On Sun, 10 May 2015 21:08:04 +, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Somehow I never added myself to the MAINTAINERS file.
> Apologies for that. OK to commit?
>
> 2015-05-10 Paulo Matos
>
> * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as commit after approval.
>
> di
On Sun, 10 May 2015 22:07:53 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/10/2015 03:00 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Yes. This would fall under the obvious rule and can be committed
> without waiting for approvals.
>
> jeff
Thanks. Committed.
--
Paulo Matos
Somehow I never added myself to the MAINTAINERS file.
Apologies for that. OK to commit?
2015-05-10 Paulo Matos
* MAINTAINERS: Add myself as commit after approval.
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 7dc4c8f..c5d6c99 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
OK to commit?
2015-05-10 Paulo Matos
* configure.ac: Fix typo.
* configure: Regenerate.
diff --git a/configure b/configure
index a3f66ba..8ee279f 100755
--- a/configure
+++ b/configure
@@ -7423,7 +7423,7 @@ fi
# multilib is not explicitly enabled
test it
because -fshort-double brokeness on x86_64).
I have tested it and everything looks fine. I have now committed all the
code and testcase. Hopefully it's now sorted.
Thanks for your help,
Paulo Matos
Thanks,
Richard.
--
PMatos
On 06/03/14 11:19, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
On 05/03/2014 11:51, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dominique Dhumieres
wrote:
Revision 208312 causes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60427
Uhm. pointer
On 06/03/2014 11:19, Richard Biener wrote:
I have reverted the patch for now.
Richard.
That's fine Richard, thanks. I got stuck with another issue in the
meantime but I will look at it again very soon.
--
Paulo Matos
that. Let's
do the alternate approach of marking -fshort-double eligible for LTO
as well and handle it there properly.
Sure, I will prepare a new patch and post it for approval by the end of
the day.
Apologies for the regression.
--
Paulo Matos
On 30/01/14 20:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 08:27:47PM +, Paulo Matos wrote:
Yes, it looks strange but it was the way we came up with to
implement an instruction that loads from a pair of addresses.
From what I wrote previously to Richard.
"We have an instruction
eling that targetm.mode_dependent_address_p was being called in
simplify_rtx but there's actually a mode_dependent_address_p in recog.c
and there is where you suggested to add the check _if_ vector modes are
supported. Got it.
I apologize for my misunderstanding and thank you for your patience.
--
Paulo Matos
Thanks,
Richard
t lost.
I don't think it got lost. GCC was trying to simplify it. That's why my
patch was in simplify_subreg. GCC was trying to simplify a subreg in
DImode with this mem rtx as SUBREG_REG and offset 8.
--
Paulo Matos
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2014 12:43
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Vector mode addresses
>
> Paulo Matos writes:
> > As a followup of the thr
hook is a way to
avoid ICE but as Richard S. mentioned it's more general to patch GCC up.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
2014-01-30 Paulo Matos
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_subreg): Do not adjust address if memory
address has vector mode.
OK to s
On 30/11/13 11:38, Eric Botcazou wrote:
2013-11-29 Paulo Matos
Eric Botcazou
* combine.c (reg_nonzero_bits_for_combine): Apply mask transformation
as applied to nonzero_sign_valid fixing bug when last_set_mode has
less precision than mode.
Applied
Please find patch for bug discussed in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00571.html
Bootstrapped successfully in x86_64.
2013-11-29 Paulo Matos
Eric Botcazou
* combine.c (reg_nonzero_bits_for_combine): Apply mask transformation
as applied to
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Hubicka [mailto:hubi...@ucw.cz]
> Sent: 21 October 2013 13:21
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Richard Biener; Mike Stump; Kyrill Tkachov; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jan
> Hubicka (hubi...@ucw.cz)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR58682
>
> This
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 18 October 2013 13:12
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Mike Stump; Kyrill Tkachov; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR58682
>
> Please re-post the latest version o
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Matos
> Sent: 16 October 2013 09:42
> To: Mike Stump; Kyrill Tkachov
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR58682
>
&
is one does not
> impact quality enough to worry about. Also, you should develop on trunk, not
> 4_8. Arguably, I would say no. Now, a release manager can always review
> approve
> it; it should be very, very low risk.
>
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
--
Paulo Matos
GCC (haven't found a way to say
: 'only use this for GCC sources'). I am just missing a good mode for .md files.
Paulo Matos
> -Original Message-
> From: David Malcolm [mailto:dmalc...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 16 October 2013 16:33
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Jakub J
> -Original Message-
> From: Paolo Carlini [mailto:paolo.carl...@oracle.com]
> Sent: 16 October 2013 12:54
> To: Richard Biener; Paulo Matos
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree_code_name wrapper
>
> Hi,
>
> bootstrap is
> -Original Message-
> From: Paolo Carlini [mailto:paolo.carl...@oracle.com]
> Sent: 16 October 2013 12:54
> To: Richard Biener; Paulo Matos
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree_code_name wrapper
>
> Hi,
>
> bootstrap is
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Stump [mailto:mikest...@comcast.net]
> Sent: 14 October 2013 20:46
> To: Kyrill Tkachov
> Cc: Paulo Matos; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR58682
>
> In this case, I've reviewed the license I suspect you h
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: 15 October 2013 15:45
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Richard Biener; Paolo Carlini; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree_code_
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Biener
> Sent: 15 October 2013 14:34
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Paolo Carlini; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree_code
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 15 October 2013 10:51
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Richard Biener; Paolo Carlini; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree_code_name wrapper
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 09:42:17AM
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 15 October 2013 10:12
> To: Paolo Carlini
> Cc: Paulo Matos; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree_code_name wrapper
>
>
> Apart from this please make s
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Matos
> Sent: 14 October 2013 16:43
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] tree_code_name wrapper
>
> Hi,
>
> Find attached the
-14 Paulo Matos
* tree.h: Prototype for new function get_tree_code_name.
