Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted
by the Serbian team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/sr.po
(This file, 'cpplib-4.8.0.sr.po',
cpplib-4.8.0.sr.po.gz
Description: Binary data
The Translation Project robot, in the
name of your translation coordinator.
> > Unfortunately there is 40% regression on mgrid with -flto (and also
> > noticeable
> > regression without LTO). First thing I noticed is that we stop omitting
> > frame
> > pointer in the hottest function. This is because we see:
>
> Does it happen with both 32-bit and 64-bit?
No, 32bit on
Hi, This patch was actually written by Ian, I'm submitting it on his
behalf.
/Marcus
In draft revisions of the A64 ISA it was not possible to use SP on the
right hand side of a register + register add. This meant that we needed
two scratch registers when a large constant was being added to
Hi,
in this error recovery issue in template context,
do_range_for_auto_deduction calls cp_parser_perform_range_for_lookup,
which can't resolve begin/end and eventually crashes because TREE_TYPE
(*begin) and TREE_TYPE (*end) are NULL_TREE.
It doesn't seem correct to simply early return error
> Here is the new patch. Honaz: Could you take a look?
OK, thanks!
Honza
> attached the new patch. OK for check in?
OK,
thanks!
Honza
This fixes PR58460, the add and sub shifted register instruction forms
in AArch64 do not permit the stack register. This patch removes k
constraint from the relevant patterns and adds reduced form of the test
case.
Regression test aarch64-none-elf. Committed.
/Marcus
2013-10-03 Marcus Sh
On 02/10/13 15:17, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The current ARM RTX costs code was written when most ARM implementations
> had similar costs for the majority of operations, with just a small
> number of exceptions. It was therefore possible to have some common
> code that determined most o
On 03/10/13 11:54, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
This fixes PR58460, the add and sub shifted register instruction forms
in AArch64 do not permit the stack register. This patch removes k
constraint from the relevant patterns and adds reduced form of the test
case.
Regression test aarch64-none-elf. Co
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57018
>
> and because LRA still misses some reload functionality for
> elimination. I am a bit embarrassed: I have this thing to do for 4
> months and I still did not start to work on it yet. There are too
> much things on my plate.
>
> As we are go
On 10/03/2013 05:52 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ else if (!TREE_TYPE (*begin) || !TREE_TYPE (*end))
This should use type_dependent_expression_p.
And there should be a positive test for a dependent range that exercises
this code.
Jason
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> 2013-09-29 Teresa Johnson
>>
>> * bb-reorder.c
>> (find_rarely_executed_basic_blocks_and_crossing_edges):
>> Treat profile insanities conservatively.
>> * predict.c (probably_never_executed): New function. Treat prof
On 10/02/2013 09:02 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
- save_template_attributes (&attributes, decl);
+ if (attributes != error_mark_node)
+ save_template_attributes (&attributes, decl);
I'd rather make save_template_attributes handle error_mark_node
appropriately.
+ if (attributes
Richard and others,
This patch changes the way that unsigned trees are canonicalized. As
with the last patch, I think that this patch is not that much of a step
forward. While it is still true that the signed tree-csts match the
representation of wide-ints, unsigned tree-csts do not and requ
Committed.
Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 15:52, Tim Shen wrote:
>> I feel little bit uncomfortable with "new ISO C++ standard, C++11",
>> since C++14 is already there, so I removed it.
>
> Good idea.
>
>> Please check the words, since English
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> + /* Got to be careful of precision 0 values. */
> + if (precision)
> +len = MIN (len, max_len);
> + if (TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (x)) == UNSIGNED)
> {
> - if (precision < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
> - && TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (x)) == UNSIGNED)
> + un
On 10/02/2013 06:19 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
+ chainon (prefix_attributes, attributes));
This should be reversed, so it's
chainon (attributes, prefix_attributes);
Otherwise the attributes for this decl would be applied to later decls
with the same declspecs.
OK with
OK.
Jason
OK.
Jason
On 10/03/2013 10:29 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
+ /* Got to be careful of precision 0 values. */
+ if (precision)
+len = MIN (len, max_len);
+ if (TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (x)) == UNSIGNED)
{
- if (precision < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
- && TYPE_SIGN
On 10/02/2013 10:11 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
this patch consolidates tree-ssa-loop*.c files with new .h files as
required (8 in total)
A number of the prototypes were in tree-flow.h, but there were also a
few in cfgloop.h. tree-ssa-loop.h was created to contain a couple of
common structs an
Hi All,
We have discovered a bug on gcno file generation registred as PR58602.
When the .gcno graph file is opened for generating the coverage graph
information, the mode used is w+ as this code is shared with updating
tools such as libgcov.
