Hi,
while compiling firefox I noticed that -fprofile-generage -flto goes to 8GB.
It turns out that this is caused by ipa_reference no longer being disabled
becaus in_lto_p became flag that is set later (it is not clear to me why it
needs to be this way).
I however do not see reason why not disable
Thanks!
> I'd actually do this down at the gimple level. You'll have an SSA graph you
> can use to identify the masking and verify its producing a single bit result.
> You'll also have canonicalized comparisons, so there'll be fewer things to
> test. Depending on exactly where you put the op
On 03/26/14 17:44, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Recently I discovered that the profile updates being performed by jump
threading were incorrect in many cases, particularly in the case where
the threading path contains a joiner. Some of the duplicated
blocks/edges were not getting any counts, leading to
On 03/18/14 04:13, bin.cheng wrote:
Hi,
After control flow graph change made by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01492.html, case
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-4.c is broken on logical_op_short_circuit
targets including cortex-m3/cortex-m0.
The regression reveals a missed opportunity
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>
> With handling only the outermost handled-component and then only a
> selected subset you'll catch many but not all cases. Why not simply
> use get_inner_reference () here (plus stripping the constant offset
> from an innermost MEM_REF
> GCOT_TOOL needs to use this function to read the string in gcda file
> to memory to construct gcov_info objects.
> As you noticed, gcov runtime does not need this interface. But
> gcov-tool links with gcov runtime and it also uses the function.
> We could make it available in gcov_runtime, but th
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Pat Haugen wrote:
> Updated patch with above comments incorporated. Bootstrap/regtest on BE/LE
> with no new regressions. Ok for trunk?
2014-04-08 Pat Haugen
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (addti3, subti3): New.
gcc/testsuite:
* gcc.target/powerpc
Hi,
this patch is a revision of the patch I proposed for BINFO_ABSTRACT_P.
Basically it teaches ipa-devirt that CXX destructors are never called for types
in construction and it also makes it to properly handle vtables of types that
may not have instance. In this case we need to consider them only
Hi,
this is stand alone testcase for that PR.
Comitted to mainline.
PR lto/60820
* gcc.dg/lto/pr60820_0.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/lto/pr60820_1.c: New testcase.
Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr60820_1.c
Hi,
the testcase shows problem where cpp implicit alias is always inline and
symtab_remove_unreachable_nodes removes the body of aliased function before
inlininghappens. The real problem is that cgraph_state is set too early
and not as the comment says after inlinig, but for release branch I think
Doing some work on the msp430 failures, I discovered that this patch:
> --- gcc/expmed.c.jj 2013-05-07 10:26:46.0 +0200
> +++ gcc/expmed.c 2013-05-11 09:11:54.087412982 +0200
> @@ -2181,14 +2182,22 @@ expand_shift_1 (enum tree_code code, enu
> rtx temp1;
>
>
> Thanks, I was wrong about that.
>
> Then I think we should just bite the bullet and provide the new
> behaviour. If we do have an abi_tag on those types in the next release
> then we can preserve the old behaviour in the old ABI and use the
> C++11 semantics for the abi_tagged type, which will be
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:45:28PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Isn't the problem that operands 1 is a MEM which use the same register
> as operands 3 in the memory address?
Yes, exactly.
> ISTM either removing the memory constraint entirely, or splitting it off
> into a separate alternative and on
Thanks, Paolo!
.. also, per the GNU conventions, ? of a conditional expression should
be at the beginning of a line (not at the end of the previous one).
Paolo.
Hi,
On 04/16/2014 05:47 PM, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
+ template
Please avoid _ + Uppercase, those are badnames for many targets.
Normally we add a p at the end. Also, I would mention in a comment the
front-end bug preventing a much more straightforward implementation.
Thanks,
Paolo.
