Bootstrap and tested on linux/x86_64.
Ok for trunk?
David
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Compiling the test case in the patch with -O2 -m32 without the fix,
> the program will abort. The problem is a var decl whose address is
> taken is not marked as addressable le
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old same body
> alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now separate
> function nodes that have IPA_REF_ALIAS reference to the node they are alias
> of.
>
> I
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old same
> > body
> > alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now
> > separate
> > function nodes that have IPA_REF_ALIAS reference to the node they a
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old same
> > > body
> > > alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now
> > > separate
> > > function nodes that have IPA_REF_ALIAS reference to
Hi Eric,
This is the usual problem of volatile accesses not preserved under (heavy)
optimization. In Ada, we can put pragma Volatile on components of composite
types without putting it on the enclosing type itself,
if T is a non-volatile composite type with volatile components, and O is an
ob
I was alerted to a problem with large toc (-mcmodel=medium/large) code
a few days ago by warnings emitted during a binutils build.
dwarf.c: In function 'display_debug_lines_raw':
dwarf.c:2409:1: note: non-delegitimized UNSPEC UNSPEC_TOCREL (44) found in
variable location
dwarf.c:2409:1: note: non
On Jun 18, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Since the common config/mh-darwin file doesn't exist on gcc-4_5-branch, the
> following patch
> creates a config/mh-x86-darwin to allow r175089 and r175108 to be effectively
> backported. This
> change is worthwhile to provide darwin11 users ac
On Jun 18, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:49 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> The gcj compiler needs to pass -no_pie for linkage on darwin11 due to the
>> new -pie
>> default of the linker. The attached patch accomplishes this by passing
>> -no_pie on SYSTEMSPEC
>> for *-*-
On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:33 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> * mh-darwin: Turn off -pie on darwin11 and later.
Also backported for gcc 4.5.4 and 4.6.1.
On Jun 16, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 5:01 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On Thursday 16 June 2011 02:33:50, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> BOOT_CFLAGS += -mdynamic-no-pic
>>> +
>>> +# Ensure we don't try and use -pie, as it is incompatible with pch.
>>> +BOOT_LDFLAGS=`case ${host
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:51 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:15:11AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:49 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >> The gcj compiler needs to pass -no_pie for linkage on darwin11 due to the
> >> new -pie
> >> default of the linker. The attached pa
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> I can't approve the configury changes and would like to defer
>>> to target maintainers for the target specific changes. That said,
>>> I'm not familiar enough with the area of the patch. But yes,
>>> it's stage1 now - so if anyone else wants
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I couldn't find anything terribly tricky about the conversion.
>
> The existing push_mult pattern would service thumb1 with just
> a tweak or two to the memory predicate and the length.
>
> The existing emit_multi_reg_push wasn't set up t
On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Currently, scan-dump variants treat a missing dump file as a failure and
> append ": dump file does not exist" to the test message that would be
> used with pass or fail. This patch treats it as unresolved instead,
> using the same test message a
On Jun 19, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Thanks. Can we get this on gcc 4.5.4 as well?
As commented in the PR, I'd have to see a confirmation that the bug exists in
gcc-4.5.x _and_ that the patch fixes it (with no regressions). That had been
previously stated for gcc-4.6.x, which is
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 02:40:59PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Thanks. Can we get this on gcc 4.5.4 as well?
>
> As commented in the PR, I'd have to see a confirmation that the bug exists in
> gcc-4.5.x _and_ that the patch fixes it (with no re
Sparc is one of three users of a dwarf2out hook that I'd like to eliminate.
The other two users (arm and ia64) should be able to transition directly to
existing REG_CFA_* notes, and I will take care of those shortly. Sparc is
the only user of DW_CFA_GNU_window_save, which means we need a correspo
> if T is a non-volatile composite type with volatile components, and O is an
> object of type T, are the optimizers allowed to remove the assignment "O :=
> O"?
Good question, that I'm not really qualified to answer. Any language lawyer?
--
Eric Botcazou
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> This is a (possible) pre-requesite for the bitfield lowering patch,
> taken from the old mem-ref branch. It introduces BIT_FIELD_EXPR
> which can be used to do bitfield composition.
> BIT_FIELD_EXPR is equivalent to computing
> a & ~((1
On Jun 19, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> if T is a non-volatile composite type with volatile components, and O is an
>> object of type T, are the optimizers allowed to remove the assignment "O :=
>> O"?
>
> Good question, that I'm not really qualified to answer. Any language lawyer?
> I've tested this via cross-compile and the unwind info is unchanged before
> and after. However, I'll hold off checking it in for the moment until it
> has had a chance to go through a true bootstrap cycle. Dave, might you
> have a moment to do that?
Note that you have SPARC/Linux machines in
From: Richard Henderson
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:19:41 -0700
> * reg-notes.def (REG_CFA_WINDOW_SAVE): New.
> * dwarf2out.c (dwarf2out_frame_debug): Handle it.
> (dwarf2out_frame_debug_cfa_window_save): Rename from
> dwarf2out_window_save; make static.
> * tree.h (dw
Mike,
I requested a backport to gcc-4_5-branch of the fix for PR42333 awhile
back...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01098.html
Can we get that committed?
Jack
ps You already pre-approved such a backport in...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42333#c57
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> I was alerted to a problem with large toc (-mcmodel=medium/large) code
> a few days ago by warnings emitted during a binutils build.
>
> dwarf.c: In function 'display_debug_lines_raw':
> dwarf.c:2409:1: note: non-delegitimized UNSPEC UNSPEC_TOC
[testsuite]
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01069.html
PR tree-optimization/48377, PR middle-end/49191
trunk/4.6
non_strict_align testsuite support
[debug]
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00649.html
trunk only
DW_OP_GNU_parameter_ref support
[debug]
http:
26 matches
Mail list logo
