Re: [SCORE] Hookize REGISTER_MOVE_COST and MEMORY_MOVE_COST

2011-12-26 Thread Chen Liqin
On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 23:08 +0400, Anatoly Sokolov wrote: > * config/score/score.h (REGISTER_MOVE_COST, MEMORY_MOVE_COST): Remove. > * config/score/score-protos.h (score_register_move_cost): Remove. > > * config/score/score.c (TARGET_REGISTER_MOVE_COST): Define. >

Re: [patch] Flag-controlled type conversions/promotions

2011-12-26 Thread Dominique Dhumieres
> I regression tested the patch on i686-*-freebsd. No problems occurred. > Can one of the other gfortran reviewers/committers cast a quick glance > over the patch. I would like to commit this within next day or two. I have applied the patch on trunk (incremental update). I did not get any regres

Re: [patch] Flag-controlled type conversions/promotions

2011-12-26 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 05:14:46PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > > I regression tested the patch on i686-*-freebsd. No problems occurred. > > Can one of the other gfortran reviewers/committers cast a quick glance > > over the patch. I would like to commit this within next day or two. > > I

Re: [patch] Flag-controlled type conversions/promotions

2011-12-26 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 09:28:01AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 05:14:46PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > > > I regression tested the patch on i686-*-freebsd. No problems occurred. > > > Can one of the other gfortran reviewers/committers cast a quick glance > > > over t

Re: [patch] Flag-controlled type conversions/promotions

2011-12-26 Thread Zydrunas Gimbutas
Hi all, Attached are three test file, that stress the type-promotion patch. >> The difference between -fdefault-*-8 and -f*-4-*-8 should probably also be >> documented. >> > > It is documented for the -freal-* options.  The manual has, for example, > > -freal-4-real-8 >     Promote REAL(KIND=4)

Re: [BFIN] Hookize REGISTER_MOVE_COST and MEMORY_MOVE_COST

2011-12-26 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
Anatoly Sokolov schrieb: Hi. This patch removes obsolete REGISTER_MOVE_COST and MEMORY_MOVE_COST Why are they obsolete? The internals do not say they are obsolete and the PRINT_* hoohs documentation does not mention a replacement. There is not even a documentation for target hooks TA

[patch] [4.6] Backport strict-volatile-bitfields fix PR51200

2011-12-26 Thread Ye Joey
Fix PR51200. Backport trunk 182545, 182649, 182685 to 4.6. OK to 4.6? - Joey 2011-12-20 Bernd Schmidt PR middle-end/51200 * expr.c (store_field): Avoid a direct store if the mode is larger than the size of the bit field. * stor-layout.c (layout_decl):

[arm-embedded] Backport fix to PR51200

2011-12-26 Thread Ye Joey
Committed to arm/embedded-4_6-branch. 2011-12-26 Joey Ye Revert original fix and backport r182545, 182649 from mainline Revert: 2011-11-18 Joey Ye Port Bernd's fix to volatile bitfields 2010-12-02 Bernd Schmidt * expr.c (store_field): Avo

Re: [google] fix ICE when using LIPO profiles for FDO (issue5500068)

2011-12-26 Thread Xinliang David Li
ok for google branches David On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Rong Xu wrote: > This patch is for google_main branch only. > > This patch fixes the ICE when using LIPO profiles for regular FDO > compilation. LIPO has INDIR_CALL_TOPN profiles while FDO has > INDIR_CALL profile. > > Tested with SPE

Patches ping

2011-12-26 Thread Revital Eres
Hello, [PATCH, SMS] Prevent the creation of reg-moves for definitions with MODE_CC http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01459.html [PATCH SMS 2/2, RFC] Register pressure estimation for the partial schedule http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01330.html Thanks, Revital