On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:40:13AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> Why not use "unmasked" and "masked" instead of "notinbranch" and "inbranch"?
> If those terms come from OpenMP or are in use by other compilers (llvm, icc,
> whatever), then I guess we should stick with them. Otherwise we should
> conside
On 12/02/2015 05:46 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
Hello Jakub,
On 13 Nov 13:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
Similarly.
Ok for trunk with those changes.
It turns out that current implementation of GLibC does not
contain masked variants of math r
Hello Jakub,
On 13 Nov 13:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
>
> Similarly.
>
> Ok for trunk with those changes.
It turns out that current implementation of GLibC does not
contain masked variants of math routines. So, this attribute
is use
On 11/20/2015 05:15 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Kirill,
On 18/11/15 14:11, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
Hello Andreas, Devid.
On 18 Nov 10:45, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Kirill Yukhin writes:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
new file mode 100
Hello Kyrill,
On 20 Nov 12:15, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >gcc/tessuite/
> > * c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c: Put xfail (PR68158) on dg-error.
>
> This test fails on bare-metal targets that don't support -fcilkplus or
> -pthread.
> Would you consider moving them to the cilkplus testing directory or
Hi Kirill,
On 18/11/15 14:11, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
Hello Andreas, Devid.
On 18 Nov 10:45, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Kirill Yukhin writes:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..b4eda34
--- /dev/null
+++ b
On 11/18/2015 07:11 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
Hello Andreas, Devid.
On 18 Nov 10:45, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Kirill Yukhin writes:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..b4eda34
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/te
Hello Andreas, Devid.
On 18 Nov 10:45, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Kirill Yukhin writes:
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000..b4eda34
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/
Kirill Yukhin writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..b4eda34
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "
Kirill Yukhin writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..2bbdf04
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-opti
Kirill,
* c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
and
* c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c
fail on 32 bit systems, e.g., see powerpc64-linux tested in 32 bit mode.
- David
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:54:33PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> @@ -9013,6 +9016,35 @@ handle_omp_declare_simd_attribute (tree *, tree, tree,
> int, bool *)
>return NULL_TREE;
> }
>
> +/* Handle an "simd" attribute. */
/* Handle a "simd" attribute. */
instead?
> +static tree
> +handle_
Hello Jakub,
I've fixed all long lines, thanks!
I've also fixed max_len for "simd" attribute.
Tests are fixed w/ scan for SIMD-mangled routines, routines
made `extern'.
ChangeLog entry was updated.
gcc/
* omp-low.c (pass_omp_simd_clone::gate): If target allows - call
without addit
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:44:18AM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> gcc/
> * omp-low.c (pass_omp_simd_clone::gate): If target allows - call
> without additional conditions.
Please make sure CHangeLog entries are tab indented. I would just use
a comma instead of " -" above.
>
Hi Jakub,
On 29 Oct 09:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:16:04PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> > Bootstrapped. Regtested. Is it ok for trunk?
> >
> >
> > gcc/
> > * omp-low.c (pass_omp_simd_clone::gate): If target allows - call
> > without additional conditions
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:16:04PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Bootstrapped. Regtested. Is it ok for trunk?
>
>
> gcc/
> * omp-low.c (pass_omp_simd_clone::gate): If target allows - call
> without additional conditions.
> * doc/extend.texi (simd): Document new attribute.
Hello Jakub,
Your inputs fixed.
On 27 Oct 15:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > diff --git a/gcc/omp-low.c b/gcc/omp-low.c
> > index ad7c017..232dc5c 100644
> > --- a/gcc/omp-low.c
> > +++ b/gcc/omp-low.c
> > @@ -17412,10 +17412,7 @@ public:
> > bool
> > pass_omp_simd_clone::gate (function *)
> > {
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:06:58PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Boostrapped. Regtesting is in progress. Is it ok for trunk if pass?
>
> gcc/
> * cp/parser.h (cp_parser): Add simd_attr_present.
> * cp/parser.c (cp_parser_late_return_type_opt): Handle
> simd_attr_present,
> r
Hello Joseph,
On 23 Oct 14:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>
> > > You need to update this patch to take account of Marek's fix for bug
> > > 67964
> > > (it was because I was suspicious of the "continue;" in this patch
> > > accepting invalid syntax that I f
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> > You need to update this patch to take account of Marek's fix for bug 67964
> > (it was because I was suspicious of the "continue;" in this patch
> > accepting invalid syntax that I found that bug), retest and resubmit.
> I've rebased the patch on top
Hello Joseph,
On 22 Oct 12:48, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>
> > Ping?
>
> You need to update this patch to take account of Marek's fix for bug 67964
> (it was because I was suspicious of the "continue;" in this patch
> accepting invalid syntax that I found t
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Ping?
You need to update this patch to take account of Marek's fix for bug 67964
(it was because I was suspicious of the "continue;" in this patch
accepting invalid syntax that I found that bug), retest and resubmit.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codeso
Hello,
On 15 Oct 17:47, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> On 15 Oct 16:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:33:32PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> > > --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> > > +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> > > @@ -3066,6 +3066,20 @@ This function attribute make a stack prote
Hi Jakub,
On 15 Oct 16:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:33:32PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> > +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> > @@ -3066,6 +3066,20 @@ This function attribute make a stack protection of
> > the function if
> > flags @option{fstack-p
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:33:32PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> @@ -3066,6 +3066,20 @@ This function attribute make a stack protection of the
> function if
> flags @option{fstack-protector} or @option{fstack-protector-strong}
> or @option{
Hello,
On 14 Oct 13:40, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>
> > Is it ok for trunk?
>
> This patch has no documentation. Documentation for new attributes must be
> added to extend.texi.
Fixed. Extra entry to gcc/Changelog:
* doc/extend.texi (simd): Document
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Is it ok for trunk?
This patch has no documentation. Documentation for new attributes must be
added to extend.texi.
> Enables creation of one or more versions that can process multiple
> arguments using SIMD instructions from a single invocation fro
Hello,
On 07 Oct 11:09, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 07:24 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> >
> >>To enable vectorization of loops w/ calls to math functions it is reasonable
> >>to enable parsing of attribute vector for functions unconditionally and
> >>chan
28 matches
Mail list logo
