On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:21:06PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> I'm hoping that gcc 4.9 can support multiple "parallel universes" of gcc
> state within one process, to ultimately support gcc usage as a library,
> where multiple client threads can each have their own gcc context (or
> "universe").
"Jürgen Urban" writes:
> Hello Richard,
>
>> >> > How much other changes will be currently accepted here? There is other
>> >> > stuff which I want to prepare and submit here, e.g.:
>
>> >> > 3. fix use of ll/sc in libgomp, either increase mips ISA level or use
>> >> > syscall (which is broken in
> Bootstrapped/regtested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
For the record, and as you diagnosed, the change proposed in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00367.html
means that we must now be very careful with memory dependency checking in the
various RTL optimization passes. Another example is
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:30:40PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
>
> >I am writing a tool to fix common style issues.
> >
> >This is first part which deals with leading and trailing whitespaces.
> >I can follow this up with other refactorings, for example rew
Hi,
the subject is slightly misleading since it's actually about structures with
integral modes which are passed by reference on some platforms, e.g. SPARC or
PowerPC 32-bit. There are 3 issues:
1. At -O0, the parameters of this kind are not homed on the stack, which
means that backtraces ca
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 05:13:31PM +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
> 2013/6/14 Joseph S. Myers :
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> Btw, rather than these kind of patches I'd appreciate if someone would look
> >> at a simple pre(post?)-commit hook that enforces those whitespace rules
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:51:25PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> the subject is slightly misleading since it's actually about structures with
> integral modes which are passed by reference on some platforms, e.g. SPARC or
> PowerPC 32-bit. There are 3 issues:
>
> 1. At -O0, the parameters of t
Quoting Eric Botcazou :
The patch is OK on principle but I think that we should use the same
interface
for write_dependence_p as for true_dependence_1, i.e. add a mem_mode
parameter
instead of a mem_size and add both mem_addr and mem_canonicalized (and since
it doesn't seem that we need x_
Quoting Eric Botcazou :
Could you also check that your patch also fixes PR opt/57569 and, if so, add
the reference to the ChangeLog as well as the testcase?
Attached is what I'm currently testing. bootstrap on i686-pc-linux-gnu
finished, now regtesting.
On x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, bootstrap is sti
In order to conform to [thread.condition.condvarany]/5 and fix this
PR we need an ABI change to std::condition_variable_any, so that its
internal mutex can outlive the condition_variable_any while there are
threads blocked on the mutex, which this patch does by using a
shared_ptr to hold the mutex
Hello Richard,
> > The code is now completely moved into libgcc/config/mips/t-mips and
> > libgcc/config/mips/lib2funcs.c (new file).
> > The code should now be easier to understand.
> > I used the code from libgcc/config/m32c as example (e.g. same file name
> > lib2funcs.c). I copied the file hea
Hello Richard,
> >
> >> >> > How much other changes will be currently accepted here? There is other
> >> >> > stuff which I want to prepare and submit here, e.g.:
> >
> >> >> > 3. fix use of ll/sc in libgomp, either increase mips ISA level or use
> >> >> > syscall (which is broken in Linux 2.6.35.
PR libstdc++/57263
* include/bits/forward_list.h (_Fwd_list_base): Convert to/from
allocator's pointer type.
* include/bits/hashtable.h (_Hashtable): Likewise.
* testsuite/util/testsuite_allocator.h (CustomPointerAlloc): Add.
* testsuite/23_containers
Hi,
lately doesn't appear to accomplish much. Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
2013-06-17 Paolo Carlini
* cp-tree.h (finish_stmt): Do not declare.
* decl.c (finish_stmt): Do not define.
* parser.c (cp_parser_expression_statement,
c
* PING *
Minor change: Jakub suggested to print no exception status with older
gfortran programs. Hence, the library now defaults to 0. (Older programs
do not pass this argument to the library.) - I also updated
gfortran.texi for that change.
Tobias
On June 12, 2013 17:50, Tobias Burnus wr
This patch does not fix any bugs; it just removes code that everyone now
seems to agree was a bad idea.
These changes have already been approved, but I'm deferring checking in
the patch until we have some agreement on the other patch pieces that
actually do fix bugs.