The alignment code in final.c uses some heuristics to decide what alignment a
block must be given. For the loop alignment, it's:
/* In case block is frequent and reached mostly by non-fallthru edge,
align it. It is most likely a first block of loop. */
An immediate counter-exa
Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 09 Apr 2014 09:36:42 +0200, a écrit :
> Well, the first step is to verify that TARGET_THREAD_SPLIT_STACK_OFFSET
> and similar configury is correct for the Hurd,
I have added the corresponding field, so we can just use the same offset
as on Linux.
Samuel
On 04/14/2014 10:32 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> + if (TREE_CODE (val) != IDENTIFIER_NODE
> + && TREE_CODE (val) != FUNCTION_DECL)
> + val = default_conversion (val);
> + else if (TREE_CODE (val) == IDENTIFIER_NODE)
> + {
> + tree t = lookup_name (val);
> + if (t &
On 01/13/14 01:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00140.html
- Ensure GET_MODE_{SIZE,INNER,NUNITS} (const) is constant rather than
memory load after optimization (I'd like to keep the current
patch for the reasons mention
Samuel Thibault, le Sat 12 Apr 2014 01:04:49 +0200, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault, le Fri 11 Apr 2014 23:51:44 +0200, a écrit :
> > So, do we really want to let munmap poke a hole at address 0 and thus
> > let further vm_map() return address 0?
>
> i.e. we could apply this:
I have applied it.
Samu
On 04/16/14 13:41, Richard Sandiford wrote:
IMO CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE is like a "varargs" part of the call pattern.
In other words it's a way of allowing the set of uses and clobbers to
vary from call to call without having to define lots of different call
define_insns. If you look at it lik
On 04/16/14 09:27, Daniel Marjamäki wrote:
Hello!
I am new to GCC.
I want to add a warning to GCC when bit comparison is always true/false.
Example:
if ((x&4)==0) {} // <- no warning
if ((x&4)==4) {} // <- no warning
if ((x&4)==5) {} // <- warn!
When this warning is trigg
On 04/16/14 07:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Creating a (mem (scratch)) too early may pessimize code too much,
perhaps it can be used during say sched1 etc. for alias analysis, (mem
(scratch)) is considered to alias everything,.
Plus, I think at least so far we have not been doing different decisions
> >> Did you see the failures even after your mips_regno_mode_ok_for_base_p
> >> change? LRA should know how to reload a "W" address.
> >
> > Yes but I realize there is more. It fails because $sp is now included
> > in BASE_REG_CLASS and "W" is based on it. However, I suppose that
> > it would be
On 04/08/2014 09:56 PM, seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
+/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* && lp64 } } } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "" { powerpc*-*-darwin* } { "*" } { "" } } */
Please leave out the default arguments. Why does this need skipping
on Darwin?
+;; Define the TImode operations
On 04/16/14 13:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
operand[0] has a subreg taken (as operand[3]), which is modified
before operand[1] is used.
Built succesfully but I'm not set up to run the testsuite, sorry.
It fixes the testcase of course.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-04-16 Segher Boessenkool
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Rainer Orth
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> * Ian: I've removed Solaris 8 and 9 support from libgo. I'm uncertain
>>> if you want this or rather keep that support for the 4.[789] branches?
>
Hi,
On 04/16/2014 09:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/15/2014 12:21 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
a lot of time ago I noticed that these parameters are unused: should I
prepare a ChangeLog for the below or we have stylistic, etc, reasons for
keeping the parameters?
I'd leave them alone, we might
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>>
>> * Ian: I've removed Solaris 8 and 9 support from libgo. I'm uncertain
>> if you want this or rather keep that support for the 4.[789] branches?
>
> I want it. I don't try to maintain exact copies of older
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
>
> * Ian: I've removed Solaris 8 and 9 support from libgo. I'm uncertain
> if you want this or rather keep that support for the 4.[789] branches?
I want it. I don't try to maintain exact copies of older GCC
branches.
