On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 21:55 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Oleg Endo wrote:
> > Do you mean something like the attached patch as a preparation step?
> > (checked with 'make all')
>
> Yes. The patch is OK with removing the first line of the ChangeLog
> entry for PR number.
Done.
The attached patch i
On 09/21/2012 02:32 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
+ gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (type0) == VECTOR_TYPE
+ || TREE_CODE (type1) == VECTOR_TYPE);
+ switch (code)
+{
+ case RSHIFT_EXPR:
+ case LSHIFT_EXPR:
+ if (TREE_CODE (type0) == INTEGER_TYPE
+ && TREE_CODE (TREE_TYP
On 10/5/12, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2012 Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Sorry, that wasn't intended. I question these numbers because
> > unless you bootstrap say 100 times the noise in bootstrap
> > speed is way too high to make such claims. Of course critical
> > information is missing:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> Isn't _REVERSE vs. non-_RESERVE still kind-of "random" order?
>
> Not at this stage. For cfglayout mode I would answer yes, but IRA/LRA
> operates in cfgrtl mode, so the sequence
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 08:34 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>> + /* If the address of a multiversioned function dispatcher is taken,
>> + generate the body to dispatch the right function at run-time. This
>>
>> + is needed as the address can
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> If no one cares about these time reports, then I will gladly stop
> spending the effort to make them.
It's not that no-one cases, I think, but the mathematics don't have to
be so complicated. Just showing or saying there's no significant
co
> There certainly is a fair amount of code in dwarf2read.c in gdb to handle
> DW_AT_declaration and do things differently for declarations.
>
> Should I rework this patch to use that mechanism instead? If so, how? If
> the class is marked only by prune_unused_types_mark visiting it as a parent,
On 10/5/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 01:59:18PM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > With the constructor, you don't have to remember and you don't
> > have to type more. If you have a variable, you know that it is
> > properly initialized.
>
> But we really don't want hundreds
this patch adds two groups of things to hwint.h that are needed for
wide-int.[ch].
A new data type, the HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT (and all of it related
macros). This type is defined to be exactly 1/2 the width of a
HOST_WIDE_INT. This is used by the multiplication and division routines
in wide-i
>
>>
>> > +
>> > + default_edge->count = default_count;
>> > + if (count)
>> > +{
>> > + edge e;
>> > + edge_iterator ei;
>> > + FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, stmt_bb->succs)
>> > +e->probability = e->count * REG_BR_PROB_BASE / count;
>> > +}
>>
>> Hmm, this updates origina
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> For many people the time to compile (almost) empty file is very
>> important, we are already bad about that right now, initializing
>> too much stuff dynamically is going to make it worse.
>
> So far, we are looking at dynamic initializatio
> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 23:41:28 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Gerald Pfeifer
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Index: config.gcc
> > ===
> > --- config.gcc (revision 191120)
> > +++ config.gcc (working copy)
> > @@
This patch adds machinery to genmodes.c so that largest possible sizes
of various data structures can be determined at gcc build time. These
functions create 3 symbols that are available in insn-modes.h:
MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_INT - the bitsize of the largest int.
MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_PARTIAL_INT - the b
On 10/05/2012 05:57 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
In general, the dispatcher is always necessary since it is not known
what function version will be called at compile time. This is true
whether it is a direct or an indirect call.
So you want to compile with lowest common denominator flags and then
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 10/2/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> You are changing a hashtable used by fold checking, did you test
>> with fold checking enabled?
>
> One small thinko fixed. Patch passes tests.
>
>> The cfg.c, dse.c and hash-table.h parts are ok for
Harshit, why didn't you propose this patch for trunk? Why should we
make it a google-local patch?
Diego.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Harshit Chopra wrote:
> commit fc3a55ccec9bc770c79f8a221f5abd397befc8f6
> Author: Harshit Chopra
> Date: Thu Sep 20 17:49:59 2012 -0700
>
> Instead o
Harshit, why didn't you propose this patch for trunk? Why should we
make it a google-local patch?
Diego.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Harshit Chopra wrote:
> commit fc3a55ccec9bc770c79f8a221f5abd397befc8f6
> Author: Harshit Chopra
> Date: Thu Sep 20 17:49:59 2012 -0700
>
> Instead o
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/21/2012 02:32 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
+ gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (type0) == VECTOR_TYPE
+ || TREE_CODE (type1) == VECTOR_TYPE);
+ switch (code)
+{
+ case RSHIFT_EXPR:
+ case LSHIFT_EXPR:
+ if (TREE_CODE (type0) == INTE
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Harshit, why didn't you propose this patch for trunk? Why should we
> make it a google-local patch?
