Re: [C PATCH] Remove dead code related to type compatibility across TUs.

On Fri, 19 May 2023, Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches wrote: > Repost for stage 1. > > > C: Remove dead code related to type compatibility across TUs. > > Code to detect struct/unions across the same TU is not needed > anymore. Code for determining compatibility of tagged types is

[C PATCH] Remove dead code related to type compatibility across TUs.

Repost for stage 1. C: Remove dead code related to type compatibility across TUs. Code to detect struct/unions across the same TU is not needed anymore. Code for determining compatibility of tagged types is preserved as it will be used for C2X. Some errors in the unused

Re: Remove support for Intel MIC offloading (was: [PATCH] Remove dead code.)

Hello, On Thu, Oct 20 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Am 20.10.2022 um 14:41 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches >> : >> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:33:28PM +, Michael Matz wrote: >>> Hey, >>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Thomas Schwinge wrote: This had been done

Re: Remove support for Intel MIC offloading (was: [PATCH] Remove dead code.)

> Am 20.10.2022 um 14:41 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > : > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:33:28PM +, Michael Matz wrote: >> Hey, >> >>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >>> >>> This had been done in >>> wwwdocs commit 5c7ecfb5627e412a3d142d8dc212f4cd39b3b73f >>> "Docu

Re: Remove support for Intel MIC offloading (was: [PATCH] Remove dead code.)

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:33:28PM +, Michael Matz wrote: > Hey, > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > This had been done in > > wwwdocs commit 5c7ecfb5627e412a3d142d8dc212f4cd39b3b73f > > "Document deprecation of OpenMP MIC offloading in GCC 12". > > > > I'm sad about this,

Re: Remove support for Intel MIC offloading (was: [PATCH] Remove dead code.)

Hey, On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > This had been done in > wwwdocs commit 5c7ecfb5627e412a3d142d8dc212f4cd39b3b73f > "Document deprecation of OpenMP MIC offloading in GCC 12". > > I'm sad about this, because -- in theory -- such a plugin is very useful > for offloading simulation

Re: Remove support for Intel MIC offloading (was: [PATCH] Remove dead code.)

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 01:15:43PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > I'm proposing the attached "Remove support for Intel MIC offloading" > (generated with 'git format-patch --irreversible-delete', and 'diff's for > regenerated files manually snipped, to reduce its size). ChangeLog missing, you'll n

Remove support for Intel MIC offloading (was: [PATCH] Remove dead code.)

Hi! On 2021-11-12T06:41:41-0800, "H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches" wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:27 AM Martin Liška wrote: >> On 11/8/21 15:19, Jeff Law wrote: >> > On 11/8/2021 2:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: >> >> liboffloadmic is copied from upstream [...] >> >> But I have no idea

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code and function

> The only use of get_alias_symbol is gated by a gcc_unreachable (), > so the following patch gets rid of it. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK? OK, thanks! Honza

[PATCH] Remove dead code and function

The only use of get_alias_symbol is gated by a gcc_unreachable (), so the following patch gets rid of it. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK? Thanks, Richard. 2021-11-24 Richard Biener * cgraphunit.c (symbol_table::output_weakrefs): Remove unreachable ini

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On November 12, 2021 8:18:59 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 11:15 AM Richard Biener > wrote: >> >> On November 12, 2021 3:41:41 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches" >> wrote: >> >On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:27 AM Martin Liška wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/8/21 15:19, Jeff

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 11:15 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > On November 12, 2021 3:41:41 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches" > wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:27 AM Martin Liška wrote: > >> > >> On 11/8/21 15:19, Jeff Law wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On 11/8/2021 2:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek vi

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On November 12, 2021 3:41:41 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches" wrote: >On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:27 AM Martin Liška wrote: >> >> On 11/8/21 15:19, Jeff Law wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 11/8/2021 2:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:45:39AM +0100, Marti

