Re: [Patch][OG10] omp-low.c: Avoid offload-target lto1 is-missing error by not-privatizing TREE_READONLY vars

2020-07-26 Thread Tobias Burnus
Now further comments – and for a vendor branch; hence: Now installed on OG10 = devel/omp/gcc-10 in commit https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9eb0117bd6c51290ce4d0f1313c0f368185a699d Cheers, Tobias On 7/23/20 6:10 PM, Julian Brown wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:53:54 +0200 Tobias Burnus wrote: … Additional

[PATCH] RISC-V: Add ZFINX support

2020-07-26 Thread wangtao (CH)
Hi, This is the patch to support ZFINX of RISC-V, which option is like -march=rv32gc_zfinx. The ZFINX means f-registers in x-registers under RV-F and RV-D extension. For more details, please refer to https://github.com/riscv/riscv-zfinx/blob/master/Zfinx_spec.adoc. This patch mainly adds the ZF

RE: [PATCH PR95696] regrename creates overlapping register allocations for vliw

2020-07-26 Thread Zhongyunde
I reconsider the issue and update patch attached. Yes, If the kernel loop bb's information doesn't use in regrename, it also need not be collected to save compile time. > -Original Message- > From: Zhongyunde > Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2020 3:29 PM > To: 'Richard Sandiford' > Cc: gcc-patch

[PATCH v4] vect/rs6000: Support vector with length cost modeling

2020-07-26 Thread Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches
Hi Richard, Thanks for the review again! on 2020/7/25 上午12:21, Richard Sandiford wrote: > "Kewen.Lin" writes: > > Thanks, the rearrangement of the existing code looks good. Could you > split that and the new LOOP_VINFO_FULLY_WITH_LENGTH_P (loop_vinfo) stuff > out into separate patches? > Spl

Re: [PATCH v2] vect/rs6000: Support vector with length cost modeling

2020-07-26 Thread Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches
Hi Segher, Thanks for the comments! on 2020/7/23 上午1:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 09:26:39AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> +/* For some target specific vectorization cost which can't be handled per >> stmt, >> + we check the requisite conditions and adjust the

Refactor peel_iters_{pro,epi}logue cost model handlings

2020-07-26 Thread Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches
Hi, As Richard S. suggested in the thread: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/550633.html this patch is separated from the one of that thread, mainly to refactor the existing peel_iters_{pro,epi}logue cost model handlings. I've addressed Richard S.'s review comments there, more

gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-4.c: Adjust for mmix.

2020-07-26 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
Again, the variables are "privatized" using ASM_PN_FORMAT for MMIX (but apparently not for other targets) and the line to match looks like: D.1427 = VEC_PERM_EXPR ; gcc/testsuite: * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-4.c: Adjust for mmix. --- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-4.c.orig Mon

gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dse-26.c: Adjust for mmix.

2020-07-26 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
The variables are "localized" using ASM_PN_FORMAT for MMIX and the lines to match look like: Deleted dead store: y::4 = y; Deleted dead store: x::3 = x; gcc/testsuite: * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dse-26.c: Adjust for mmix. --- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dse-26.c.orig Wed Feb 12 0

gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c: xfail scan for mmix.

2020-07-26 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
Looking at the dump and the test, I guess all "64-bit targets" fail the test for the reasons seen in the comment just above the dg-final, whose last two lines make it to the patch context. Maybe the xfail target list can be shortened by removing most targets and use just "lp64". That doesn't cove

gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-20.c: Adjust for mmix.

2020-07-26 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
The expression of interest looks like "e_5 = a::0_1 + b::1_2;" for mmix-knuth-mmixware, while other targets have a "." instead of the "::". ISTM the most useful change here is not to disable the test, but to add an optional character in the matched expression to match the "extra" ":". Also checke

mmix: Don't turn off .hidden support.

2020-07-26 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
In 2012 e2769e908a915ebbc/r192344, I added the following lines, that I now delete. I've changed my mind: ELF-related targets based on gas, that support only static linking, have .hidden "for free", regardless of the visibility of the hidden object in the linked executable. No regressions for mmix

Re: [PATCH] m68k: tag floating-point ABI used

2020-07-26 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hello! > Tag the floating-point calling convention used on m68k-elf (either hard-float > or soft-float) through the GNU assembler attribute. The use of the tag enables > the linker to ensure linked objects use a consistent floating-point ABI and > allows tools like GDB to infer the ABI used from t

Re: [PATCH] m68k: tag floating-point ABI used

2020-07-26 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hello! > Tag the floating-point calling convention used on m68k-elf (either hard-float > or soft-float) through the GNU assembler attribute. The use of the tag enables > the linker to ensure linked objects use a consistent floating-point ABI and > allows tools like GDB to infer the ABI used from t

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add new RTX instruction class FILLER_INSN

2020-07-26 Thread Eric Botcazou
> As you see, I really do not like to have another RTX class, without very > well defined semantics even. Not without first being shown no > alternatives are acceptable, anyway :-) Seconded. -- Eric Botcazou

[COMMITTED] c++: Add testcase for [PR79504]

2020-07-26 Thread Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches
We successfully compile this testcase ever since r8-5270. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/79504 * g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype79.C: New test. --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype79.C | 19 +++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/c

[PING #3][PATCH] separate reading past the end from -Wstringop-overflow

2020-07-26 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/548786.html On 7/13/20 6:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/548786.html On 7/7/20 12:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Ping.  Despite its size, there isn't much new in the patch, it pretty much

[PING 2][PATCH] improve validation of attribute arguments (PR c/78666)

2020-07-26 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549686.html On 7/16/20 4:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549686.html (Jeff, I forgot to mention this patch when we spoke earlier today.) On 7/8/20 6:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: GCC ha

Re: [PATCH v3] Add --ld-path= to specify an arbitrary executable as the linker

2020-07-26 Thread Fāng-ruì Sòng via Gcc-patches
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 4:02 AM Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Jul 25 2020, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 12:09 AM Andreas Schwab > > wrote: > >> > >> On Jul 24 2020, Fangrui Song via Gcc-patches wrote: > >> > >> > This is to mimick nearly lines. collect2 should filter out opt

Re: [PATCH] [og10] Fix goacc/routine-4-extern.c test

2020-07-26 Thread Kwok Cheung Yeung
On 24/07/2020 8:27 am, Thomas Schwinge wrote: That however completely defeats what we're intending to test here, which is to "Test invalid intra-routine parallelism". The same problem has been introduced in og10 commit 6a0b5806b24bfdefe0b0f3ccbcc51299e5195dca "Various OpenACC reduction enhanceme

Re: [PATCH v3] Add --ld-path= to specify an arbitrary executable as the linker

2020-07-26 Thread Andreas Schwab
On Jul 25 2020, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 12:09 AM Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> On Jul 24 2020, Fangrui Song via Gcc-patches wrote: >> >> > This is to mimick nearly lines. collect2 should filter out options like >> > -fno-lto, -flto, -fuse-ld= before passing to ld. -f* are ha

RE: [PATCH PR95696] regrename creates overlapping register allocations for vliw

2020-07-26 Thread Zhongyunde
> >> It's interesting that this is for a testcase using SMS. One of the > >> traditional problems with the GCC implementation of SMS has been > >> ensuring that later passes don't mess up the scheduled loop. So in > >> your testcase, does register allocation succeed for the SMS loop > >> without