> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:27:26PM +0000, David Sherwood wrote:
> > I have a patch to fix the following openmp issue:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79212
> >
> > Writing openmp directives in a certain way in fortran programs can
libgomp/testsuite
Will do a full test run before submitting.
Good to go?
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
2017-01-24 David Sherwood
PR middle-end/79212
gcc/
* gimplify.c (omp_notice_variable): Add GOVD_SEEN flag to variables in
all contexts.
gcc/testsuite/
* gfortran.dg
Hi,
I have a fix for bugzilla defect 69532, which is a simple change to
a couple of arm tests to check for effective target arm_v8_neon_hw
instead of arm_v8_neon_ok.
Tested:
arm-none-eabi: No regressions in arm.exp testsuite.
Good to go?
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
2016-02-16 David Sherwood
Hi Kyrill,
Thanks for the reply, I think this latest patch addresses your
comments. I have added a test for the scalar forms of fmax/fmin.
Is this ok now?
Tested:
arm-none-eabi: no regressions
Cheers,
Dave.
ChangeLog:
2015-12-22 David Sherwood
gcc/
* config/arm/iterators.md
Hi,
Here is the last patch of the fmin/fmax change, which adds the optabs
to the arm backend.
Tested:
arm-none-eabi: no regressions
Good to go?
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
2015-12-08 David Sherwood
gcc/
* config/arm/iterators.md: New iterators.
* config/arm/unspecs.md
Hi,
Here is the last patch of the fmin/fmax change, which adds the optabs
to the arm backend.
Tested:
arm-none-eabi: no regressions
Good to go?
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
2015-12-08 David Sherwood
gcc/
* config/arm/iterators.md: New iterators.
* config/arm/unspecs.md
Hi,
Thanks for the comments James, I've moved the patterns around
and added new comments to them. Hope this is ok.
Regards,
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
2015-12-01 David Sherwood
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md: New pattern.
* config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md: Lik
Hi,
Here is the second patch of the fmin/fmax change, which adds the optabs
to the aarch64 backend.
Tested:
x86_64-linux: no regressions
aarch64-none-elf: no regressions
Good to go?
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
2015-11-26 David Sherwood
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md: New
tches will add the appropriate aarch64/aarch32 vector instructions.
Tested:
x86_64-linux: no regressions
aarch64-none-elf: no regressions
arm-none-eabi: no regressions
Regards,
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
2015-11-19 David Sherwood
gcc/
* optabs.def: Add new optabs fmax_optab/fmin_
Hi All,
For what it's worth I have uploaded a new patch that changes the name
from STRICT_FMIN/MAX to just FMIN/FMAX, although I realise that this
discussion has not yet been resolved. I have also added scheduling
attributes to the aarch64 instructions.
Regards,
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
Hi,
Fix/patch committed.
Tested:
x86_64-linux: bootstrap built fine, no regressions
aarch64-none-elf: no regressions
sh-elf crossbuild: builds fine
ChangeLog:
2015-09-01 David Sherwood
gcc/
* genmodes.c: Add CONST_MODE_UNIT_SIZE modifier.
Thanks,
David.
> -Origi
FYI.
ChangeLog:
2015-08-28 David Sherwood
* MAINTAINERS: Add myself.
Hi Oleg,
Oh I'm so sorry I broke the build - I should have spotted that. Have you
already checked in this fix or do you want me to?
Regards,
David.
> -Original Message-
> From: Oleg Endo [mailto:oleg.e...@t-online.de]
> Sent: 26 August 2015 15:53
> To: Jeff Law
>
ith that change.
Thanks. Here's a new patch with the comments added.
Good to go?
David.
ChangeLog:
2015-08-19 David Sherwood
gcc/
* genmodes.c (emit_mode_unit_size_inline): New function.
(emit_mode_unit_precision_inline): New function.
(emit_insn_modes_h):
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:29 AM, David Sherwood
> wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply. I'd chosen to add new expressions as this seemed more
> > consistent with the existing MAX_EXPR and MIN_EXPR tree codes. In addition
> > it
> &g
we can reduce two inline
calls, i.e. GET_MODE_INNER and GET_MODE_SIZE, into one.
Tested:
aarch64 and aarch64_be - no regressions in gcc testsuite
x86_64 - bootstrap build, no testsuite regressions
arm-none-eabi - no regressions in gcc testsuite
Good to go?
David.
ChangeLog:
2015-07-17 David
x27;t seem very consistent.
Regards,
David.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 13 August 2015 12:10
> To: David Sherwood
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PING][Patch] Add support for IEEE-conformant versions of scalar
>
GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION (m).
