Hello!
> I have committed a patch to libgo to update it to the Go 1.5 release.
>
> As usual for libgo updates, the actual patch is too large to attach to
> this e-mail message. I've attached the changes to the gccgo-specific
> files.
>
> Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
On 10/30/2015 05:05 AM, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
From: Trevor Saunders
Hi,
$subject as far as I am aware these are the same on all supported targets.
Trev
libgcc/ChangeLog:
2015-10-30 Trevor Saunders
* config/visium/lib2funcs.c (__set_trampoline_parity): Use
__CH
On 10/14/2015 09:14 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Here's the latest version of the tools for a sub directory in contrib.
I've handled all the feedback, except I have not fully commented the
python code in the tools, nor followed any particular coding
convention... Documentation has been handled, an
Hi,
Thanks for the review and suggestions.
>> Please do not drop A - B -> A + (-B) from fold-const as match.pd
>> doesn't implement all of fold-const.c negate_expr_p support.
Done.
>> which is more expensive. This means that we miss a
>> (bit_and (bit_not @0) INTEGER_CST@1)
Should we have thi
On 2 November 2015 at 23:07, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Great, thanks a lot. Thinking more about this detail, I wonder if we should
> therefore apply the below too? Anything I'm missing?
Tested again on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk?
2015-11-03 Ville Voutilainen
Make the default constructors of
On 10/26/2015 10:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ if (TREE_CONSTANT (maybe_constant_value (outer_nelts)))
+ {
+ if (tree_int_cst_lt (max_outer_nelts_tree, outer_nelts))
maybe_constant_value may return a constant, but that doesn't mean that
outer_nelts was already constant; if it
On Nov 3, 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 06:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> It looks ok to me but lacks a comment in mark_addressable_1 why we
>>> do this queueing when currently expanding to RTL.
>>
+/* Mark X as addressable or queue it
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 03:52:13PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 09:16 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >This is a rebased version of this patch from back in April:
> > v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00944.html
> >which in turn is a rewrite of this one:
> > v1: https://gcc
I merged trunk revision 229686 to the gccgo branch.
Ian
On 10/29/2015 01:18 PM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
This is in response to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-10/msg00097.html, where
Richi points out that CONSTRUCTOR elements are not necessarily ordered.
I wasn't sure of a good naming convention for the new get_ctor_element_at_index,
other suggestions w
On 11/02/2015 06:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Oct 14, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Oct 12, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Oct 9, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
Ok. Not
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 01:20:45PM +0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:48 PM, wrote:
> > From: Trevor Saunders
> >
> > Similar to ROUND_TYPE_ALIGN it seems to make sense to copy the
> > information in the target macros to libobjc as an incremental step. Its
> > worth noting
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:02:07PM +0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 10/30/2015 01:47 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Bernd Schmidt
> >> wrote:
>
>
> it's not target independent code. Are
On 10/26/2015 09:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ while (TREE_CODE (oper) == NOP_EXPR)
+oper = TREE_OPERAND (oper, 0);
This is STRIP_NOPS.
+ to placement new is not checked since it's unknownwhat it might
Missing space.
+ else if (TREE_CODE (oper) == ADDR_EXPR) {
The brace should
On Oct 14, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Oct 9, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ok. Note that I think emit_block_
On 11/02/2015 12:35 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
diff --git a/gdb/ada-lang.c b/gdb/ada-lang.c
index fff4862..2559a36 100644
--- a/gdb/ada-lang.c
+++ b/gdb/ada-lang.c
@@ -11359,9 +11359,11 @@ ada_evaluate_subexp (struct type *expect_type, struct
expression *exp,
return value_zero (ada
On 11/01/2015 01:19 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
This patch cleans up remaining bits related to ENABLE_CHECKING. After applying
this patch (on top of part 9) we will no longer have any references to
ENABLE_CHECKING in the source code.
Bootstrapped and regtested (on top of part 9) on x86_64-pc-linu
On 11/01/2015 07:58 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
Hi all!
