Hello!
The testcase failed to compile with 4.5 with spill failure, but
compiles OK with 4.6+. Attached patch adds the test to gcc testsuite,
so the bug can be closed.
2012-09-02 Uros Bizjak
PR target/42295
* g++.dg/opt/pr42295.C: New test.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu {,-m32
Hello!
The testcase failed to compile with 4.4 with spill failure, but
compiles OK with 4.6+. Attached patch adds the test to gcc testsuite,
so the bug can be closed.
2012-09-02 Dominique Dhumieres
Uros Bizjak
PR target/36680
* gfortran.dg/pr36680.f90: New test.
Oleg Endo writes:
> On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 10:10 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Thanks for doing this. We should perhaps add the address space too,
>> but if you don't feel like redoing the whole patch, that can wait until
>> someone wants it.
>
> I just had a look at the address space thing
Hello!
The testcase failed to compile with 4.6 with spill failure, but
compiles OK with 4.7+. I have backed-out the change that made the bug
latent, and the testcase still passed on mainline. This is maximum we
can do with the testcase at this point, so attached patch adds the
test to gcc testsuit
Richard Sandiford schrieb:
Oleg Endo writes:
On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 10:10 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Thanks for doing this. We should perhaps add the address space too,
but if you don't feel like redoing the whole patch, that can wait until
someone wants it.
I just had a look at the add
This is a wrong code bug at -O2 reported for MIPS and caused by the discrepancy
between the natural placement of barriers in the RTL stream and the placement
expected by the dbr pass (actually by the delete_related_insns machinery).
The MIPS port invokes the dbr pass from its own reorg pass and
Hello!
Attached patch prevents compute_bb_for_insn to calculate BB for
barrier RTXes. This is in fact the same approach all other
*_bb_for_insn use.
The patch is bordering on obvious.
2012-09-02 Uros Bizjak
PR rtl-optimization/54455
* cfgrtl.c (compute_bb_for_insn): Do not co
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Attached patch prevents compute_bb_for_insn to calculate BB for
> barrier RTXes. This is in fact the same approach all other
> *_bb_for_insn use.
>
> The patch is bordering on obvious.
It is anything _but_ obvious. The code looks lik
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Attached patch prevents compute_bb_for_insn to calculate BB for
>> barrier RTXes. This is in fact the same approach all other
>> *_bb_for_insn use.
> What is happening for
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> Attached patch prevents compute_bb_for_insn to calculate BB for
>>> barrier RTXes. This is in fact the same approac
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Attached patch prevents compute_bb_for_insn to calculate BB for
barrier RTXes. This is in fact the same approach all other
*_bb_for_insn use.
>>
>>> What is happening for you, is that you're seeing a BARRIER between
>>> BB_HEAD
Hello,
My last change that converted some of the SH patterns to use iterators
introduced a problem on SH2A, where I missed to pass 'mode'
instead of 'QImode' in one of the patterns.
Committed as obvious.
Cheers,
Oleg
ChangeLog:
* config/sh/sh.md (*extendsi2_compact_mem_disp): Pass
Hi,
this is a regression present on the 4.6 branch at -O2 for the SPARC, but the
underlying issue is presumably latent everywhere. It's reload inheritance so
the opinion of reload specialists is welcome.
We have a couple of insns with 2 reloads each:
Reloads for insn # 84
Reload 0: reload_in
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Looks ok.
Thanks, Richard. I applied the patch with a slightly enhanced
changelog (one entry was missing).
> Some of the defines in i386/openbsdelf.h look redundant with either
> i386/gas.h or i386/x86_64.h or both. But I won't quibble about that
Hi,
When x86-64 TLS support was added by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-10/msg01262.html
it didn't allow negative offset. Jakub, do you remember the reason for
it? I tested this patch on Linux/x86-64 and used the new GCC to build
glibc for x86-64 and x32. There are no regressions. O
> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 16:18:27 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Gerald Pfeifer
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > Looks ok.
>
> Thanks, Richard. I applied the patch with a slightly enhanced
> changelog (one entry was missing).
Thanks Gerald & Richard!
> > Some of the defines in i386/
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> The problem is that the new call to cleanup_cfg in gimple_expand_cfg has
> short-circuited the machinery that emits nops to carry goto locus at -O0.
> The machinery works in CFGLAYOUT mode, but here we're still in CFGRTL.