Tested:
aarch64 and aarch64_be - no regressions in gcc testsuite
x86_64 - bootstrap build, no testsuite regressions
arm-none-eabi - no regressions in gcc testsuite
Run contrib/config-list.mk - no regressions
Good to go?
Thanks,
David.
2015-08-04 David Sherwood
gcc
Hi,
Sorry to bother people again. Is this OK to go now?
Thanks!
David.
> >
> > > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, David Sherwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have added new STRICT_MAX_EXPR and STRICT_MIN_EXPR expressions to
> &g
Hi,
Sorry to bother people again. Is this OK to go now?
Thanks!
David.
> >
> > > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, David Sherwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have added new STRICT_MAX_EXPR and STRICT_MIN_EXPR expressions to
> &g
mode inner = (machine_mode) bp_unpack_value (&bp, 8);
It's possible I'm misunderstanding the code somehow though ...
Regards,
David.
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Schwinge [mailto:tho...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 05 August 2015 11:46
> To: David Sherwood
&g
Hi Thomas,
If this looks like my fault I am happy to look into this and fix the bug
if you can tell me how to reproduce it. I recently changed GET_MODE_INNER (m)
to return 'm' itself if there is no inner mode and I thought I'd fixed up lto,
but it seems I got it wrong. It also sounds like there is
GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION (m).
Tested:
aarch64 and aarch64_be - no regressions in gcc testsuite
x86_64 - bootstrap build, no testsuite regressions
arm-none-eabi - no regressions in gcc testsuite
Run contrib/config-list.mk - no regressions
Good to go?
Thanks,
David.
2015-08-04 David Sherwood
gcc
build, no testsuite regressions
arm-none-eabi - no regressions in gcc testsuite
Run contrib/config-list.mk - no regressions
Good to go?
Thanks,
David.
ChangeLog:
2015-07-29 David Sherwood
gcc/config/
* aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (aarch64_ext): Replace call to
GET_MODE_SIZE
Hi,
Sorry to bother people again. Is this OK to go now?
Thanks!
David.
> >
> > > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, David Sherwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have added new STRICT_MAX_EXPR and STRICT_MIN_EXPR expressions to
> &g
testsuite
Run contrib/config-list.mk - only build failures are ones that fail anyway with
warnings being treated as errors.
Hope this is ok.
Cheers,
Dave.
2015-07-28 David Sherwood
gcc/
* config/arm/arm.c (neon_element_bits, neon_valid_immediate): Call
GET_MODE_INNER
>
> On 07/27/2015 04:25 AM, David Sherwood wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Part 1 of this change is a clean-up. I have changed calls to GET_MODE_INNER
> > (m)
> > so that it returns m in cases where there is no inner mode. This simplifies
> > some
> > o
.
Regards,
David.
> -Original Message-
> From: David Sherwood [mailto:david.sherw...@arm.com]
> Sent: 27 July 2015 11:25
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH][1/N] Change GET_MODE_INNER to always return a non-void mode
>
> Hi,
>
> Part 1 of this change is
element_precision () as it was only
called in one place and thought it neater to call GET_MODE_PRECISION explicitly.
Parts 2-4 will include further tidy-ups and optimisations based on [1/N].
Good to go?
Regards,
David Sherwood.
2015-07-17 David Sherwood
gcc/
* config/arm/arm.c
Hi,
Sorry to bother people again. Is this OK to go now?
Thanks!
David.
-Original Message-
From: David Sherwood [mailto:david.sherw...@arm.com]
Sent: 15 July 2015 11:29
To: 'Joseph Myers'
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: [Patch] Add support for IEEE-conformant versions
> >
> > > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, David Sherwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have added new STRICT_MAX_EXPR and STRICT_MIN_EXPR expressions to
> > > > support the
> > > > IEEE versions of fmin and
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, David Sherwood wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have added new STRICT_MAX_EXPR and STRICT_MIN_EXPR expressions to support
> > the
> > IEEE versions of fmin and fmax. This is done by recognising the math library
> > "fmax"
ctorise the IEEE max/min functions for
targets that support it, for example aarch64/aarch32.
Tested:
x86_64-linux: no regressions
aarch64-none-elf: no regressions
aarch64_be-none-elf: no regressions
arm-none-eabi: no regressions
ChangeLog:
2015-06-26 David Sherwood
gcc/
this is ok.
Testing done:
* aarch64 built, "make check" no regressions
* aarch64_be built, "make check" no regressions
* x86_64 built, "make check" no regressions
ChangeLog:
2015-05-15 David Sherwood
* loop-invariant.c (create_new_invariant)
way.
Is this ok to go in?