This patch was intended to be the last one in this series (but I'll send one
more cleanup patch today). It removes ENABLE_CHECKING macros in the C++ front
end (and also touches a small piece of common C family code in OpenMP).
I could conve
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lynn A. Boger
wrote:
>
> I assume there will be a different number for the libgo.so for Go 1.5?
Thanks for the reminder. I committed this patch to bump the version number.
Ian
Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE
===
On 02/11/15 16:25, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>On 01/11/15 19:03, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> >So, the new patch series is:
> >
> > 1Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
> > 2Handle recursive restrict in function pa
On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This was:
>
> ... Sometimes structure decls
> have BLKmode but are assigned an integer-mode rtl (e.g. when passing
> 3-byte structures by value to functions).
> [...]
> loc_descriptor refuses to use CONST_INT for BLKmode decls (which a
This moves the check for threading through the loop latch to a point
where we check it on every edge in the jump threading path. Thus
catching cases where the loop latch is in the middle of the path.
This was spotted during analysis of Andreas's report that one of the new
tests was failing
On 10/30/2015 09:16 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
This is a rebased version of this patch from back in April:
v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00944.html
which in turn is a rewrite of this one:
v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01087.html
The idea is to more gra
On 10/27/2015 08:49 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch fixes the gcc.dg/ifcvt-2.c test for x86_64 where we were
failing to if-convert. This was because in my patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=228194 which
tried to emit a SET to move the source of insn_a or
On 11/02/2015 07:15 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch attempts to restrict combine from transforming ZERO_EXTEND
and SIGN_EXTEND operations into and-bitmask
and weird SUBREG expressions when they appear inside MULT expressions.
This is because a MULT rtx containing these
extend operat
Hello.
- Original Message -
From: "Bernd Schmidt"
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1:50 PM
On 10/26/2015 11:46 PM, Anatoliy Sokolov wrote:
This patch change code 'REGNO (subreg) + subreg_regno_offset (...)'
with subreg_regno (subreg).
Index: gcc/reg-stack.c
===
On 11/02/2015 12:14 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Jeff: I'm working on expression ranges in the C++ FE; is that a
prerequisite for patches 5-10, or can 5-10 go ahead without the C++
work? (assuming the other issues above are acceptable).
Hope this all makes sense and sounds sane
I think 5-10 can
On 11/02/2015 08:53 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Steven Bosscher writes:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Is the split_block change really so bad?
IMHO: Yes.
Fair enough :-)
I tend to agree. If the caller needs a more complex control flow and
dominance/post-domi
On 11/02/2015 01:08 PM, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Hi!
This patch attempts to enhance error diagnostic in case of CilkPlus and fixes
PR68001.
Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64.
Is it ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Igor
ChangeLog:
c-family
2015-11-02 Igor Zamyatin
k
PR c++/68001
*
On 31.10.15 22:28, Andreas Tobler wrote:
Hi,
I forgot to adapt the pie bits for powerpc64 FreeBSD back in May when I
committed the pie support for FreeBSD.
Without the below patch I'm not able to bootstrap a current gcc on
FreeBSD powerpc64.
The patch is against gcc-5, the patch for trunk will
On 31.10.15 22:34, Andreas Tobler wrote:
Hi,
this is the part for gcc trunk. As mentioned in the previous mail (same
subject for gcc5) I forgot to adapt the PIE bits for FreeBSD powerpc64.
The patch below lets me bootstrap a current gcc with itself.
I'll commit this part if there are no object
Ping. Thanks in advance for a review.
On 10/22/2015 08:12 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[Sending to the right list this time]
The documentation of the -Q --help=optimizers options leads some
to expect that when options are reported as enabled imply the
corresponding optimization will take place. (Se
On 11/02/2015 01:10 PM, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Hi!
This patches fixes FP exception that comes from CilkPlus runtime.
Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64.
