On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I developed this patch while working on the dwarf2 pass series.
> This was before I bypassed the entire problem by removing the
> !deep branch prediction paths.
>
> Ideally, we'd do this generically from gimple. Less ideally,
> but still
On Saturday 09 July 2011 20:59:08 Tobias Burnus wrote:
> The regression seems to be a side effect of the -fwhole-file effort.
>
> The BT_UNKNOWN of the second argument of SIGNAL(NUMBER,HANDLER) triggers
> an ICE in trans-types.c, when generating the decl for the external
> function "signal" (or ra
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:22 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> This patch turns on 64bit and check models for x32. OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks.
>
> H.J.
> ---
> 2011-07-09 H.J. Lu
>
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Turn on
> OPTION_MASK_ISA_64BIT for TARGET_X32. Only all
My patch to implement DR 1207 caused this regression, where within a
member function, a tentative parse that could involve a
trailing-return-type leads to confusion. Fixed by not relying on
current_class_type to decide whether or not we're declaring a member
function.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> X32 psABI requires promoting pointers to Pmode when passing/returning
> in registers. OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks.
>
> H.J.
> --
> 2011-07-09 H.J. Lu
>
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_promote_function_mode): New.
> (TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNC
On 07/10/2011 02:33 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> I developed this patch while working on the dwarf2 pass series.
>> This was before I bypassed the entire problem by removing the
>> !deep branch prediction paths.
>>
>> Ideally, we'd do this g
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 23:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 07/05/2011 04:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index 7387dad..b343bf8 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -383,18
This Objective-C patch does an obvious cleanup of the encoding code internal
API, by hiding
the obstacks used to create the encoding strings inside objc-encoding.c. This
provides
a cleaner, simpler API, and improves code modularity.
In practice, the patch makes the following changes:
* have o
>
> /* If checking is enabled, verify that no lattice is in the TOP state, i.e.
> not
>bottom, not containing a variable component and without any known value at
>the same time. */
>
> static void
> verify_propagated_values (void)
> {
> #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
Hmm, would not be better t
> I developed this patch while working on the dwarf2 pass series.
> This was before I bypassed the entire problem by removing the
> !deep branch prediction paths.
>
> Ideally, we'd do this generically from gimple. Less ideally,
> but still better, is to always emit rtl, and support that in
> the
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> X32 psABI requires promoting pointers to Pmode when passing/returning
>> in registers. OK for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> H.J.
>> --
>> 2011-07-09 H.J. Lu
>>
>> * config/i386/i386.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 07/09/2011 04:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Is this change actually necessary? I would think that the
predicate has already been adjusted...
>>>
>>> Since we always use short ve
This patch implemented the trans*.c part of allocatable scalar coarrays;
contrary to noncoarray allocatable scalars, they have cobounds and thus
use an array descriptor.
While there are still some bugs and minor omissions, gfortran slowly
gets feature compile with regards to single-image coarr
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 23:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 07/05/2011 04:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
> index 7387dad..b343bf8 100644
>
On 07/10/2011 02:33 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> + reload_completed = 1;
> + epilogue_completed = 1;
>
> Do we really need these? Perhaps a comment should be added here, it is
> not obvious at the first sight...
We didn't need these. ia64 did because there we run a split pass
to properly generate
On 07/10/2011 12:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_trampoline_init): Use movl instead
> of movabs for x32.
Ok.
r~
On 07/10/2011 12:43 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> +/* Pointer function arguments and return values are promoted to Pmode.
> + If FOR_RETURN is 1, this function must behave in the same way with
> + regard to function returns as TARGET_FUNCTION_VALUE. */
> +
> +static enum machine_mode
> +ix86_promote_fu
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/10/2011 12:43 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> +/* Pointer function arguments and return values are promoted to Pmode.
>> + If FOR_RETURN is 1, this function must behave in the same way with
>> + regard to function returns as TARGET_FUNCTI
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:04 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 23:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/05/2011 04:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:51 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:04 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 23:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/05/2011 04:27 PM, H.
On 07/10/2011 03:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> We only want to promote function parameters passed/returned in register.
> But I can't tell if a value will be passed in register or memory inside of
> TARGET_FUNCTION_VALUE. So when FOR_RETURN is 1, we don't
> promote. Even if we don't promote it explicit
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/10/2011 03:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> We only want to promote function parameters passed/returned in register.
>> But I can't tell if a value will be passed in register or memory inside of
>> TARGET_FUNCTION_VALUE. So when FOR_RETUR
On Jul 10, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> This Objective-C patch does an obvious cleanup of the encoding code internal
> API, by hiding
> the obstacks used to create the encoding strings inside objc-encoding.c.
> This provides
> a cleaner, simpler API, and improves code modularity.
> Ok
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:58 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 07/09/2011 02:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thunk is in ptr_mode, not Pmode. OK for trunk?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> H.J.
>>> ---
>>> 2011-07-09 H.J. Lu
>>>
>>> * co
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:51 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:04 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 23:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:18 PM,
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
This patch splits out a new generator genattr-enum from genattr, and it
generates insn-attr-enum.h, which just makes the enum declarations.
This new header file is then included by options.c and insn-attr.h .
Is there a pa
On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:22 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:29:53AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Linux/x86-64, when we pass
>>
>> RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-mx32}'"
>>
>> to GCC tests, we can't check lp64/ilp32 for availability of 64bit x86
>> instructions. This pa
On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> 2011-07-09 H.J. Lu
>>
>> * gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/x86_64/x86_64-costmodel-vect.exp: Check
>> ia32.
>> * go.test/go-test.exp (go-set-goarch): Likewise.
>>
>
> A small update.
Ok.
28 matches
Mail list logo