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:44 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 11/12/21 15:41, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:27 AM Martin Liška wrote: > >> > >> On 11/8/21 15:19, Jeff Law wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 11/8/2021 2:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On 11/12/21 15:41, H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:27 AM Martin Liška wrote: On 11/8/21 15:19, Jeff Law wrote: On 11/8/2021 2:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:45:39AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: This fixes issue reported in the PR. Ready to b

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:27 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 11/8/21 15:19, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > On 11/8/2021 2:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:45:39AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> This fixes issue reported in the PR. > >>> > >>> Ready to be ins

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On 11/8/21 15:19, Jeff Law wrote: On 11/8/2021 2:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:45:39AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: This fixes issue reported in the PR. Ready to be installed? I'm not sure.  liboffloadmic is copied from upstream, so the right thing if

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On 11/8/2021 2:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:45:39AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: This fixes issue reported in the PR. Ready to be installed? I'm not sure. liboffloadmic is copied from upstream, so the right thing if we want to do anything at all (if

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:45:39AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > This fixes issue reported in the PR. > > Ready to be installed? I'm not sure. liboffloadmic is copied from upstream, so the right thing if we want to do anything at all (if we don't remove it, nothing bad happens, the condition is n

[PATCH] Remove dead code.

This fixes issue reported in the PR. Ready to be installed? Thanks, Martin PR other/89259 liboffloadmic/ChangeLog: * runtime/offload_omp_host.cpp: Remove size < 0 for a size of size_t type. --- liboffloadmic/runtime/offload_omp_host.cpp | 5 - 1 file changed, 5 del

[PATCH] Remove dead code

This removes dead code left over from the reduction vectorization refactoring last year. Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress. Richard. 2020-06-09 Richard Biener * tree-vect-loop.c (vectorizable_induction): Remove dead code. --- gcc/tree-vect-loop.c | 42 ---

[PATCH] Remove dead code

This removes dead code that was left over from the reduction vectorization refactoring last year. Bootstrapped / tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2020-06-09 Richard Biener * tree-vect-stmts.c (vect_transform_stmt): Remove dead code. --- gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c | 4

[PATCH] Remove dead code in switch conv pass.

Hi. The patch is a clean up of unused code. Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. I'm going to install the patch. Thanks, Martin gcc/ChangeLog: 2019-11-14 Martin Liska * tree-switch-conversion.c (switch_conversion::switch_conversion): Do no

[PATCH] Remove dead code

This removes dead code from the vectorizer and makes a function static. Bootstrapped / tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2019-09-18 Richard Biener * tree-vectorizer.h (get_initial_def_for_reduction): Remove. * tree-vect-loop.c (get_initial_def_for_reduct

[PATCH] Remove dead code

I am testing the following. Richard. 2019-09-03 Richard Biener * tree-ssa-sccvn.h (vn_nary_op_lookup): Remove. (vn_nary_op_insert): Likewise. * tree-ssa-sccvn.c (init_vn_nary_op_from_op): Remove. (vn_nary_op_lookup): Likewise. (vn_nary_op_insert): Lik

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code in df-scan.c (PR tree-optimization/90978).

Martin Liška writes: > Hi. > > The patch is about removal of an unreachable code. That has been proved > by an accidental gcc_unreachable places 9 year ago. Heh. > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. > > Ready to be installed? Yes, thanks. Richard > Thanks,

[PATCH] Remove dead code in df-scan.c (PR tree-optimization/90978).

Hi. The patch is about removal of an unreachable code. That has been proved by an accidental gcc_unreachable places 9 year ago. Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. Ready to be installed? Thanks, Martin gcc/ChangeLog: 2019-06-25 Martin Liska PR tre

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code (PR ipa/90874).

> Hi. > > After r272037 change we have a leftover dead code in odr_type_p. > > Ready to be installed? OK (it is obvious anyway:), thanks! Honza > Thanks, > Martin > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2019-06-17 Martin Liska > > PR ipa/90874 > * ipa-utils.h (odr_type_p): Remove dead code. > --

[PATCH] Remove dead code (PR ipa/90874).