Is it ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Igor
Changelog:
libcilkrts
2015-10-30 Igor Zamyatin
PR target/66326
* untime/config/x86/
Hi,
On 11/02/2015 09:20 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
__is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit from __and_ and
avoid explicit integral_constant? Otherwise patch looks goo
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:38:33PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 23/09/15 23:06, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >This adds an -freorder-blocks-algorithm=[simple|stc] flag, with "simple"
> >as default. For -O2 and up (except -Os) it is switched to "stc" instead.
> >Targets that never want STC can o
I'll try it That was the only error I hit with the go and libgo
tests with Go 1.5.
I assume there will be a different number for the libgo.so for Go 1.5?
On 11/02/2015 02:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Lynn A. Boger
wrote:
I see this error when building g
Nuno Diegues writes:
> Hello everyone,
>
> gently pinging to bring this back to life given the last patch I emailed.
The patch is fine for me, but I cannot approve it.
-Andi
Mike Stump writes:
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> switch (GET_CODE (rtl))
>> {
>> case CONST_INT:
>> - {
>> -HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (rtl);
>> + if (mode != BLKmode)
>
> This changes BLKmode for CONST_INT, but I didn’t see this discussed.
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
I think we want the first kind of thing at -Wall, but I'm not so keen on
the second kind at -Wall. Is there precedent for "levels" of a warning?
(so e.g. pedantry level 1 at -Wall, level 2 at -Wextra, and have patch 1
be the difference between levels 1 a
On Nov 2, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> switch (GET_CODE (rtl))
> {
> case CONST_INT:
> - {
> - HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (rtl);
> + if (mode != BLKmode)
This changes BLKmode for CONST_INT, but I didn’t see this discussed. I didn’t
see a test case? I’d l
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Lynn A. Boger
wrote:
> I see this error when building gccgo from trunk on ppc64le and running the
> libgo tests:
>
> exec_unix_test.go:174:43: error: reference to undefined identifier
> 'syscall.TIOCGPGRP'
> errno := syscall.Ioctl(tty.Fd(), syscall.TIOCGPGRP,
> ui
On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
> __is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit from __and_ and
> avoid explicit integral_constant? Otherwise patch looks good to me.
Sure. Tested again on Linux-PPC64, tests
Hi!
This patches fixes FP exception that comes from CilkPlus runtime.
Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64.
Is it ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Igor
Changelog:
libcilkrts
2015-10-30 Igor Zamyatin
PR target/66326
* untime/config/x86/os-unix-sysdep.c (sysdep_save_fp_ctrl_state):
Hi!
This patch attempts to enhance error diagnostic in case of CilkPlus and fixes
PR68001.
Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64.
Is it ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Igor
ChangeLog:
c-family
2015-11-02 Igor Zamyatin
PR c++/68001
* c-gimplify.c (c_gimplify_expr): Stop the process
On 11/02/15 14:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Does this work even with -O0? I mean, the assembler is invalid
for any target other than PTX, so you are relying on aggressively folding
this away.
Correct. As thread identification is inherently target-specific, I don't see
how to do otherwise.
We
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> ../../../../libgo/go/syscall/exec_linux.go:185:37: error: reference to
>>> undefined name 'TIOCSPGRP'
>>>_, err1 = raw_ioctl_ptr(sys.Ctty, TIOCSPGR
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 14:14 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 00:15 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 10/23/2015 02:41 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > As in the previous version of this patch
> > > "Implement tree expression tracking in C FE (v2)"
> > > the patch now captures ranges
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:23:19PM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> +#pragma acc routine gang
> +void __attribute__ ((noinline)) gang (int ary[N])
> +{
> +#pragma acc loop gang
> +for (unsigned ix = 0; ix < N; ix++)
> + {
> + if (__builtin_acc_on_device (5))
> + {
> + int g
On 10/29/2015 07:08 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 28 Oct 22:37, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Seems the problem occurs in this check in expand_vector_operations_1:
/* A scalar operation pretending to be a vector one. */
if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (type)
&& !VECTOR_MODE_P (TYPE_MODE (type))
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 13:39 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/29
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:33:39PM +, Julian Brown wrote:
> As the author of the original patch, I have to say using the mapping
> structures seems like a far better approach, but I've hit some trouble
> with the details of adapting OpenACC to use that method.
