Re: [PATCH] preprocessor/58580 - preprocessor goes OOM with warning for zero literals

Bernd Edlinger writes: >>> Using -- on a value that goes out of scope looks >>> awkward IMHO. >> >> I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean by "Using -- on a >> value that goes out of scope"? >> > > I meant the operator --  in  *line_len = --len; Sorry, I don't see how that is an issu

Re: [PATCH] preprocessor/58580 - preprocessor goes OOM with warning for zero literals

Sorry, I missed one question in the previous email. Bernd Edlinger writes: > and what is it if there is no terminal '\n' ? In that case it's that the entire file is made of one line. For that case get_next_line has allocated enough space for one byte-passed-the-end of the file, so that there i

Re: [PATCH] preprocessor/58580 - preprocessor goes OOM with warning for zero literals

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 04:33:41PM +0100, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > + > + memmove (*line, l, len); > + (*line)[len - 1] = '\0'; > + *line_len = --len; Shouldn't this be testing that len > 0 && (*line)[len - 1] == '\n' first before you decide to overwrite it and decrement len? Though i

Re: [gomp4 simd, RFC] Simple fix to override vectorization cost estimation.

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Sergey Ostanevich wrote: > The reason patch was in its original state is because we want > to notify user that his assumption of profitability may be wrong. > This is not a part of any spec and as far as I know ICC does not > notify user about the case. Still it can be a good

Re: [PATCH] [Vectorization] Fixing a bug in alias checks merger.

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Cong Hou wrote: > The current alias check merger does not consider the DR_STEP of > data-refs when sorting data-refs. For the following loop: > > for (i = 0; i < N; ++i) > a[i] = b[0] + b[i] + b[1]; > > The data ref b[0] and b[i] have the same DR_INIT and DR_OFFSET, and >

[PATCH][ARM] Create header file to put aarch32+aarch64 cores rtx cost tables in

Hi all, Eventually we want to share rtx cost tables between arm and aarch64 (for example, for ARMv8-A cores). This patch adds an aarch-cost-tables.h file where we can put them. We move the generic cost table in there as an example. The aarch64 backend will have to modified in a separate patc

Re: [PATCH 2/3] libstdc++-v3: ::tmpnam depends on uClibc SUSV4_LEGACY

On 11 November 2013 12:30, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 8 November 2013 10:29, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>> On 04/11/2013 02:04 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: I would have expected that somebody would tell me that omitting ::tmpnam violates 27.9.2 from the spec but noone

Re: [patch] Fix PR ada/35998

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> Due to the different interfaces of int_size_in_bytes and >> simple_type_size_in_bits (and 'size' in add_byte_size_attribute being >> unsigned and not [unsigned] HWI) it would be cleaner to >> add an early return after the call to int_size_in

Re: Committed: Adjust testsuite for ARC LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT definition.

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Bah - so many ;) Seems to ask for a dg-effective-target-logical-op-non-short-circuit ;) > 2013-11-11 Joern Rennecke > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-28.c: Adjust for ARC > LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT definition. >

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Create header file to put aarch32+aarch64 cores rtx cost tables in

On 13/11/13 09:06, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > Eventually we want to share rtx cost tables between arm and aarch64 (for > example, for ARMv8-A cores). This patch adds an aarch-cost-tables.h file > where > we can put them. > > We move the generic cost table in there as an example. The a

Re: [patch 3/4] Separate gimple.[ch] and gimplify.[ch] - front end files

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > This one covers the front end files which included gimple.h > > Bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new regressions. OK? * c-family/c-omp.c: Include gimple-expr.h instead of gimple.h. can you explain why gimple-expr.h i

Re: Missing line (?) in better_state in ipa-pure-const.c

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > this patch passed bootstrap+testsuite. I don't have a testcase, the code > just looked strange. Indeed ... ok if it bootstraps / tests ok. Thanks, Richard. > 2013-11-05 Marc Glisse > > PR tree-optimization/59077 >

Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed

On 13/11/13 06:18, Joey Ye wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Richard Earnshaw >> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 18:49 >> To: Joey Ye >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >> Subject: Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed >> >> The name of the option and the documentation highli

[PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

Hi! void f1 (void) {} __attribute__((target ("avx"))) void f2 (void) {} __attribute__((target ("avx2"))) void f3 (void) {} __attribute__((target ("sse3"))) void f4 (void) {} __attribute__((target ("ssse3"))) void f5 (void) {} __attribute__((target ("sse4"))) void f6 (void) {} takes about 3 seconds

