On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 20:27 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:06:22PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > Yep, thanks -- I just finished testing that, and it fixes the problem
> > with no regressions. Thanks for the help.
> >
> > Is this ok to commit?
>
> If David is ok with it
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:06:22PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Yep, thanks -- I just finished testing that, and it fixes the problem
>> with no regressions. Thanks for the help.
>>
>> Is this ok to commit?
>
> If David is ok with it, it is
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:06:22PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Yep, thanks -- I just finished testing that, and it fixes the problem
> with no regressions. Thanks for the help.
>
> Is this ok to commit?
If David is ok with it, it is fine with me too. But, please commit to both
gcc-5-branch and
Yep, thanks -- I just finished testing that, and it fixes the problem
with no regressions. Thanks for the help.
Is this ok to commit?
Thanks,
Bill
On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 19:46 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:39:59PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The " && special_op !=
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:39:59PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The " && special_op != SH_NONE" test from the second if can go then,
> because it is never true. And I'd really think that you shouldn't change
> just the fmt[i] == 'E' handling, but also the fmt[i] == 'e' || fmt[i] == 'u'
> handling
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:32:44AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> 2015-04-17 Bill Schmidt
>
> PR target/65787
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rtx_is_swappable_p): Remove previous
> fix; ensure that a subsequent SH_NONE operand does not overwrite
> an existing *special value.
>
Hi,
On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 10:02 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 16:49 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > You have actually mailed the original patch again, not the revised one.
>
> > That said, PARALLEL seems to be already handled by rtx_is_swappable_p,
> > so if it isn't handled
On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 16:49 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 08:28:02AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 07:27 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > Note that Jakub requested a small change in the bugzilla commentary,
> > > which I've implemented. I'm doing a re
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 08:28:02AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 07:27 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > Note that Jakub requested a small change in the bugzilla commentary,
> > which I've implemented. I'm doing a regstrap now.
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
> Here's the revised and teste
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 07:27 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Note that Jakub requested a small change in the bugzilla commentary,
>> which I've implemented. I'm doing a regstrap now.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> Here's the revised and tested patch. OK for
On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 07:27 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Note that Jakub requested a small change in the bugzilla commentary,
> which I've implemented. I'm doing a regstrap now.
>
> Bill
>
Here's the revised and tested patch. OK for trunk and gcc-5-branch?
Thanks,
Bill
[gcc]
2015-04-16 Bi
Note that Jakub requested a small change in the bugzilla commentary,
which I've implemented. I'm doing a regstrap now.
Bill
On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 16:46 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787 identifies an issue
> where the powerpc64le vector swap
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787 identifies an issue
where the powerpc64le vector swap optimization miscompiles some code.
The code for handling vector extract operations did not expect to find
those operations wrapped in a PARALLEL with a CLOBBER, but this test
shows that th
13 matches
Mail list logo