In the meantime, let's put it in the google branches. Please make
sure that you ping the upstream patch. It will need more testing than
jus
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Fortunately OpenBSD releases are completely predictable: two releases
> per year, and the version number gets increased by 0.1 every release.
> And it is highly unlikely that this policy will ever be changed. So
> since 5.2 will be released on November 1s
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> 2012-09-02 Mark Kettenis
>>
>> * config.host (*-*-openbsd*): Add t-eh-dw2-dip to tmake_file.
>> * unwind-dw2-fde-dip.c: Don't include on OpenBSD.
>> (USE_PT_GNU_EH_FRAME): Define for OpenBSD.
>> (ElfW): Likewise.
>
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/05/2012 05:57 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>> In general, the dispatcher is always necessary since it is not known
>> what function version will be called at compile time. This is true
>> whether it is a direct or an indirect call.
>
>
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Pavel Chupin wrote:
>> I can't configure libstdc++ separately. To reproduce:
>>
>> mkdir BUILD
>> cd BUILD
>> ../libstdc++-v3/configure
>>
>> Error:
>> make: *** No rule to make target
>> `/users/pvchupin/andr
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> +# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h"
This may cause problems on hosts not supporting %hd (MinGW?), and there's
no real need for using "h" here given the promotion of short to int; you
can just use "" (rather than e.g. needing special handling in xm-
> -Original Message-
> From: Georg-Johann Lay
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:30 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Denis Chertykov; Weddington, Eric
> Subject: [Patch,avr]: Fix PR54815
>
> avr-gcc compiles code like
>
> void f (int, int);
>
> void f_or (int x)
> {
> f (x, x
On Oct 5, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> There certainly is a fair amount of code in dwarf2read.c in gdb to handle
>> DW_AT_declaration and do things differently for declarations.
>>
>> Should I rework this patch to use that mechanism instead? If so, how? If
>> the class is marked
I'm seeing tr2/headers/all.cc fail in the libstdc++ testsuite:
In file included from
src/gcc-mainline/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/tr2/headers/all.cc:22:0:
/scratch/jseymour/mainline/i686-pc-linux-gnu/install/opt/codesourcery/include/c++/4.8.0/tr2/dynamic_bitset:42:27:
fatal error: cxxabi_forced.h: No s
The 32-bit DImode patterns for and and friends are not split on parisc.
Based on inspection of the assembly code generated for gcc.dg/lower-subreg-1.c,
it better if we let lower subreg split the DImode objects on parisc and
remove the current DImode patterns.
Tested on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu and c
On 10/06/2012 02:33 AM, Joe Seymour wrote:
I'm seeing tr2/headers/all.cc fail in the libstdc++ testsuite:
In file included from
src/gcc-mainline/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/tr2/headers/all.cc:22:0:
/scratch/jseymour/mainline/i686-pc-linux-gnu/install/opt/codesourcery/include/c++/4.8.0/tr2/dynamic_bit
Hi,
This patch fixes PR54826. When lowering the gimple, the block for call
arg also need to be reset.
Bootstrapped and passed gcc regression test on x86.
Okay for trunk?
Thanks,
Dehao
2012-10-05 Dehao Chen
* gimple-low.c (lower_stmt): Set the block for call args.
Index: gcc/gimple-
On 12-10-05 5:53 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
Isn't _REVERSE vs. non-_RESERVE still kind-of "random" order?
Not at this stage. For cfglayout mode I would answer yes, but IRA/LRA
opera
The following patch fixes a bug found on x86-64 in a big program with
some options combination.
The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86/x86-64. The patch
changes the code for about 30% of SPEC2000 tests. But these changes are
quite small (in code size and performance point of view)
Oleg Endo wrote:
> The attached patch is the next step that adds the thread pointer
> builtins. The GBR address mode stuff will follow afterwards separately.
> Tested on rev 192142 with 'make all' and
> 'make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="sh.exp --target_board=sh-sim
> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Andrew Pinski writes:
>> Right now we only produce ins when a zero_extract is used on the
>> right hand side. We can do better by adding some patterns which
>> combine for the ins instruction. This patch adds those patterns and a
>>
On 10/05/2012 07:09 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
[LR]SHIFT_EXPR are special and also accept to have a vector as first
argument and a scalar as second argument (but not the reverse).
Fair enough.
These 2 lines are in a switch in the case where scalar_to_vector
returned stv_firstarg, meaning that the
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Andrew Pinski
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Andrew Pinski writes:
>>> Right now we only produce ins when a zero_extract is used on the
>>> right hand side. We can do better by adding some patterns which
>>> combine for
101 - 136 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