Your patch appears sep
On 04/15/2014 12:21 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
a lot of time ago I noticed that these parameters are unused: should I
prepare a ChangeLog for the below or we have stylistic, etc, reasons for
keeping the parameters?
I'd leave them alone, we might want to print something sometime.
PS: I also see
Tom de Vries writes:
> Vladimir,
>
> All patches for the fuse-caller-save optimization have been ok-ed. The only
> part
> not approved is the MIPS-specific part.
>
> The objection of Richard S. is not so much the patch itself, but more the idea
> of the hook fn_other_hard_reg_usage.
>
> For clari
operand[0] has a subreg taken (as operand[3]), which is modified
before operand[1] is used.
Built succesfully but I'm not set up to run the testsuite, sorry.
It fixes the testcase of course.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-04-16 Segher Boessenkool
* config/m68k/m68k.md (extendplussidi): Add ear
Vladimir,
All patches for the fuse-caller-save optimization have been ok-ed. The only part
not approved is the MIPS-specific part.
The objection of Richard S. is not so much the patch itself, but more the idea
of the hook fn_other_hard_reg_usage.
For clarity, I'm restating the current hook defin
"Moore, Catherine" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:32 PM
>> To: Moore, Catherine
>> Cc: Rozycki, Maciej; Matthew Fortune; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] Fix operands for
I'll approve both patches, if you agree to think about a way to solve
this problem without module-specific configury changes for each such
command line option. I understand the usefulness of having
instrumentation, but the configure hack is a hack.
Note that in a combined tree this isn't a probl
On 04/14/2014 01:02 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:01:31PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
So, now that 4.9 has branched, are both patches ok for trunk, or just the
first one? The first one fixes --with-build-config=bootstrap-ubsan
fully and --with-build-config=bootstrap-asan p
This avoids a template instantiation when storing a function pointer
in a std::function.
At some point I want to extend the definition of
__is_location_invariant to include trivially-copyable object types.
I suspect this may be why boost::function can perform significantly
better than our std::fu
On 04/15/2014 03:56 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
The testsuite doesn't hit this code with C++, but does hit this code
with C. The thing is, if we have e.g.
enum { A = 128 };
void *fn1 (void) __attribute__((assume_aligned (A)));
then handle_assume_aligned_attribute walks the attribute arguments
and g
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Now that 4.9 has branched, it's time to actually remove the obsolete
> Solaris 9 configuration. Most of this is just legwork and falls under
> my Solaris maintainership.
>
> A couple of questions, though:
>
> * Uros: I'm removing all sse_os_su
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> For the 3d part of the patch there was a misprint in estimated
> constant. It should be 1.7 instead of 1.8.
> - retval = (retval * 18) / 10;
> + retval = (retval * 17) / 10;
>
> Bootstarp passed.
The change is also OK.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Rong, David, Dehao, Teresa
> I would like to have some rought idea of what we could merge this stage1.
> There is
> certainly a lot of interesting stuff on the google branch including AutoFDO,
> LIPO,
> the multivalue profile counters that ma
OK.
Jason
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> Anyway, others can have different opinion on what "X" should mean,
>> CCing Jeff and Eric.
>
> I personally think that we should not change it and adjust LRA instead to
> error out instead of ICEing (even if this means erroring out in a few more
> cases with LRA than wit
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> * Eric: In libgcc/config/sparc/sol2-unwind.h, I've removed the Solaris 9
>> cases after verifying that the cuh_pattern's used there only occur in
>> Solaris 9 (from FCS to the latest libthread.so.1 patch), but not even
>> in Solaris 10 FCS.
>>
>> For Solaris 10,
> Anyway, others can have different opinion on what "X" should mean,
> CCing Jeff and Eric.
I personally think that we should not change it and adjust LRA instead to
error out instead of ICEing (even if this means erroring out in a few more
cases with LRA than with reload for now, e.g. gcc.dg/to
> * Eric: In libgcc/config/sparc/sol2-unwind.h, I've removed the Solaris 9
> cases after verifying that the cuh_pattern's used there only occur in
> Solaris 9 (from FCS to the latest libthread.so.1 patch), but not even
> in Solaris 10 FCS.