Regards,
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog entry follows ...
2015-05-08 David Sherwood
* loop-invariant.c (create_new_invariant): Don't calculate address cost
if mode is not scalar integers.
(get_inv_cost): Increase computational cost
> -Original Message-
> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
> Sent: 11 December 2014 13:47
> To: David Sherwood
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marcus Shawcroft; Alan Hayward; Tejas Belagod;
> Richard Sandiford
> Subject: Re: New patch: [AAr
Hi Christophe,
Sorry to bother you again. After my clarification email below are you now
happy for these patches to go in?
Kind Regards,
David Sherwood.
> -Original Message-
> From: David Sherwood [mailto:david.sherw...@arm.com]
> Sent: 27 November 2014 14:53
> To:
> On 18 November 2014 10:14, David Sherwood wrote:
> > Hi Christophe,
> >
> > Ah sorry. My mistake - it fixes this in bugzilla:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59810
>
> I did look at that PR, but since it has no testcase attached, I wa
Hi Christophe,
Ah sorry. My mistake - it fixes this in bugzilla:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59810
This change is needed in order to remove the CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS
#define, which will be committed as a separate patch.
Regards,
David Sherwood.
-Original Message
Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
Sent: 13 November 2014 14:22
To: David Sherwood
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: New patch: [AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large opaque integer modes
endianness-safe.
On 13 November 2014 11:09, David Sherwood wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have successfully
Sherwood.
-Original Message-
From: David Sherwood [mailto:david.sherw...@arm.com]
Sent: 28 October 2014 08:55
To: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: RE: [AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large opaque integer modes
endianness-safe.
Hi,
Sorry to bother you again. Could someone take
Hi,
Sorry to bother you again, but if someone has time could they take
a look at this change please?
Thanks!
David.
-Original Message-
From: David Sherwood [mailto:david.sherw...@arm.com]
Sent: 13 October 2014 11:02
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [AArch64] [BE] [2/2] Make large
Hi,
Sorry to bother you again. Could someone take a look at this change
please if they have time?
Thanks!
David.
-Original Message-
From: David Sherwood [mailto:david.sherw...@arm.com]
Sent: 10 October 2014 15:48
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large
] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe.
[AArch64] [BE] Fix vector load/stores to not use ld1/st1
Thanks,
David.
ChangeLog:
gcc/:
2014-13-10 David Sherwood
* config/aarch64/aarch64.h (CLEAR_INSN_CACHE): Removed.
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c
Message-
From: David Sherwood [mailto:david.sherw...@arm.com]
Sent: 10 October 2014 15:48
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe.
Hi,
I have a fix (originally written by Tejas Belagod) for the following bug:
https
Hi,
I have a fix (originally written by Tejas Belagod) for the following bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59810
Could someone take a look please?
Thanks!
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
gcc/:
2014-10-10 David Sherwood
* config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h
Hi,
At the request of Andreas Schwab I have fixed the hard_regno bitfield
in the allocno structure as signed integers need to be explicitly marked as
signed in bitfields.
Cheers,
Dave.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-10-02 David Sherwood
* ira-int.h: (ira_allocno) Make hard_regno explicitly
Hi Andreas,
OK, I will fix this.
Thanks,
David Sherwood.
-Original Message-
From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:sch...@suse.de]
Sent: 01 October 2014 08:27
To: Joseph S. Myers
Cc: Richard Earnshaw; David Sherwood; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;
vmaka...@redhat.com; Richard
Sandiford
Subject: Re
Hi Vladimir,
Sorry this took so long. I have tidied up the patch as you suggested and fixed
some
style issues. Hope this looks better now.
Thanks!
David.
2014-09-26 David Sherwood
* ira-int.h (ira_allocno): Add "wmode" field.
* ira-build.c (create_insn_allocnos
Hi Vladimir,
Sorry, I forgot to CC you on this as it's your code. It's my first attempt at
submitting patches to gcc so I'm still learning as I go!
Kind Regards,
David Sherwood.
-Original Message-----
From: David Sherwood [mailto:david.sherw...@arm.com]
Sent: 05 Septembe
analysis
instead and letting LRA do the work. Not sure what your preference is
Fix was tested on aarch64 on little and big endian with no regressions.
Regards,
David Sherwood.
2014-08-26 David Sherwood
* ira-int.h (ira_allocno): Add "wmode" field.
* i
.
Regards,
David Sherwood.
ChangeLog:
2014-09-02 David Sherwood
* gcc.target/aarch64/vdup_lane_2.c (force_simd): Emit simd mov.
test_fix.patch
Description: Binary data
52 matches
Mail list logo