Re: [patch] Fix debug info for modified parameter

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> Hmm, at -O0 we should be able to coalesce all SSA names of a >> DECL. So in theory the following should work: > > Yes, the attached patch introduces no regressions in the testsuite. How > robust is that though? Do we need some checking f

Re: Some wide-int review comments

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > On 11/12/2013 11:27 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> >> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: >> >>> Richi, >>> >>> i am having a little trouble putting this back the way that you want. >>> The >>> issue is rem. >>> what is supposed to hap

Re: [PATCH, libiberty]: Add a couple of missing casts

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >> This was uncovered by x86 lto-profiledbootstrap. The patch allows >> lto-profiledbootstrap to proceed further. >> >> 2013-11-12 Uros Bizjak >> >> * cp-demangle.c (d_copy_te

[buildrobot] [PATCH] c6x.c: `mark_addressable' not declared

Hi Andrew! Some fallout for tic6x-uclinux: g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -fno-co

Re: not too big an alignment

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:42:00PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:11:04PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: >> >> Alignments are stored in a byte, large alignments don't

RE: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Earnshaw > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 17:49 > To: Joey Ye > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed > > On 13/11/13 06:18, Joey Ye wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Richard Earns

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > void f1 (void) {} > __attribute__((target ("avx"))) void f2 (void) {} > __attribute__((target ("avx2"))) void f3 (void) {} > __attribute__((target ("sse3"))) void f4 (void) {} > __attribute__((target ("ssse3"))) void f5 (void) {} > __attribute__

Re: Add __auto_type C extension, use it in

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > contains what C11 describes as "generic functions". > Although DR#419 makes clear that users cannot #undef these macros (or > otherwise suppress use of a macro definition) and expect to find an > underlying function, they still need to beh

Re: [PATCH] Isolate erroneous paths optimization -- preserve *0.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/12/13 15:33, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: >> >> Bootstrapping with ada id broken by revision 204708 >> (at least on x86_64-apple-darwin13): >> >> ... >> # gnattools1 >> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr/bin/make -C >> ../gcc/ada/t

Re: [PATCH] Isolate erroneous paths optimization -- preserve *0.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/12/13 15:33, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: >> >> Bootstrapping with ada id broken by revision 204708 >> (at least on x86_64-apple-darwin13): >> >> ... >> # gnattools1 >> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr/bin/make -C >> ../gcc/ada/t

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:27:10AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > Also, I wonder if we couldn't defer the expensive ira_init, if the info > > > computed by it is used only during RTL optimization passes (haven't > > > verified > > > it yet), then su

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:27:10AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > Also, I wonder if we couldn't defer the expensive ira_init, if the info > > computed by it is used only during RTL optimization passes (haven't verified > > it yet), then supposedly we could just remember using some target hook > >

Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the >> PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy. > > I think there should be a global -

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:53:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > So, perhaps we should just define SWITCHABLE_TARGET on i?86/x86_64/powerpc* > > (and rx if maintainer cares) and tweak it to attach somehow > > struct target_globals * to TARGET_OPTION_NODE somehow. > > A problem might be that lots

Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed

On 13/11/13 10:20, Joey Ye wrote: >>> +@item -mpic-data-is-text-relative >>> > > +@opindex mpic-data-is-text-relative >>> > > +Assume that each data segments are relative to text segment at load > time. >> > >>> > > +Therefore, prevent PC relative and GOTOFF style relocations to >>> > > +reference

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:53:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > So, perhaps we should just define SWITCHABLE_TARGET on > > > i?86/x86_64/powerpc* > > > (and rx if maintainer cares) and tweak it to attach somehow > > > struct target_globals * to TA

Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] c6x.c: `mark_addressable' not declared

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > Hi Andrew! > > Some fallout for tic6x-uclinux: > > g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions > -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual > -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedan

Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed

On 13/11/13 10:20, Joey Ye wrote: >>> + if (TARGET_VXWORKS_RTP) >>> > > +arm_pic_data_is_text_relative = 0; >> > >> > Why is this needed? Surely, even a VxWorks user should have the right to >> > force the compiler to behave differently. You've set things up through > the >> > default, now

[PATCH][AArch64] Use common rtx cost table structures with arm

Hi all, This patch adjusts aarch64 to use the the same rtx cost table struct as arm and adds an include for the aarch-cost-table.h file which will include shared cost tables. The rtx costs function is adjusted to use the correct struct and fields. Tested aarch64-none-elf on a model. Ok for