>
> For Solaris 10, do you have any more details o
Of course I forgot to replace one _M_ instance. This should work now.
Sorry about this.
-- 8< - >8 --
C++11: [meta.trans.other]
* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/aligned_union/1.cc: New file.
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits (__strict
> Thanks! I was hoping to implement it the straightforward way, but was
> thwarted by http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59012
There are certainly nicer ways to implement it. At least in C++14
there should be a usable constexpr std::max instead of the verbose
?: usage. Maybe sizeof/ali
On 04/16/2014 12:39 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
>> with respect to Fat_Pointer. Given that the Ada type, as defined in
>> s-stratt.ads, does not include alignment, I can't imagine why the C
>> type should have it.
>
> See gcc-int
Likely after this was checked in appeared following on x86
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-11.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (internal
compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-11.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-12.c -flto -ffat-lto-objec
On 16/04/14 16:19 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/04/14 17:06 +0200, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
C++11 [ptr.align].
This should probably not be inline. But for now this avoids any ABI
changes.
Adding new non-member functions is fine ABI purposes (adding new
virtual functions is not).
Act
On 16/04/14 17:06 +0200, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
C++11: [meta.trans.other]
* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/aligned_union/1.cc: New file.
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits (__strictest_alignment): New
helper struct.
(aligned_union): New struct (C++11).
(aligned_union_t): New type alias
Hello!
I am new to GCC.
I want to add a warning to GCC when bit comparison is always true/false.
Example:
if ((x&4)==0) {} // <- no warning
if ((x&4)==4) {} // <- no warning
if ((x&4)==5) {} // <- warn!
When this warning is triggered, the most common cause is that somebody
mad
On 16/04/14 17:06 +0200, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
C++11 [ptr.align].
This should probably not be inline. But for now this avoids any ABI
changes.
Adding new non-member functions is fine ABI purposes (adding new
virtual functions is not).
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:32 PM
> To: Moore, Catherine
> Cc: Rozycki, Maciej; Matthew Fortune; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] Fix operands for microMIPS SW16, SH16 and
> SB16
C++11: [meta.trans.other]
* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/aligned_union/1.cc: New file.
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits (__strictest_alignment): New
helper struct.
(aligned_union): New struct (C++11).
(aligned_union_t): New type alias (C++14).
---
libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_trait
C++11 [ptr.align].
This should probably not be inline. But for now this avoids any ABI
changes.
* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/align/1.cc: New file.
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/memory (align): New function.
---
libstdc++-v3/include/std/memory | 35 +
libstdc++-v3/testsuit
On 04/15/2014 03:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/03/14 14:54 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
In string_view I botched the noexcept specification of operations
like find and friends with CharT* arguments.
I'm a little surprised the inconsistency between string_view and
string_view.tc
For the 3d part of the patch there was a misprint in estimated
constant. It should be 1.7 instead of 1.8.
- retval = (retval * 18) / 10;
+ retval = (retval * 17) / 10;
Bootstarp passed.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Evgeny
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Zoran Jovanovic
wrote:
> Hello,
> This is new patch version.
> Lowering is applied only for bit-fields copy sequences that are merged.
> Data structure representing bit-field copy sequences is renamed and reduced
> in size.
> Optimization turned on by default for
Hi,
This patch introduces changes in call graph for Pointer Bounds Checker.
New fields instrumented_version, instrumentation_clone and orig_decl are added
for cgraph_node:
- instrumentation_clone field is 1 for nodes created for instrumented version
of functions
- instrumented_version points
On 16 April 2014 13:38, Zoran Jovanovic wrote:
> Hello,
> This is new patch version.
The comment from the previous iteration still holds true:
> +@item -fbitfield-merge
you are talking about '-fmerge-bitfields' up until here.
