in_lto_p, so this patch calls it explicitly after that call to
make sure with -flto we register the newly created vars with varpool as
well.
Additionally, the patch gives name to a few further builtin types, so that
t
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:26:58AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Kirill Yukhin
> wrote:
> > On 17 Mar 10:16, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> BTW, in glibc, there are
> >>
> >> asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0" : : "x" (zmm) : "xmm0" );
> > Maybe. But I belive that this is much
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> On 17 Mar 10:16, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> BTW, in glibc, there are
>>
>> asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0" : : "x" (zmm) : "xmm0" );
> Maybe. But I belive that this is much more clear to have instead:
>asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0
> On 03/17/2014 04:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >Thank you! would preffer different marker than cxa_pure_virtual in the
> >vtable,
> >most probably simply NULL.
> >
> >The reason is that __cxa_pure_virtual will appear as a possible target in the
> >list and it will prevent devirtualization to happ
On 17 Mar 10:16, H.J. Lu wrote:
> BTW, in glibc, there are
>
> asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0" : : "x" (zmm) : "xmm0" );
Maybe. But I belive that this is much more clear to have instead:
asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0" : : "x" (zmm) : "zmm0" );
--
Thanks, K
On 17 Mar 17:52, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> >> Is it ok for trunk?
> >> Do we need to backport it to 4.8?
> It does, but the situation is the same as with %eax vs. %rax names.
> So, I think the patch is OK for mainline, and similar patch involving
> o
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
register names in inline asm statements as well as
in `register` variables
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>>> Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
>>> register names in inline asm statements as well as
>>> in `register` variables definitions.
>>>
>>> New tests pass.
>>> Bootstrap pass.
On 16/03/14 11:25, Renlin Li wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a simple patch to update the AArch64 frame layout comment in
> the source code.
> frame_pointer should point above the local_variables section as we
> define FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD = 1.
>
> Is this Okay for stage-4?
>
OK.
R.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:21:48PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Maybe it's just too late on a Friday evening, but I don't understand this
> change, part of r204863. GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR has the value zero;
> shouldn't this comparison have remained unchanged? Is the following
> (untested) patch
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
>> register names in inline asm statements as well as
>> in `register` variables definitions.
>>
>> New tests pass.
>> Bootstrap pass.
>>
>> Is it ok for trunk?
>> Do we need to backport it to 4.8
On 12 February 2014 10:54, Alex Velenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch implements vqneg_s64, vqnegd_s64, vqabs_s64 and
> vqabsd_s64 AArch64 intrinsics. Regression tests added.
> Run full regression with no regressions.
>
> Is patch OK?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> gcc/
>
> 2014-02-12 Alex Velenko
>
>
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 04:00:11PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 18:50:15 +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > --- a/libgomp/libgomp.map
> > +++ b/libgomp/libgomp.map
> > @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ GOMP_3.0 {
> >
> > GOMP_4.0 {
> >global:
> > + GOMP_offload_register;
> >
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:52:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > > Consider t
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hello,
> Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
> register names in inline asm statements as well as
> in `register` variables definitions.
>
> New tests pass.
> Bootstrap pass.
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
> Do we need to backport it t
Hi!
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 18:50:15 +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> --- a/libgomp/libgomp.map
> +++ b/libgomp/libgomp.map
> @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ GOMP_3.0 {
>
> GOMP_4.0 {
>global:
> + GOMP_offload_register;
> GOMP_barrier_cancel;
> GOMP_cancel;
> GOMP_cancellation_point;
Now
On 03/16/2014 04:44 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
+ if (parser->num_classes_being_defined == 0)
+ while (scope->kind == sk_class)
+ {
+ parent_scope = scope;
+ scope = scope->level_chain;
+ }
+ else
+ while (scope->
OK.
Jason
On 03/17/2014 04:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Thank you! would preffer different marker than cxa_pure_virtual in the vtable,
most probably simply NULL.
The reason is that __cxa_pure_virtual will appear as a possible target in the
list and it will prevent devirtualization to happen when we end up w
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 02:49:41PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> 2014-03-17 Marek Polacek
>
> PR middle-end/60534
> * omp-low.c (omp_max_vf): Treat -fno-tree-loop-optimize the same
> as -fno-tree-loop-vectorize.
> (expand_omp_simd): Likewise.
> testsuite/
> * gcc.d
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:16:08PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> No. IMHO this needs to be:
> || optimize_debug
> + || !flag_no_tree_loop_optimize
> || (!flag_tree_loop_vectorize
> && (global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize
I presume you mean !flag_tree_loop_o
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 02:44:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> You mean exactly in the case where the profitability check ensures
> that n % vf == 0? Thus effectively if n == maximum trip count?
> That's quite a special case, no?
Indeed it is. But I guess that is pretty much the only case whe
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:52:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > > Consider this fact and if there are alias checks, we can safely remove
> >
On 03/17/2014 05:38 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
noticed this issue, which looks simple to fix. The ICE happens in
cxx_eval_constant_expression, because it cannot handle a CAST_EXPR (or
any othe *_CAST, for that matter). In fact check_narrowing calls
maybe_constant_value, and, because we are in a tem
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> The problem here was that when reading a value from STDIN and the user just
> entered an empty entry (LF),
> we would end up getting nested into a second read (via next_char) and the user
> would have to press CTRL-D twice to get
This nearly brings us to the goal of having just one page covering
this and simplifies language in about.html a bit on the way.