-Sandra
2013-06-16 San
The following series of 5 patches is intended to be identical in terms
of code changes to the version I posted last week:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00750.html
I have just split it up into pieces to make it easier to review:
1 remove -fstrict-volatile-bitfields warnings and
This patch makes parallel changes to store_bit_field_1 and
extract_bit_field_1 to skip some register shortcuts if
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields applies. By itself, it doesn't fix any of
the new test cases added in part 5, but it's required in conjunction
with part 3 to make the new volatile-bitf
This part of the patch series fixes problems with bad code being emitted
for unaligned bitfield accesses, as reported in PRs 48784, 56341, and
56997. A secondary goal of this patch was making the bitfield store and
extract code follow similar logic, at least for the parts relating to
-fstrict-
This patch fixes the PR23623 regression. In conjunction with part 2 of
the series, it also fixes the new volatile-bitfields-3.c test case.
As I noted in previous discussion, there might be a better place to
accomplish this effect, but hacking DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE can't
work because t
Here are the test cases for the bugs fixed by this patch series. See my
original posting of this patch set
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00750.html
for discussion of which test cases were previously failing on what targets.
-Sandra
2013-06-16 Sandra Loosemore
PR middle-en
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> This patch fixes the PR23623 regression. In conjunction with part 2
> of the series, it also fixes the new volatile-bitfields-3.c test
> case.
>
> As I noted in previous discussion, there might be a better place to
> accomplish t
"Jürgen Urban" writes:
>> Does it still work with those changes, as below? If so, I'll check it in.
>
> I tested it. It is still working. So the patch is OK, please check it in.
OK, I've applied this and the config.gcc patch.
Thanks,
Richard
Hello,
Le 16/06/2013 19:33, Tobias Burnus a écrit :
> * PING *
>
> Minor change: Jakub suggested to print no exception status with older
> gfortran programs. Hence, the library now defaults to 0. (Older programs
> do not pass this argument to the library.) - I also updated
> gfortran.texi for tha
Fix a stupid bug in shared_lock.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
* include/std/shared_mutex (shared_lock::operator=): Add missing
return statement.
commit b177aa326855e5e27ab53427d5a02012ffb944a4
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Sun Jun 16 21:27:55 2013 +0100
* i
On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 12:09 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 8:21 PM, David Malcolm
> wrote:
[...snip discussion of approaches to GC and state...]
> > I'm attaching a patch which converts all state within ggc into a
> gc_heap
> > class, so that you can have multiple instances of gg
On 15 June 2013 16:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 11 June 2013 00:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 10 June 2013 23:08, Chris Jefferson wrote:
>>> After we are in the 'if(__ra_iters)' case, and checked that __d1==__d2,
>>> could dispatch to old-fashioned equal(__first1, __last1, __first2,
>>> __bin
Hi,
this is another bug essentially already fixed. However, in the audit
trail Giovanni Bajo noticed that for the local declarations case we also
emit those annoying:
16128.C:16:7: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘a’
and likewise for 'b'. By checking the return value of
cp_parser_expression at t
On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 11:18 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:21:06PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > I'm hoping that gcc 4.9 can support multiple "parallel universes" of gcc
> > state within one process, to ultimately support gcc usage as a library,
> > where multiple
Hello Everyone,
I found a minor bug in one of the array notation test case. I
accidentally put the minus for length instead of stride. I have committed this
patch as obvious.
2013-06-16 Balaji V. Iyer
* c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/if_test.c (main2): Fixed a bug of
accidentally
Can you please help to review this patch? Richard reviewed the original
patch and asked it to be split into two parts. Also, he wanted a review
from RTL maintainer for the RTL changes.
Thanks,
Kugan
On 03/06/13 11:43, Kugan wrote:
Hi,
This patch adds value range information to tree SSA_NAME
Can you please help to review this patch? Richard reviewed the original
patch and asked it to be split into two parts. Also, he wanted a review
from RTL maintainers for the RTL changes.
Thanks,
Kugan
On 03/06/13 11:46, Kugan wrote:
Hi,
This patch removes some of the redundant sign/zero exte
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Botcazou [mailto:ebotca...@adacore.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 5:37 PM
> To: Bin Cheng
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH GCC]Fix PR57540, try to choose scaled_offset address
mode
> when expanding array reference
>
> > As report
Hi,
I am working right now on PR/56892, which is about missing
inline-optimization for dllexported classes. That's caused by the
default for TARGET_FUNCTION_ATTRIBUTE_INLINABLE_P hook, which
disallows inlining for any machine-attribute. By taking a closer look
to i386's attributes, I don't see a
34 matches
Mail list logo