Please fix all occurances of "bitfield-merge", both in the docs as we
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:24:06PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > side-effect of inline-asm on certain location in memory, but don't really
> > need the address of that memory. Often "memory" is too big hammer,
> > people often say that certain inline-asm uses or sets or uses/sets or
> > clob
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:43:12AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "X" was defined against reload, which always reloaded MEM addresses
>> to follow the appropriate base and index register classes. This was
>> done as a first pass before matching against the constraints:
Hi,
This patch add new field for varpool_node to mark vars requiring bounds
initalization. These changes were previously reverted from 4.9 and I'll assume
patch is OK for trunk if no objections arise.
Patch was bootstrapped and tested for linux-x86_64.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-04-16 Ilya E
Hi,
This patch adds flags and ifaces to mark instrumented calls, extends return
stms with additional operand and introduces some basic bounds predicates.
These changes were previously reverted from 4.9 and I'll assume patch is OK for
trunk if no objections arise.
Patch was bootstrapped and te
Hi,
This patch add new static constructor types used by Pointer Bounds Checker. It
was approved earlier for 4.9 and I'll assume patch is OK for trunk if no
objections arise.
Patch was bootstrapped and tested for linux-x86_64.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-04-16 Ilya Enkovich
* ipa.c
Hi,
This patch introduces attributes used by Pointer Bounds Checker. Comparing to
what was approved for 4.9, this one has additional attribute 'bnd_instrument'
to be used for selective instrumentation.
Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-04-16 I
On 16/04/14 13:19 +0200, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
On Tuesday 15 April 2014 23:36:51 Paolo Carlini wrote:
Those should be isolated and a compiler bug report opened including a
minimized reproducer.
I'm not sure if this is a compiler bug or simply due to the fact that I didn't
add the virtual f
Hi,
This patch introduces built-in functions used by Pointer Bounds Checker. It is
mostly similar to what was reverted from 4.9, I just added types and attributes
to builtins. This patch also introduces pointer_bounds_type_node to be used in
built-in function type declarations.
Bootstrapped
Could someone install this for me?
Hi Vladimir:
thanks your replay and approve, however I don't have commit right yet,
can you help to commit it? thanks!
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 2014-04-15, 9:26 AM, Kito Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vladimir:
>>
>>> Although this patch is safe. I guess it could wai
Could someone install this on my behalf?
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:43:12AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "X" was defined against reload, which always reloaded MEM addresses
> to follow the appropriate base and index register classes. This was
> done as a first pass before matching against the constraints:
I think it would be fine i
On 2014-04-15, 9:26 AM, Kito Cheng wrote:
Hi Vladimir:
Although this patch is safe. I guess it could wait for stage 1 as right now
we don't need this functionality.
The patch is ok for the stage1 which is probably about a month away.
ping
is this patch ok now?
Yes, I approved it alread
Hi,
This patch introduces target hooks to be used by Pointer Bounds Checker. Hooks
set is different from what was approved for 4.9 (and later reverted). I added
hooks to work with returned bounds and to prepare incoming bounds for vararg
functions. It allowed to remove some target assumption
Tom de Vries writes:
> On 16/04/14 12:28, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> > This patch introduces a hook that specifies which registers are
>>> > implicitly
>>> > clobbered by a call, not including the registers that are clobbered in
>>> > the
>>> > called function, and then uses that hook to add
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:46:14AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> >...why do we need two different mechanisms to deal with these two?
>> >IMO the set recorded for the callee should contain what the callee
>> >instructions clobber and nothing else. CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE
>
Hello,
This is new patch version.
Lowering is applied only for bit-fields copy sequences that are merged.
Data structure representing bit-field copy sequences is renamed and reduced in
size.
Optimization turned on by default for -O2 and higher.
Some comments fixed.