>
> The attached pat
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Nick Clifton wrote:
> I am checking in the patch below to add support for reporting stack
> usage by the XStormy16 backend.
This ass a note to our release notes; applied.
Anything you'd like to add or tweak?
(Is "stormy" fine as an anchor, or should we go for "xstormy" o
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Oleg Endo wrote:
> The new SH option -menable-tas has been renamed to -mtas in rev 190782.
> I have committed the attached patch to reflect this in the changes.html
> for 4.8.
Thanks for thinking of this. In line with changes Sandra made
recently, I replaced future tense as f
Hello,
this patch passes bootstrap+testsuite. It is probably wrong in many ways,
but I don't know enough to do more without some advice.
The goal is to recognize that v[0]+v[1] can be computed with haddpd. With
the patch, v[0]-v[1] becomes hsubpd and v[1]+v[0] becomes haddpd. Also,
thanks to
Hello,
This is the patch for this issue as mentioned in the PR.
Tested on rev 190840 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}"
and no new failures.
OK?
Cheers,
Oleg
ChangeLog:
PR target/54418
* config/s
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> On 1 April 2012 23:55, David Edelsohn wrote:
If there are no further comments I am inclined to commit this
patch early next week (possibly causing quite some fallout ...)
Hello handsome! ))
I am Tierra.
If you looking forward about having wonderful time in a company of interesting,
stunning female then I'm waiting for you!
I felt in love with ur photo shots and so decided to create this message! I am
thinking that u would not stay calm after examining mine too.
Hi Richi,
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> This removes matrix-reorg which is today useless and possibly
> dangerous. It follows struct-reorg down the kitchen-sink.
how about the following patch for the GCC 4.8 release notes?
Would you like to propose a (politically correct ;-) sn
Hi,
as the bug report tells us one speed problem is loop header copying, in
particular the update_ssa call that is done for each and every copied loop
header but touches all blocks in a function.
Now, one idea was to use an optimized update_ssa that works only on the
relevant subset of blocks
Oleg Endo wrote:
> This is the patch for this issue as mentioned in the PR.
> Tested on rev 190840 with
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}"
>
> and no new failures.
> OK?
OK.
Regards,
kaz
Hello,
This removes a leftover in sh-common.c which is not needed anymore.
It should have been removed when fixing the PR, but went unnoticed.
Tested on rev 190840 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}"
and no new fail
Oleg Endo wrote:
> This removes a leftover in sh-common.c which is not needed anymore.
> It should have been removed when fixing the PR, but went unnoticed.
> Tested on rev 190840 with
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-m
On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 12:32 +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Richard Sandiford schrieb:
> > Oleg Endo writes:
> >> On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 10:10 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks for doing this. We should perhaps add the address space too,
> >>> but if you don't feel like redoing th
On Sat, 1 Sep 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
> gcc/
> * fold-const.c (fold_ternary_loc): Constant-propagate after
> removing dead operands.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> * gcc.dg/fold-perm.c: Improve test.
(adding a line and a parameter to the function containing the test-code)
JFTR: generally
Ping with CC to build maintainers.
(Further pings, if any are needed, will be with URL only.)
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Found while investigating PR54373. A combined tree (in-tree binutils)
> using binutils post-2.22 is semi-broken at the moment: the version of
> the assem
Hi,
While fixing some code not to have aliasing violations in it, I can
across that some builtins were not causing their arguments or their
return values being marked as non-null. This patch implements just
that in VPR while allowing to remove some null pointer checks later
on.
OK? Bootstrappe
Andrew Pinski schrieb:
Hi,
While fixing some code not to have aliasing violations in it, I can
across that some builtins were not causing their arguments or their
return values being marked as non-null. This patch implements just
that in VPR while allowing to remove some null pointer checks la
Mikael Morin wrote:
On 29/08/2012 21:53, Tobias Burnus wrote:
a) The main patch, which implements the wrapper.
I am asking for approval for that patch.
A few more nitpicks below.
I would like to include the patch (c) as modifying the vtable changes
the ABI. Bumping the .mod version is a re
Il 03/09/2012 03:52, Hans-Peter Nilsson ha scritto:
> Ping with CC to build maintainers.
> (Further pings, if any are needed, will be with URL only.)
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
>> Found while investigating PR54373. A combined tree (in-tree binutils)
>> using binutils po
35 matches
Mail list logo