Thus, when GCC outputs .gcno files, it may leave gar
General loop multi-versioning (pass) can be a very powerful enabler,
especially when combined with FDO. The loop MV can be done based on
many different conditions:
1) loop trip count (e.g, when we do value profiling on trip count, not
based on average count);
2) memory aliasing
3) target options --
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Cong Hou wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> I think you need to augment (using a wrapper class) the DDR to capture
>> more information about aliased memory pairs. It should be flexible
>> enough to handle the following cases (you d
On 10/01/2013 01:55 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
>> Probably the best place to add a code for this is in
>> lra-constraints.c::simplify_operand_subreg by permitting subreg reload
>> for paradoxical subregs whose hard regs are not fully in allocno class
>> of the inner pseudo.
>>
>> It needs a good testing (i'
On 26 Sep 21:21, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> On 25 Sep 15:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> > > On 24 Sep 11:02, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Ilya Tocar
> > >> wrote:
> > >> thus consider assigning the section
> > >> name
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>> Changing the representation of unsigned constants is only worthwhile
>> if we can avoid the force_to_size for some unsigned cases. I think we can
>> avoid it for precision >= xprecision && !small_prec. Either we should take
>> the hit of doing that comparison (but see b
I was thinking that we should always be able to use the constant as-is
for max_wide_int-based and addr_wide_int-based operations. The small_prec
again, you can get edge cased to death here.i think it would work
for max because that really is bigger than anything else, but it is
possible (t
> You removed conditition with LRA_SUBREG for non-paradoxical subreg
> generated for matched operands. I think that is important condition and
> the comment says why. There are some 32-bit insns constraints requiring
> different modes (int and fp ones) for matching operands in FP regs. The
> con
Tested under -m32, -m64, however didn't do a bootstrap. Is that OK?
Thanks!
--
Tim Shen
a.patch
Description: Binary data
I noticed that there is a "struct dataref_aux" defined in
tree-vectorizer.h which is specific to the vectorizer pass and is
stored in (void*)aux in "struct data_reference". Can we add one more
field "segment_length" to dataref_aux so that we can pass this
information for merging alias checks? Then
Looks reasonable to me.
David
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Cong Hou wrote:
> I noticed that there is a "struct dataref_aux" defined in
> tree-vectorizer.h which is specific to the vectorizer pass and is
> stored in (void*)aux in "struct data_reference". Can we add one more
> field "segment_l
On Oct 2, 2013, at 6:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> This is very much a proof-of-concept/work-in-progress at this stage, but
> attached is a patch to GCC which aims to provide an embeddable
> JIT-compilation API
> Thoughts?
Neat.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
>>> It doesn't look right. IP relative address is only possible
>>> with TARGET_64BIT and
>>>
>>> 1. base == pc. Or
>>> 2. UUNSPEC_PCREL, UNSPEC_GOTPCREL, and
>>> NSPEC_GOTNTPOFF.
>>
>> Target 64bit should be tested above. We however output RIP add
Hi,
On 10/03/2013 04:02 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/02/2013 09:02 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
- save_template_attributes (&attributes, decl);
+ if (attributes != error_mark_node)
+save_template_attributes (&attributes, decl);
I'd rather make save_template_attributes handle error
Hello,
I noticed when writing the patch that assumes operator new doesn't return
0 that without including we weren't setting operator_new_flag on the
implicit declaration of operator new.
Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
2013-10-04 Marc Glisse
PR c++/19476
gcc/cp
OK.
Jason
OK.
Jason
To make sure that reloading is done with up-to-date register eliminations,
I call update_eliminables also in the code path that continues for a frame
size change. Not directly, since I need the code to spill the no longer
eliminated registers; I've factored out this code into a new function
updat
On 10/03/2013 07:33 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
Tested under -m32, -m64, however didn't do a bootstrap. Is that OK?
Seems trivial enough, Ok.
Thanks,
Paolo
PS: I suppose isn't easy to prepare a testcase which would exercise
those lines?
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Seems trivial enough, Ok.
Committed.
> PS: I suppose isn't easy to prepare a testcase which would exercise those
> lines?
Telling the truth, this bug *is* revealed by rerunning testcases with
the non-default DFS matcher. Since the other mat
The following patch permits today trunk to use LRA for ppc by default.
To switch it off -mno-lra can be used.
The patch was bootstrapped on ppc64. GCC testsuite does not have
regressions too (in comparison with reload). The change in rs6000.md is
for fix LRA failure on a recently added ppc test
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Cong Hou wrote:
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +
> #include "config.h"
Whatever the other issues about including these headers at all, any system
header (C or C++) must always be included *after* config.h, as config.h
may define feature test macros that are only p
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> From my understanding, the condition for adding the current Copyright year
> without a source code change is to have a release in that year. Are we
> sure 4.9.0 will be released this year?
