On 19 December 2017 at 21:33, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> I plan to apply attached patch tomorrow to fix those _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
> failures:
>
> FAIL: 23_containers/map/modifiers/insert/dr2354.cc (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: 23_containers/multimap/modifiers/insert/dr2354.cc (test for excess
On 12/23/2017 04:36 PM, James Clarke wrote:
PR rtl-optimization/83565
* gcc/config/ia64/ia64.md ("*rotrsi3_internal"): Mask out higher 32
bits from the shift result.
("*rotlsi3_internal"): Likewise
This doesn't look right to me. On ia64, the upper 32-bits of a 3
On ia64, 32-bit rotates are implemented by copying the lower 32 bits of
a register into the upper half, then performing a right shift. However,
depending on the bit pattern in question, this can leave the upper 32
bits as non-zero, despite being only a 32-bit unsigned result. Therefore
add an extra
From: James Clarke
On ia64, 32-bit rotates are implemented by copying the lower 32 bits of
a register into the upper half, then performing a right shift. However,
depending on the bit pattern in question, this can leave the upper 32
bits as non-zero, despite being only a 32-bit unsigned result. T
I got confirmation from Luc.
He also added it to the errata file---the entries regarding p. 511, page
6 of http://luc.devroye.org/errors.pdf
On 12/14/2017 11:11 AM, mp...@tiscali.it wrote:
If Luc's explicit green light will not arrive before it is decision
time, Paolo's point 2- below is doabl
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:53:47PM -0600, David Esparza wrote:
> With a value of 85 GCC has a CPU performance degradation of 11%,
> reverting PRED_LOOP_EXIT to 92 this degradation disappear.
> Those values where measured by running c-ray ray-tracer that is a
> floating point benchmark that runs out
Andreas Schwab writes:
> This breaks gcc.dg/tls/opt-3.c, gcc.dg/tls/pr47715-3.c and
> gcc.dg/tls/struct-1.c on m68k:
>
> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20171222/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tls/opt-3.c:11:3:
> internal compiler error: in add_args_size_note, at rtlanal.c:2379
> 0xae7aa9 add_args_size_note(rtx_insn*
On December 23, 2017 9:33:03 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>The problem here is that for loops that have constant 0/false condition
>the C++ FE wants to correctly emit if (0) { body; incr-expr; }
>but doesn't just build3 (COND_EXPR, ...), but fold_build3, and
>COND_EXPR
>folding with
Hi!
The problem here is that for loops that have constant 0/false condition
the C++ FE wants to correctly emit if (0) { body; incr-expr; }
but doesn't just build3 (COND_EXPR, ...), but fold_build3, and COND_EXPR
folding with constant condition optimizes away the unused branch completely
if it does
Hi!
Recently I've changed replace_placeholders to walk trees without duplicates
to avoid compile time explosion with lots of nested SAVE_EXPRs.
The problem as the following testcase shows is that it also prevents
replacement of PLACEHOLDER_EXPRs we want to replace, if the same
PLACEHOLDER_EXPR app
10 matches
Mail list logo