Applied.
Gerald
Index: about.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/about.html,v
retrieving revision
Ping.
2014-03-12 21:56 GMT+04:00 Ilya Verbin :
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Here is a new version of this patch (it was discussed in other thread:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00573.html ) with ChangeLog.
> Bootstrap and make check passed.
> Ok to commit?
-- Ilya
Hello,
Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
register names in inline asm statements as well as
in `register` variables definitions.
New tests pass.
Bootstrap pass.
Is it ok for trunk?
Do we need to backport it to 4.8?
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.h (ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES): Ad
On 17/03/14 02:51, Terry Guo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working on another patch and found this per-function variable isn't
> correctly reset for Thumb1 target. Currently no ICE will be triggered
> because we don't call function arm_split_constants for Thumb1 target. This
> patch intends to define this
On 16 Mar 07:12, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> [This patch is so far really meant for commenting. I haven't tested it
> at all yet.]
>
> Intel's intrinsic specification includes one set which currently is not
> defined in gcc's headers: the _mm*_undefined_* intrinsics.
What specification are talking ab
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:01:54PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This patch ensures that we properly expand gomp SIMD builtins even with
> -fno-tree-loop-optimize. The problem was that we didn't run the
> loop vectorization at all. -fno-tree-loop-vectorize already contains
> similar hack.
>
> R
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:01:41PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Sorry, I repost last patch with small correction in dg-do directive.
> The ! in there needs additional framing, and I missed the target
> keyword.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
> Index: 20010327-1.c
> ===
This patch ensures that we properly expand gomp SIMD builtins even with
-fno-tree-loop-optimize. The problem was that we didn't run the
loop vectorization at all. -fno-tree-loop-vectorize already contains
similar hack.
Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk (or for 5.0?)?
2014-03
Sorry, I repost last patch with small correction in dg-do directive.
The ! in there needs additional framing, and I missed the target
keyword.
Regards,
Kai
Index: 20010327-1.c
===
--- 20010327-1.c(Revision 208594)
+++ 20010327-1
On 16 March 2014 16:09, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> OK, thinking further on it I actually agree with not mentioning DRs on a
> partially baked standard. We advertise that support for new standards is
> experimental.
I don't think it does any harm to add comments during the C++1y/C++1z
process to no
On 16/03/14 12:30, Renlin Li wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for your suggestions, Richard. I have updated the patch
> accordingly.
>
> This is an optimization patch which will combine "ubfiz" and "orr"
> insns with a single "bfi" when certain conditions meet.
>
> tmp = (x & m) | ( (y & n) <<
2014-03-17 10:53 GMT+01:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:50:35AM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Kai,
>>
>> > Index: gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c
>> > ===
>> > --- gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c(Revision 20
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:50:35AM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Kai,
>
> > Index: gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c
> > ===
> > --- gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c(Revision 208594)
> > +++ gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c
Hi Kai,
> Index: gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c
> ===
> --- gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c(Revision 208594)
> +++ gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c(Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> /* { dg-require-effective-target p
Hi,
The patch enhances ifcvt to handle conditional compare instruction
(ccmp) to make it work with cmov. For ccmp, ALLOW_CC_MODE is set to
TRUE when calling canonicalize_condition. And the backend does not
need to generate additional "compare (CC, 0)" for it.
Bootstrap and no check regression on
Hi,
noticed this issue, which looks simple to fix. The ICE happens in
cxx_eval_constant_expression, because it cannot handle a CAST_EXPR (or
any othe *_CAST, for that matter). In fact check_narrowing calls
maybe_constant_value, and, because we are in a template, the latter
faces the unfolded
Tested on {x86_64,m68k}-suse-linux and installed as obvious.
Andreas.
PR testsuite/58851
* gfortran.dg/unlimited_polymorphic_13.f90: Properly compute
storage size.
---
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/unlimited_polymorphic_13.f90 | 14 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertion
Hi,
this patch corrects a regression seen in
gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c for LLP64 targets.
ChangeLog
2013-03-17 Kai Tietz
* gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c: Adjust testcase for LLP64 targets.
Ok for apply?
Regards,
Kai
Index: gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c
=
This temporarily adds -fpermissive to the gimple-match.c compile
to allow bootstrapping.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu for all languages.
Richard.
2014-03-17 Richard Biener
* Makefile.in (gimple-match.o-warn): Temporarily add -fpermissive
to allow boots
> Honza suggested that if the destructor for an abstract class can't
> ever be called through the vtable, the front end could avoid
> referring to it from the vtable. This patch replaces such a
> destructor with __cxa_pure_virtual in the vtable.
>
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> This backports the fixes for wrong-code bugs PR57425 and PR57569,
> both marked as 4.8 regressions, from mainline to 4.8 branch.
>
> Tested since June last year on x86_64, powerpc64, sparc64, armv5tel,
> and m68k without regressions. Acc
56 matches
Mail list logo