"release" here includes availability of a development version i
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 21:32 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
> FWIW I
> also have the beginnings of Python bindings for the library (doing the
> interface as pure C makes language-bindings easier), though that would
> probably live in a separate repository (so not part of this patch).
I've clea
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Cong Hou wrote:
>
>> +#include
>> +#include
>> +#include
>> +
>> #include "config.h"
>
> Whatever the other issues about including these headers at all, any system
> header (C or C++) must always be included *after* c
On 10/3/2013 5:10 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Joern Rennecke wrote:
From my understanding, the condition for adding the current Copyright year
without a source code change is to have a release in that year. Are we
sure 4.9.0 will be released this year?
"release" here incl
Forget about this "aux" idea as the segment length for one data ref
can be different in different dr pairs.
In my patch I created a struct as shown below:
struct dr_addr_with_seg_len
{
data_reference *dr;
tree basic_addr;
tree offset;
tree seg_len;
};
Note that basic_addr and offset can
Hi,
On 10/03/2013 10:55 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Seems trivial enough, Ok.
Committed.
PS: I suppose isn't easy to prepare a testcase which would exercise those
lines?
Telling the truth, this bug *is* revealed by rerunning testcases with
the n
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
> The idea is that GCC is configured with a special --enable-host-shared
> option, which leads to it being built as position-independent code. You
> would configure it with host==target, given that the generated machine
> code will be executed within the sa
Forgot...
But in
>principle yes, since we deliver two, and the users have a way to choose
>
>which one they want (X) we should add to the testsuite 2 copies of each
>
>test which doesn't use br and test both executors.
In practice, of course, we could also avoid the 2 physical copies. For examp
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Before figuring out a fully general solution, I would anyway add a testcase
> which manually switches the executor and tests for the problem. More elegant
> would be a testcase which due to its nature automatically leads to an
> executor switc
Hi,
Tim Shen ha scritto:
>Yes I think we should keep secret, because the standard doesn't
>specify it. They only way to publish the switch to user is making a
>library extension(is that true?), but there's no obvious benefit to do
>that(is that true? I shall be humble).
Well, the standard does
Hi,
As libatomic builds for and the tests pass on AArch64 (built on x86_64
but tested on a foundation model, logs and summary:
http://people.linaro.org/~mwhudson/libatomic.sum.txt
http://people.linaro.org/~mwhudson/runtest-log-v-2.txt
) this patch enables the build.
Cheers,
mwh
(first t
During loop versioning in vectorization, the alias check guarantees
that any load of a data reference with zero-step is a loop invariant,
which can be hoisted outside of the loop. After hoisting the load
statement, there may exist more loop invariant statements. This patch
tries to find all those s
Ping...
thanks,
Cong
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Cong Hou wrote:
> Any comment or more suggestions on this patch?
>
>
> thanks,
> Cong
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Cong Hou wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Cong
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> 2013-09-29 Teresa Johnson
>>>
>>> * bb-reorder.c
>>> (find_rarely_executed_basic_blocks_and_crossing_edges):
>>> Treat profile insanities conservatively.
>>>
On 10/03/2013 03:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/03/2013 05:52 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ else if (!TREE_TYPE (*begin) || !TREE_TYPE (*end))
This should use type_dependent_expression_p.
And there should be a positive test for a dependent range that
exercises this code.
I see what yo
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Cong Hou wrote:
> 4: (float) sqrtl ((long double) double_val) -> (float) sqrt (double_val)
I don't believe this case is in fact safe even if precision (long double)
>= precision (double) * 2 + 2 (when your patch would allow it).
The result that precision (double) * 2 + 2 i
On 10/03/2013 07:42 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
My point is that do_range_for_auto_deduction is called only by
cp_parser_range_for and *only* when type_dependent_expression_p is
*false* for the range_expr.
Aha.
Now, is it possible that in a range-based
for-statement with such a range_expr, begin
On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 21:42 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > The idea is that GCC is configured with a special --enable-host-shared
> > option, which leads to it being built as position-independent code. You
> > would configure it with host==target, gi
Hi,
On 10/04/2013 03:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Well, the permerror is saying that with -fpermissive we'll do the
lookup again at instantiation time, so a testcase that declares
begin/end between the template and the instantiation ought to work?
Ah, now I see! The best approximation we have of
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 21:32 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
> Shall I get this into a "jit" branch? I greatly prefer git to svn, so
> I'd probably do:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitMirror#Git-only_branches
> assuming that this allows a sane path to (I hope) eventual merger.
I've gone ahead and
This patch handles the fact that small profile count values sometimes
get truncated down to 0 during updates due to integer arithmetic. This
causes sub-optimal function splitting under
-freorder-blocks-and-partition.
The first part fixes the logic in probably_never_executed that looks
at the bb fr
65 matches
Mail list logo