>
> Firstly, on trunk at least, u
Here are the tests for the routine support. The compiler tests check invalid
combinations of gang, worker, vector & seq. The libgomp execution tests check
the expected partioning occurs within loops. As with the reduction tests,
these ones are taken from the execution model loop tests.
ok
This is the core changes, an C & C++ FE parsing pieces.
Parsing only deals with the gang, worker, vector & seq clauses. The nohost and
bind clauses will be a later patch to port.
The parsing is very similar to the omp declare simd parsing, in the way that
it's hooked into the rest of the par
Hi,
+ template
+struct __is_implicitly_default_constructible
+ : public integral_constant,
+__is_implicitly_default_constructible_safe<_Tp>
+ >::value)>
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
__is_direct_constr
On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 00:15 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 02:41 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > As in the previous version of this patch
> > "Implement tree expression tracking in C FE (v2)"
> > the patch now captures ranges for all C expressions during parsing within
> > a new field of c_e
The following pair of patches add support for routines.
01-trunk-routine-code-1102.patch: Compiler changes
02-trunk-routine-tests-1102.patch: Tests
The changes are pretty straight forwards, as the execution model patch set laid
the groundwork. Routines are decorated with the 'oacc routine' pr
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Our documentation describes -Wall as enabli
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:34:22 +0100
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Your use_device sounds very similar to use_device_ptr clause in
> OpenMP, which is allowed on #pragma omp target data construct and is
> implemented quite a bit differently from this; it is unclear if the
> OpenACC standard requires this k
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:03:58PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 26/10/15 16:26, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >The included testcase demonstrates the ICE: aarch64_valid_floating_const
> >(via aarch64_float_const_representable_p) disables HFmode immediates, but
> >allows 0.0. However, *movhf_aarch64 do
On 26/10/15 16:26, Alan Lawrence wrote:
The included testcase demonstrates the ICE: aarch64_valid_floating_const
(via aarch64_float_const_representable_p) disables HFmode immediates, but
allows 0.0. However, *movhf_aarch64 does not allow this insn:
(insn 7 6 10 2 (set (mem:HF (reg/f:DI 73) [0 *f
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:54:17PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> Here is the patch.
> make check RUNTESTFLAGS=gomp.exp and check-target-libgomp passed.
> OK for gomp-4_5-branch?
>
>
> gcc/c/
> * c-parser.c: Include context.h.
> (c_parser_omp_declare_target): If decl has "omp declare tar
OK, thanks.
Jason
>
> But you don't even need the call case for tailmerge or ICF as we don't
> have CALL_EXPRs in GIMPLE. No?
Sure, it will do the trick only if ?: generic folding is updated to pass
OEP_MATCH_SIDE_EFFECTS
>
> And you mean the difference of OEP_CONSTANT_ADDRESS_OF to
> OEP_ADDRESS_OF | OEP_MATCH
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 11:21 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >> On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >>>
> > >
On 11/02/2015 07:50 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what should fix the tests.
Unfortunately I don't have access to darwin machine right now.
Can you please test if the patch (attached) fixes the tests?
gcc/
* multiple_target.c (create_dispatcher_calls): Add target ch
On 2 November 2015 at 17:19, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Anyway, so far the only detail which makes me a little nervous is the
> following:
>
> + template
> +struct __is_implicitly_default_constructible
> + : public integral_constant +(is_default_constructible<_Tp>::value
On 11/02/2015 06:26 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
The attached patch fixes the annoying warnings generated by
diagnostic_set_last_function.
Can this be committed?
Can you point out what warning you're fixing? Inline or pointer to a
build log would be fine.
jeff
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 20:12:25 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:44:07PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 00:11:03 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 15:05:59 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > As the testcases show, #pragma omp de
This patch are the initial set of tests. The libgomp tests use an idiom of
summing thread identifiers and then checking the expected set of threads
participated. They are all derived from the loop tests I recently added for the
execution model itself.