Hi. After r272037 change we have a leftover dead code in odr_type_p. Ready to be installed? Thanks, Martin gcc/ChangeLog: 2019-06-17 Martin Liska PR ipa/90874 * ipa-utils.h (odr_type_p): Remove dead code. --- gcc/ipa-utils.h | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code in asan.c

> + /* Unpoison shadow memory that corresponds to a variable that was > + is subject of use-after-return sanitization. */ was is ? And shouldn't it be subject to instead of subject of? Otherwise LGTM. Jakub

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code in asan.c

On 06/30/2017 12:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:00:36PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hi. >> >> Following crap code was added by me when I added use-after-scope. >> Actually decl always points to LASANPC, so asan_handled_variables->contains >> (decl) >> is always false. >

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code in asan.c

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:00:36PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > Hi. > > Following crap code was added by me when I added use-after-scope. > Actually decl always points to LASANPC, so asan_handled_variables->contains > (decl) > is always false. > > Well, originally the idea was to not clear conte

[PATCH] Remove dead code in asan.c

Hi. Following crap code was added by me when I added use-after-scope. Actually decl always points to LASANPC, so asan_handled_variables->contains (decl) is always false. Well, originally the idea was to not clear content (place in shadow memory in between red zoner) of auto variables, but as we

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code from c_common_get_alias_set

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 04/24/17 09:00, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> > >> This removes some dead and unreachable code in c_common_get_alias_set: > >> Because cc1 was recently changed to be only called with one f

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code from c_common_get_alias_set

On 04/24/17 09:00, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> >> This removes some dead and unreachable code in c_common_get_alias_set: >> Because cc1 was recently changed to be only called with one file at a >> time, the code after "if (num_in_fnames == 1) re

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code from c_common_get_alias_set

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi! > > > This removes some dead and unreachable code in c_common_get_alias_set: > Because cc1 was recently changed to be only called with one file at a > time, the code after "if (num_in_fnames == 1) return -1;" is no longer > reachable, and can thus

[PATCH] Remove dead code from c_common_get_alias_set

Hi! This removes some dead and unreachable code in c_common_get_alias_set: Because cc1 was recently changed to be only called with one file at a time, the code after "if (num_in_fnames == 1) return -1;" is no longer reachable, and can thus be removed. Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64-pc-li

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code in omp-low.c

Hi! Ping Andi's patch; I just found the same thing: On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 11:34:18 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > Since the accelerator changes omp_expand_local is not used anymore. Specifically, and thereabouts. As

Re: [PATCH] remove dead code used by the old cloog scheduler

On 10/06/2015 05:45 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: 2015-10-05 Aditya Kumar Sebastian Pop * graphite-dependences.c (scop_get_transformed_schedule): Remove. (no_violations): Remove. (subtract_commutative_associative_deps): Remove.

[PATCH] remove dead code used by the old cloog scheduler

2015-10-05 Aditya Kumar Sebastian Pop * graphite-dependences.c (scop_get_transformed_schedule): Remove. (no_violations): Remove. (subtract_commutative_associative_deps): Remove. (compute_deps): Do not call subtr

[PATCH] remove dead code used by the old cloog scheduler

--- gcc/graphite-dependences.c | 255 + gcc/graphite-poly.h| 3 - 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 257 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/graphite-dependences.c b/gcc/graphite-dependences.c index e39394a..2c4f92c 100644 --- a/gcc/graphite-dependenc

[PATCH] remove dead code used by the old cloog scheduler

--- gcc/graphite-dependences.c | 36 gcc/graphite-poly.h| 3 --- 2 files changed, 39 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/graphite-dependences.c b/gcc/graphite-dependences.c index e39394a..37535d5 100644 --- a/gcc/graphite-dependences.c +++ b/gcc/graphite-de

Re: [PATCH] remove dead code of commutative_reductions

Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 09/29/2015 06:26 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > >This code is not used anymore after we removed the previous loop optimizer > >(not > >based on the ISL scheduler.) We will add back the detection of commutative > >reductions after we improve the code generation of scalar dep

Re: [PATCH] remove dead code of commutative_reductions

On 09/29/2015 06:26 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: This code is not used anymore after we removed the previous loop optimizer (not based on the ISL scheduler.) We will add back the detection of commutative reductions after we improve the code generation of scalar dependences (by not going out of SSA f

