On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 15:41 -0600, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 15:46 -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > I was looking at the routelookup EEMBC benchmark and it has code of the
> > form:
> >
> >while ( this_node->cmpbit > next_node->cmpbit )
> > {
> > this_node
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> On Feb 19, 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> and it still isn't obvious to me when canonical_cselib_val is supposed
>> to be used.
>
> For comparison of VALUEs, it avoids the need for recursive or
> combinatorial compares, for all equivalent VALUEs map directly to the
>
Hello,
I've just committed the attached patch as obvious.
Cheers,
Oleg
2012-02-26 Oleg Endo
* config/sh/predicates.md: Remove blank lines.
* config/sh/sh.c: Fix typos in comments.
* config/sh/constraints.md: Likewise.
* config/sh/sh.md: Remove blank lines.
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po
(This file, 'gcc-4.7-b20120128.sv.po',
On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 00:39 -0800, Andrew T Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 15:41 -0600, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 15:46 -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > I was looking at the routelookup EEMBC benchmark and it has code of the
> > > form:
> > >
> > >while (
Hello,
The test case that was originally included in the patch for PR 49263
didn't make it into trunk. Committed as rev 184585.
Cheers,
Oleg
testsuite/ChangeLog:
2012-02-26 Oleg Endo
PR target/49263
* gcc.target/sh/pr49263.c: New.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sh/pr4926
Hi
I hope you won't mind but I finally took care of it applying the
following patch:
> libstdcxx_so_7-2-branch
> This branch carries all the C++ Runtime Library (libstdc++-v3)
patches
> that break its abi. It will be merged into the trunk as soon as the
decision
> to move to abi ver
Hello,
The attached patch deletes the dead GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_INDEX macro in
sh.h.
OK to apply to trunk?
2012-02-26 Oleg Endo
* config/sh/sh.h: Delete dead GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_INDEX macro.
Index: gcc/config/sh/sh.h
===
--- gc
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> > The assert in question looks like:
>> >
>> > if (nested_in_vect_loop
>> > && (TREE_INT_CST_LOW (STMT_VINFO_DR_STEP (stmt_info))
>> > % GET_MODE_SIZE
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 09:58 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> > On 02/23/12 12:19, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> >
>> >> about hit me. Instead now I save all loads in a function and iter
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 02/24/12 07:10, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 09:58 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez
>>> wrote:
On 02/23/12 12:19, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> abou
Found while testing x86 X ppc ...
.. I missed byte-swapping the indices when outputting the index of the
GNU wrapper for LTO sections.
OK/When?
Iain
libiberty:
* simple-object-mach-o.c (simple_object_mach_o_write_segment):
Byte-swap indices when required.
diff --git a/libibe
Iain Sandoe writes:
> Found while testing x86 X ppc ...
> .. I missed byte-swapping the indices when outputting the index of the
> GNU wrapper for LTO sections.
>
> OK/When?
> Iain
>
> libiberty:
>
> * simple-object-mach-o.c (simple_object_mach_o_write_segment):
> Byte-swap indices wh
Hello,
The attached patch adds some SH update notes for GCC 4.7.
OK to commit?
Cheers,
Oleg
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.88
diff -u -r1.88 cha
Oleg Endo wrote:
> The attached patch deletes the dead GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_INDEX macro in
> sh.h.
> OK to apply to trunk?
OK.
Regards,
kaz
Oleg Endo wrote:
> The attached patch adds some SH update notes for GCC 4.7.
> OK to commit?
Looks fine to me, though it requires OK from wwwdocs maintainer.
Regards,
kaz
Hello,
The attached patch changes the atomic_compare_and_swap expander/insn to
use SImode for the return value instead of QImode. This is more aligned
to the other insns which handle the T bit as SImode and avoids some
unnecessary test instructions in cases where the result of the atomic op
in th
Hello,
The attached patch adds atomic_exchange patterns to the SH target.
This results in slightly better generated code compared to the default
compare_and_swap loop that is generated if atomic_exchange patterns are
absent.
Tested against rev 184582 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_boa
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Kaz Kojima wrote:
>> The attached patch adds some SH update notes for GCC 4.7.
>> OK to commit?
> Looks fine to me, though it requires OK from wwwdocs maintainer.
It does not. :-) As port maintainer, you are more then welcome
(and obviously qualified), Kaz!
Oleg, just one d
Oleg Endo wrote:
> The attached patch changes the atomic_compare_and_swap expander/insn to
> use SImode for the return value instead of QImode. This is more aligned
> to the other insns which handle the T bit as SImode and avoids some
> unnecessary test instructions in cases where the result of t
Oleg Endo wrote:
> The attached patch adds atomic_exchange patterns to the SH target.
> This results in slightly better generated code compared to the default
> compare_and_swap loop that is generated if atomic_exchange patterns are
> absent.
>
> Tested against rev 184582 with
>
> make -k check
Hi,
by recent tests in gcc.target/i386 I noticed that testcase
float128-2.c failed on executation. This failure is caused by
incompatible bitfield-structure definition in soft-fp/quad.h for
enabled ms-bitfields layout.
Patch marks those structures to be 'gcc_struct' for mingw targets.
ChangeLog
Hello,
this patch fixes various testsuite failures in gcc.target/i386 for
mingw targets.
ChangeLog
2012-02-27 Kai Tietz
* gcc.target/i386/pr46939.c (long): Fix LP64 vs LLP64
issue.
* gcc.target/i386/pr45352-2.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/i386/bitfield3.c: Add -mn
On Feb 26, 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> It seemed that when we recorded two values V1 and V2 were equivalent,
> we added V1 to V2's location list and V2 to V1's location list. But
> it sounds from the above like the canonical value is what we want in
> almost all cases, so if V2 is the one t
24 matches
Mail list logo