Re: [PATCH]Fix computation of offset in ivopt

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> "bin.cheng" writes: >>> Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c >>> === >>> --- gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c

Re: [PATCH]Fix computation of offset in ivopt

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> "bin.cheng" writes: Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c ===

Re: [PATCH] Factor out gimple_dont_merge_p

On 11-11-13 10:37, Richard Biener wrote: On Sat, 9 Nov 2013, Tom de Vries wrote: Richard, This patch factors out gimple_dont_merge_p from gimple_equal_p and find_duplicate. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64. OK for trunk? +static bool +gimple_dont_merge_p (gimple stmt) +{ + switch (gim

Re: [PATCH] Factor out gimple_dont_merge_p

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 11-11-13 10:37, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Sat, 9 Nov 2013, Tom de Vries wrote: >> >>> Richard, >>> >>> This patch factors out gimple_dont_merge_p from gimple_equal_p and >>> find_duplicate. >>> >>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64

Re: [patch] Fix debug info for modified parameter

> Changing the coalesce cost to MUST_COALESCE_COST for > PARM_DECLs and RESULT_DECLs should add the required > checking (we'll ICE if we cannot honor that coalescing request). > Note that the code also has a !DECL_IGNORED_P check, so > eventually the expansion code change should restrict itself to

Re: [patch] Fix debug info for modified parameter

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> Changing the coalesce cost to MUST_COALESCE_COST for >> PARM_DECLs and RESULT_DECLs should add the required >> checking (we'll ICE if we cannot honor that coalescing request). >> Note that the code also has a !DECL_IGNORED_P check, so >> ev

[C++ Patch] Fixes for two recent minor regressions (PR c++/59080, c++/59096)

Hi, in the first one we pass a NULL_TREE to unify_array_domain: I think the right fix is simply not calling the function, as we do elsewhere. In the second, we forget to check that TREE_VALUE isn't NULL_TREE and we crash in the body of the conditional. Tested x86_64-linux. Thanks, Paolo. /

Re: [PATCH]Fix computation of offset in ivopt

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Richard Sandiford >>> wrote: Hi, "bin.cheng" writes: > Index: gcc/tree-

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead code in input_gimple_stmt

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following patch removes now dead code from input_gimple_stmt > (which also could be quite slow). Type mismatches can only > occur at the decl level after the new tree merging code went > in and those are handed by wrapping all decls in MEM_REFs

Re: [PATCH] Implement -fsanitize=null + new sanopt pass

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 06:45:06AM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2013.11.13 at 00:13 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > 2) bootstrap-ubsan almost passes, but the bootstrap fails when building > >all-fixincludes. The problem here is that libiberty.a is built > >with -fsanitize=undefin

Re: [RFC] Masked load/store vectorization (take 5)

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 03:29:30PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > As disabling tree if-conversion for not vectorized loops seems to be clearly > controversial and not always a win, I'd like to at least do the versioning > for masked loads/stores, where I think it is much nicer alternative to the > o

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

Hi, On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:49:09AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > void f1 (void) {} > __attribute__((target ("avx"))) void f2 (void) {} > __attribute__((target ("avx2"))) void f3 (void) {} > __attribute__((target ("sse3"))) void f4 (void) {} > __attribute__((target ("ssse3"))) void f5

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:49:09AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > void f1 (void) {} > > __attribute__((target ("avx"))) void f2 (void) {} > > __attribute__((target ("avx2"))) void f3 (void) {} > > __attribute__((target ("sse3"))) v

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:53:00PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Martin Jambor wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:49:09AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > void f1 (void) {} > > > __attribute__((target ("avx"))) void f2 (void) {} > > > __att

Re: [PATCH i386 4/8] [AVX512] [2/n] Add substed patterns: mask scalar subst.

Hello, > Is it ok to commit to main trunk? I've moved to this patch few hunks from [4/8] [1/n], which related to scalar insns. Updated patch in the bottom. Testing pass. Could you pls comment on it? I cannot imagine anything except double nested vec_merges. We may introduce (non-substed) dedica

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 13:53 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Martin Jambor wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:49:09AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > void f1 (void) {} > > > __attribute__((target ("avx"))) void f2 (void) {} > > > __attribute_

[PATCH] Merge cgraph_get_create_node and cgraph_get_create_real_symbol_node

Hi, as discussed with Honza on many occasions, all users of cgraph_get_create_node really want cgraph_get_create_real_symbol_node, i.e. they are not interested in inline nodes and should get a standalone node instead. So this patch changes cgraph_get_create_node to do what cgraph_get_create_real_