The fortran test was duplicated in both
This patch contains the PTX backend pieces of OpenACC reduction handling. These
functions are lowered to gimple, using a couple of PTX-specific builtins for
some functionality. Expansion to RTL introduced no new patterns.
We need 3 different schemes for the 3 different partitioning axes, but
Richard Sandiford writes:
> gcc/
> PR debug/66728
> * dwarf2out.c (loc_descriptor): Remove redundant GET_MODE of
> CONST_WIDE_INTs. Handle BLKmode for CONST_WIDE_INT too.
> (add_const_value_attribute): Add a mode parameter.
> Check it for CONST_INT and CONST_WIDE_INT
Steve,
The error for the test
program p
integer, parameter :: sh(2) = [2, 2]
integer, parameter :: a(2,2) = reshape([1, 2, 3, 4], -sh)
print *, a
end
is
pr68153_2.f90:2:34:
integer, parameter :: sh(2) = [2, 2]
1
Error: 'shape' argument of 'reshape
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Our documentation describes -Wall as enabling "all the warnings abo
This is the core execution bits of OpenACC reductions.
We have a new internal fn 'IFN_GOACC_REDUCTION' and a new target hook
goacc.reduction, to lower it on the target compiler.
The omp-low changes are:
1) remove all the existing OpenACC reduction handling
2) when emitting an openacc loop hea
Jakub,
the following patch series implements the reduction handling for OpenACC:
01-trunk-reductions-core-1102.patch Core execution changes
02-trunk-reductions-ptx-1102.patch PTX backend bits
03-trunk-reductions-tests-1102.patch Testcases
The reduction mechanism relies on a new internal bui
Steven Bosscher writes:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Is the split_block change really so bad?
>
> IMHO: Yes.
Fair enough :-)
> split_block just splits some basic block B into two blocks B1/B2
> somewhere in the middle of B. The dominance relations between B1
I see this error when building gccgo from trunk on ppc64le and running
the libgo tests:
exec_unix_test.go:174:43: error: reference to undefined identifier
'syscall.TIOCGPGRP'
errno := syscall.Ioctl(tty.Fd(), syscall.TIOCGPGRP,
uintptr(unsafe.Pointer(&fpgrp)))
Bernd Schmidt writes:
> On 10/28/2015 02:06 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Ulrich Weigand writes:
>>> seems this still hasn't gone upstream ... Any news?
>>
>> Ah, sorry, I should have been pinging it. I think it's still waiting
>> for review.
>
> Hmm, unfortunately I have a hard time making s
The following introduces convert_to_complex_nofold, similarly to what
I've done with convert_to_pointer. Nothing too surprising in the patch,
I suppose.
Now, what remains to do is to also introduce convert_to_real. Then we
should be done with convert.c as convert_to_vector doesn't fold and
conve
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 01/11/15 19:03, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> > So, the new patch series is:
> >
> > 1Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
> > 2Handle recursive restrict in function parameter
> >
> > I'll repost in reply to
Hi Ville,
On 11/01/2015 04:27 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
In the last meeting, while processing LWG 2510, LWG's guidance
was to make the default constructors of pair and tuple conditionally
explicit. This patch implements a new trait and uses it in pair and tuple.
Paolo, Jonathan is traveling
Hi Richard,
I've come back to this optimization and try to implement your proposal
for comparison:
> Btw, you didn't try the simpler alternative of
>
> tree type = type_for_mode (int_mode_for_mode (TYPE_MODE (vectype)));
> build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node,
> build1 (VIEW_CONVERT, type, op0), bu
Evgeny,
I have already checked that the addition of
+/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
fixes the failures. I’ll test your full patch later today (currently chasing
regression with gfortran).
Thanks,
Dominique
> Le 2 nov. 2015 à 15:50, Evgeny Stupachenko a écrit :
>
> Yes, that is exactly what
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:33:25PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote:
>
> Le 01/11/2015 22:16, Steve Kargl a écrit :
> > The attach patch add checking for a valid type during
> > matching of a CASE selector. Built and regression
> > tested on i386-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
>
> [...]