Benchmarking performed on WebK
Hi,
This patch introduces Intel MPX bound registers and instructions. It was
approved earlier for 4.9 and had no significant changes since then. I'll
assume patch is OK if no objections arise.
Patch was bootstrapped and tested for linux-x86_64.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-04-16 Ilya Enkovich
On Tuesday 15 April 2014 23:36:51 Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Those should be isolated and a compiler bug report opened including a
> minimized reproducer.
I'm not sure if this is a compiler bug or simply due to the fact that I didn't
add the virtual function to the ABI linker script.
> Anyway, the r
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:46:14AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >...why do we need two different mechanisms to deal with these two?
> >IMO the set recorded for the callee should contain what the callee
> >instructions clobber and nothing else. CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE
> >should contain everything
On 16/04/14 12:28, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > This patch introduces a hook that specifies which registers are implicitly
>> > clobbered by a call, not including the registers that are clobbered in the
>> > called function, and then uses that hook to add those registers to
>> > CALL_INSN_FUNCT
Hi,
This patch restarts the series for introducing Pointer Bounds Checker
instrumentation and supporting Intel Memory Protection Extension (MPX)
technology. Detailed description is on GCC Wiki page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler.
The first patch int
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> As Robert pointed out here:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>>
>> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
>> The value at expand time is sensible, but
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 09:53:16PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> As Robert pointed out here:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>>
>> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
>> The value at expand time is sensib
On 16/04/14 11:30, Joey Ye wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Earnshaw
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:21 PM
>> To: Joey Ye
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>>
>> On 16/04/14 11:17, Joey Ye wrote:
-Original M
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:21 PM
> To: Joey Ye
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>
> On 16/04/14 11:17, Joey Ye wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Richard Earnshaw
> >>
Tom de Vries writes:
> On 16-01-14 09:13, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Tom de Vries writes:
>>> * The set of registers which are clobbered during a call by things
>>> like the plt
>>> - these are not picked up by the use-caller-save optimization. We
>>> need the
>>> hook to inform the comp
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:04 PM
> To: Joey Ye
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>
> On 16/04/14 11:02, Joey Ye wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Richard Earnshaw
On 16/04/14 14:26 +0900, Luke Allardyce wrote:
Also the old standard seems to require that ios_base::fixed |
ios_base::scientific (or any other combination) falls through to the
uppercase test; I was trying to use abi_tag for a solution as not only
would two versions of _S_format_float be necessa
On 16/04/14 11:17, Joey Ye wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Earnshaw
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:04 PM
>> To: Joey Ye
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>>
>> On 16/04/14 11:02, Joey Ye wrote:
>>>
>>>
-Original
On 16/04/14 11:02, Joey Ye wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Earnshaw
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:44 PM
>> To: Joey Ye
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>>
>> Arguably, this is a bug in gdb. The debugger should u
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:44 PM
> To: Joey Ye
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>
> Arguably, this is a bug in gdb. The debugger should understand when a
> breakpointed conditional i
On 15-01-14 17:53, Tom de Vries wrote:
Eric,
This patch adds scanning of clobbers in CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE to
find_all_hard_reg_sets.
For MIPS, calls are split at some point. After the split, one of the resulting
insns may clobber $6. But before the split, that's not explicit in the rtl
repr
On 16-01-14 09:13, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Tom de Vries writes:
* The set of registers which are clobbered during a call by things like the plt
- these are not picked up by the use-caller-save optimization. We need the
hook to inform the compiler about these registers
Right, but...
On 16/04/14 10:30, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Joey Ye [mailto:joey...@arm.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:37 PM
>>> To: 'Richard Biener'
>>> Cc: GCC Patches
>>> Subject: RE: [patch] Disable if_conv
On 15/04/14 02:59, Joey Ye wrote:
> If-converstion is harmful to optimized debugging as it generates conditional
> execution instructions with line number information, which resulted in a
> dillusion to developers that both then-else branches are executed.
>
> For example:
> test.c:
> 1: unsigned
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