* tree.c: Make tree_code_name static. Define new function
wrapper get_tree_code_name.
(dump_tree_statistics, tree_check_failed, tree_not_check_failed,
tree_class_check_failed
> -Original Message-
> From: Kyrill Tkachov [mailto:kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com]
> Sent: 14 October 2013 11:44
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; mikest...@comcast.net
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR58682
>
> I'd think there would be legal issues add
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Matos
> Sent: 11 October 2013 08:55
> To: Kyrill Tkachov
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR58682
>
>
> Thanks, f
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Matos
> Sent: 14 October 2013 10:31
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix comment in tree-prof.exp
>
> Hi,
>
> Here'
Hi,
Here's a patch to fix a comment in tree-prof.exp. OK to apply?
2013-10-14 Paulo Matos
* testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp: Fix comment.
--
Paulo Matos
tree-prof_comment.patch
Description: tree-prof_comment.patch
> -Original Message-
> From: Kyrill Tkachov [mailto:kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com]
> Sent: 10 October 2013 17:15
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR58682
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 10/10/13 17:10, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
This is a patch for trunk. It should be backported to 4_8, once it thaws.
OK for trunk?
2013-10-10 Paulo Matos
PR gcov-profile/58682
* ipa-inline.c (inline_small_functions): Update
max_count if new edges are added after inline_call.
Paulo Matos
pr58682.patch
e
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01436.html
>
> Bye,
>
> -Andreas-
>
Documentation patch has a typo:
+ specific checks in e.g. the pipleline description.
^
Cheers,
Paulo Matos
> -Original Message-
> From: Marek Polacek [mailto:pola...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 24 September 2013 14:52
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix typo in check for null
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:44:30PM +, Paulo Matos w
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 24 September 2013 10:03
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix typo in check for null
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Paulo Matos wr
> -Original Message-
> From: Marek Polacek [mailto:pola...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 24 September 2013 13:57
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix typo in check for null
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:03:02PM +, Paulo Matos wrote:
Ping on this patch.
Note I don't have write access.
Paulo Matos
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 23 September 2013 09:00
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PR58463][Backport to
09-23 Paulo Matos
* gcc/cfgloop.h (number_of_loops): Fix typo in check for null
Paulo Matos
0001-2013-09-23-Paulo-Matos-pmatos-broadcom.com.patch
Description: 0001-2013-09-23-Paulo-Matos-pmatos-broadcom.com.patch
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 23 September 2013 14:49
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH middle-end/58463] New testcase
>
> The testcase looks good, the ChangeLog entry is still wr
2013-09-20 Paulo Matos
* gcc.c-torture/pr58463.c: New testcase for pr58463
Paulo Matos
0001-2013-09-23-Paulo-Matos-pmatos-broadcom.com.patch
Description: 0001-2013-09-23-Paulo-Matos-pmatos-broadcom.com.patch
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 20 September 2013 16:50
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PR58463] New testcase for pr58463
>
> That is not the right place (and, note the ChangeLog entry
Please find the patch attached.
I have added the test to gcc.c-torture, please let me know if this is not the
right place.
2013-09-20 Paulo Matos
* gcc.c-torture/pr58463.c: New testcase.
Paulo Matos
pr58463-testcase.patch
Description: pr58463
56716
* tree-ssa-structalias.c (perform_var_substitution): Adjust
dumping for ref nodes.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
Paulo Matos
pr58463.patch
Description: pr58463.patch
Fixes an LTO documentation typo in gcc internals.
08-05-2013 Paulo Matos
* gcc/doc/lto.texi: Fix typo.
Paulo Matos
lto_docfix_pr50345.patch
Description: lto_docfix_pr50345.patch
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:13
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Fix PR55761
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> > 2012-12-20 P
2012-12-20 Paulo Matos
PR tree-optimization/55761
* tree-tailcall.c (process_assignment): Use build_int_cst only for
integral types,
for every other type that managed to pass all conditions use
fold_build1.
pr55761.patch
Description: pr55761.patch
2012-10-19 Paulo Matos
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-3.c: Ensure we are looking
for 0.0 and not for something like 3000, which matches current 0.0
pattern.
0001-Improve-regexp-to-ensure-that-numbers-like-3000-do-n.patch
Description: 0001-Improve-regexp-to
As a followup to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00276.html
2012-10-19 Paulo Matos
* tm.texi, tm.texi.in: Add IDENTIFIER_NODE as an alternative possibility
to possible values of decl.
Paulo Matos
doc.patch
Description: doc.patch
51 matches
Mail list logo