[PATCH] remove dead code of commutative_reductions

This code is not used anymore after we removed the previous loop optimizer (not based on the ISL scheduler.) We will add back the detection of commutative reductions after we improve the code generation of scalar dependences (by not going out of SSA for scalar dependences just to expose them to th

RE: [PATCH] Remove dead code from graphite-optimize-isl.c

...@gmail.com; aditya...@samsung.com; s@samsung.com; seb...@gmail.com Subject: [PATCH] Remove dead code from graphite-optimize-isl.c The variable `static bool enable_polly_vector' is always assigned to false. This results in dead code in optimize-isl.c. Removing the dead code. No functional c

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code from graphite-optimize-isl.c

On 09/11/2015 07:29 PM, Aditya Kumar wrote: The variable `static bool enable_polly_vector' is always assigned to false. This results in dead code in optimize-isl.c. Removing the dead code. No functional change intended. Fine with me as well. This code is used in Polly to enable outer loop vec

[PATCH] Remove dead code from graphite-optimize-isl.c

The variable `static bool enable_polly_vector' is always assigned to false. This results in dead code in optimize-isl.c. Removing the dead code. No functional change intended. Passes bootstrap and regtest. gcc/ChangeLog: 2015-09-11 Aditya Kumar * graphite-optimize-isl.c (get_prevect

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code.

On 05/04/2015 05:50 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote: This patch removes a "write only" variable from the C++ code. ChangeLog: -- 2015-05-04 Dominik Vogt * call.c (print_z_candidates): Remove dead code. OK. Please install. FWIW, removing a write-only variable seems like it ought ot fall u

[PATCH] Remove dead code.

00:00:00 2001 From: Dominik Vogt Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 12:46:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Remove dead code. --- gcc/cp/call.c | 4 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/cp/call.c b/gcc/cp/call.c index 31d2b9c..55350f8 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/call.c +++ b/gcc/cp/call.c @@ -3

[PATCH] Remove dead code in omp-low.c

From: Andi Kleen Since the accelerator changes omp_expand_local is not used anymore. Remove the dead function and another function used by it. gcc/: 2014-12-14 Andi Kleen * omp-low.c (build_omp_regions_root): Remove dead function. (omp_expand_local): Dito. * omp-low.

Re: [C++ Patch] Remove dead code

OK. Jason

[C++ Patch] Remove dead code

Hi, while looking into c++/58609 I noticed this dead code. Can I remove it? Tested x86_64-linux. Thanks, Paolo. / 2014-03-07 Paolo Carlini * decl.c (check_initializer): Remove dead code. Index: decl.c

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code in input_gimple_stmt

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following patch removes now dead code from input_gimple_stmt > (which also could be quite slow). Type mismatches can only > occur at the decl level after the new tree merging code went > in and those are handed by wrapping all decls in MEM_REFs

[PATCH] Remove dead code in input_gimple_stmt

The following patch removes now dead code from input_gimple_stmt (which also could be quite slow). Type mismatches can only occur at the decl level after the new tree merging code went in and those are handed by wrapping all decls in MEM_REFs to transparently have them view-converted. Bootstrapp

[PATCH] Remove dead code

Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2013-01-16 Richard Biener * tree-inline.c (tree_function_versioning): Remove set but never used variable. Index: gcc/tree-inline.c === --- g

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code from fold_stmt_1

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 01:00:05PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > This removes dead code as suggested by Jakub. > > > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > Looks as partial removal only. IMHO > gimple_stmt_iterator gsinex

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code from fold_stmt_1

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 01:00:05PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > This removes dead code as suggested by Jakub. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Looks as partial removal only. IMHO gimple_stmt_iterator gsinext = *gsi; gimple next_stmt; gsi_next (&gsinext); nex

[PATCH] Remove dead code from fold_stmt_1

This removes dead code as suggested by Jakub. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Richard. 2012-11-27 Richard Biener * gimple-fold.c (fold_stmt_1): Remove unnecessary code. Index: gcc/gimple-fold.c ===