Re: Add __auto_type C extension, use it in

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Joseph S. Myers > wrote: > > contains what C11 describes as "generic functions". > > Although DR#419 makes clear that users cannot #undef these macros (or > > otherwise suppress use of a macro definition) and expect to

Re: [PATCH] Merge cgraph_get_create_node and cgraph_get_create_real_symbol_node

> Hi, > > as discussed with Honza on many occasions, all users of > cgraph_get_create_node really want cgraph_get_create_real_symbol_node, > i.e. they are not interested in inline nodes and should get a > standalone node instead. So this patch changes cgraph_get_create_node > to do what cgraph_ge

Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, David Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 13:53 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Martin Jambor wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:49:09AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > void f1 (void) {} > > > > __att

[build] Enable libcilkrts multilib build on Solaris

Balaji, currently configuring the non-default libcilkrts multilib fails on Solaris/x86 like this: configure:3139: checking whether the C++ compiler works configure:3148: ./a.out ld.so.1: a.out: fatal: /var/gcc/regression/trunk/10-gcc/build/./gcc/libgcc_s.so.1: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS32 /vol/g

Re: Some wide-int review comments

Kenneth Zadeck writes: >> From fold-const.c: >> >> @@ -13686,14 +13548,17 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, >>break; >> } >> >> -else if (TREE_INT_CST_HIGH (arg1) == signed_max_hi >> - && TREE_INT_CST_LOW (arg1) == signed_max_lo >> +

Re: [patch 3/4] Separate gimple.[ch] and gimplify.[ch] - front end files

On 11/13/2013 04:40 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: This one covers the front end files which included gimple.h Bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new regressions. OK? * c-family/c-omp.c: Include gimple-expr.h instead of g

Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] c6x.c: `mark_addressable' not declared

On 11/13/2013 06:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: Hi Andrew! Some fallout for tic6x-uclinux: g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qu

Re: [PATCH] Add check for aarch64 in vect_cmdline_needed

On 7 November 2013 15:20, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > On 11/6/13, 5:06 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > >> You should be testing aarch64*-*-* so as to match aarch64_be targets. > > Thank you for catching that. Please commit this new patch if is OK. I > don't have SVN access. Applied as 204745 thanks.

[v3] Missing uglification

Bootstrap and testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. The main other issue in that PR will require a UDL specialist. 2013-11-13 Marc Glisse PR libstdc++/59087 * include/ext/pod_char_traits.h: Uglify V, I and S. -- Marc GlisseIndex: include/ext/pod_char_traits.h ===

Re: [PATCH] decide edge's hotness when there is profile info

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> More info on the lto bootstrap failure: >> >> >> >> /usr/local/google/home/tejohnson/gcc_trunk_9/libiberty/pex-unix.c:790:1: >> >> warning: Missing counts for called function pex_child

[PATCH] Fix PR ipa/58862 (overflow in edge_badness computation)

The following fixes PR ipa/58862, which caused failures in lto profiledbootstrap and in several spec cpu2006 profile-use builds. Bootstrapped and tested on x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu. Also ensured that it fixed the lto profiledbootstrap and cpu2006 failures. Ok for trunk? Thanks, Teresa 2013-11-13

[patch 2/3] Create gimple-iterator.h and gimple-walk.[ch] - #include changes

This has the core compiler files #include changes * asan.c: Update Include list as required for gimple-iterator.h and gimple-walk.h. * cfgexpand.c: Likewise. * cfgloop.c: Likewise. * cfgloopmanip.c: Likewise. * cgraph.c: Likewise. * cgraphbuild.c: Likewise. * cgraphunit.c: Likewise. *

[patch 3/3] Create gimple-iterator.h and gimple-walk.[ch] - config and testsuite

And finally the changes to the config and testsuite files. * config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c: Include gimple-iterator.h. * config/rs6000/rs6000.c: Include gimple-iterator.h and gimple-walk.h. * testsuite/g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c: Include gimple-iterator.h. * testsuite/gcc.dg/plugin/selfas

[PATCH] Fix infinite recursion between store_fixed_bit_field/store_split_bit_field with STRICT_ALIGNMENT

Hi, This patch addresses an issue where the compiler gets stuck in an infinite mutually-recursive loop between store_fixed_bit_field and store_split_bit_field. This affects versions back at least as far as 4.6 (or so). We observed this happening on PowerPC E500, but other targets may be affected t