>
> > Index: gcc/fo
On 02/11/15 14:38, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>
I'm a bit puzzled as to why nobody else has been seeing this, as it's been
happening to me as part of building gcc on x86_64, but since this patch I've
been seeing an ICE in vec::operator[] in reorder_basic_blocks_simple, building
libitm/beginend.cc. Prep
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As was pointed out in previous thread
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg00723.html), sometimes
> PGO-built binaries can actually introduce performance regressions. We could
> identify affected object files and disabl
On 02/11/15 12:58, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 02/11/15 12:01, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 16/10/15 15:36, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>> The patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02654.html
>>> from last year changed the definition of LR in CALL_USED_REGISTERS,
>>> but didn't update the co
Yes, that is exactly what should fix the tests.
Unfortunately I don't have access to darwin machine right now.
Can you please test if the patch (attached) fixes the tests?
gcc/
* multiple_target.c (create_dispatcher_calls): Add target check
on ifunc.
(create_target_clone):
On 02/11/15 14:38, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 15:20, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 27 May 2015 at 22:15, Christophe Lyon wrote:
* gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c: Likewise.
Noticed this testcase failed on big-endian on my local test
gcc.target/aarch64/a
On 2 November 2015 at 15:20, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 27 May 2015 at 22:15, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> * gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c: Likewise.
>>>
>
> Noticed this testcase failed on big-endian on my local test
>
> gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c line 1
On 27 May 2015 at 22:15, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
* gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c: Likewise.
Noticed this testcase failed on big-endian on my local test
gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c line 188 in buffer
'expected_vtbl3') at type int8x8 index 0: got 0x0
Hi all,
This patch attempts to restrict combine from transforming ZERO_EXTEND and
SIGN_EXTEND operations into and-bitmask
and weird SUBREG expressions when they appear inside MULT expressions. This is
because a MULT rtx containing these
extend operations is usually a well understood widening mu
On 11/02/2015 01:41 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/30/2015 07:37 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
OK, here's the much delayed front end reduction patch based on the
reordering already being checked in.
I discovered that my targets builds were only building c/c++, so the
other languages were being reduced b
On 10/28/15 14:40, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Richard,
this patch adds folding for the new GOACC_DIM_POS and GOACC_DIM_SIZE internal
functions. IIUC gimple_fold_call is the right place to add this.
The size of a compute dimension is very often a compile-time constant. On the
host, in particular it'
On 11/02/2015 02:42 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
"Hooray for the C programming language's module system"... ;-)
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:53:40 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Just finished running... I think the external hard drive was slowing
down this run :-P It took quite a while.
Anyway,
This patch updates the processing of OpenACC declare directive for
Fortran in the following areas:
1) module support
2) device_resident and link clauses
3) clause checking
4) directive generation
Commentary on the changes is included as an attachment
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:09:38PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> The OpenACC atomic directive matches OpenMP's atomic directive (got that
> clarified by the OpenACC committee), so they can share the same
> implementation. OK for trunk?
Ok.
Jakub
The attached patch fixes the annoying warnings generated by
diagnostic_set_last_function.
Can this be committed?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* tree-diagnostic.h (diagnostic_set_last_function): Fix warning.
>From b09e69bd66f157a2aaf0167b7419f47e9953
Hi!
The OpenACC atomic directive matches OpenMP's atomic directive (got that
clarified by the OpenACC committee), so they can share the same
implementation. OK for trunk?
commit 826c7022d0e2b9e225215b168a95487823dce925
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date: Mon Nov 2 10:35:44 2015 +0100
OpenACC a
On 02/11/15 12:01, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 16/10/15 15:36, Jiong Wang wrote:
The patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02654.html
from last year changed the definition of LR in CALL_USED_REGISTERS,
but didn't update the comment above the #define to reflect the new usage.
This
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