Re: Recent Go patch broke Alpha bootstrap

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference >>> [signal 0xb code=0x1 addr=0x1c] > >>> FAIL: runtime/pprof >>> gmake[2]: *** [runtime/pprof/check] Error 1 >>> >>> This one is new, I have to look into it a bit deepe

[testsuite] Fix gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-[45].c tests on Solaris 10+

Two of the new gcc.dg/atomic tests were failing to compile on Solaris 10+: FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-4.c -O0 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /var/gcc/regression/trunk/10-gcc/build/gcc/include-fixed/sys/feature_tests.h:346:2: error: #error "Compiler or options invalid for pre-U

[PATCH, testsuite] Add lp64 to target requirements of new IRA shrink wrapping preparation testcases

Hi, the testcases I have added for IRA shrink wrapping preparation code were not intended for -m32 on x86_64 and should not be tested with it, thus I'm adding lp64 to the target requirements. Let me also briefly mention that I would like to make the testcases also run on ppc64 and therefore I did

Re: [PATCH, libiberty]: Add a couple of missing casts

Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > > This was uncovered by x86 lto-profiledbootstrap. The patch allows > > > lto-profiledbootstrap to proceed further. > > > > > > 2013-11-12 Uros Bizj

[AArch64] [0/5 -mtune cleanup] Update options for -mtune.

Hi, This patch series performs a number of cleanups to the -mtune/-mcpu/-march infrastructure for AArch64. Our goals are: * Remove the example pipeline models. * Tune for Cortex-A53 by default. * Provide sensible tuning for Cortex-A57. The patches which implement these goals are: [AArch

[AArch64] [-mtune cleanup 1/5] Remove -march=generic.

Hi, This option was never documented anywhere, is meaningless and generates unhelpful code. Better we remove it. Tested on aarch64-none-elf in series with no regressions. OK? Thanks, James --- gcc/ 2013-11-13 James Greenhalgh * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (all_architectures): Remove

[AArch64] [-mtune cleanup 5/5] Update invoke.texi

Hi, This patch finishes the series, updating invoke.texi to reflect the options supported by -mtune and -mcpu. Thanks, James --- gcc/ 2013-11-13 James Greenhalgh * doc/invoke.texi: Update documentation for AArch64's -mcpu and -mtune options. diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi

[AArch64] [-mtune cleanup 3/5] [Temporary] When asked to tune for Cortex-A57, tune for Cortex-A15

Hi, We do not yet have a pipeline model for Cortex-A57. The most sensible thing we can use to generate pipeline schedules is another "big"-like processor. For that we can use the Cortex-A15 model. Tested in series on aarch64-none-elf with no regressions. OK? Thanks, James --- gcc/ 2013-11-1

[AArch64] [-mtune cleanup 2/5] Tune for Cortex-A53 by default.

Hi, This patch makes Cortex-A53 the processor we choose to tune for in the following situations: * No -mtune, -mcpu or -march * -march=armv8-a * -mtune/cpu=generic * -mtune/cpu=cortex-a15 That is to say, we will tune for cortex-a53 by default. This seems the pragmatic choice as we curr

[AArch64] [-mtune cleanup 4/5] Remove "example-1", "example-2" tuning options.

Hi, "example-1" and "example-2" provide a "large"-like tuning option and a "small"-like tuning option. Now that we have wired up tuning for "cortex-a57" and "cortex-a53" we no longer need these options. Remove them. Tested in series on aarch64-none-elf with no regressions. OK? Thanks, James

Re: [PATCH, PR 10474] Take two on splitting live-ranges of function arguments to help shrink-wrapping

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > last Thursday I had to revert a previous version of this patch because > it has caused a lot of trouble on various platforms I did not test it > on. The patch is still very similar to its previous iteration > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc

Re: [v3] Missing uglification

Hi, On 11/13/2013 03:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: Bootstrap and testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok, thanks. If you like I think the patch is safe for 4.8.3 too. The main other issue in that PR will require a UDL specialist. Let's ping Ed, then. Thanks, Paolo.

Re: Add __auto_type C extension, use it in

Hi, On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > +In GNU C, but not GNU C++, you may also declare the type of a variable > +as @code{__auto_type}. In that case, the declaration must declare > +only one variable, What's the reason for this restriction? I can't see what would become ambiguous

Re: [PATCH, libiberty]: Add a couple of missing casts

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Richard Biener wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> > > >> > > This was uncovered by x86 lto-profiledbootstrap. The patch allows >> > > lto-profiledboo

RE: [PATCH] Fix for PR bootstrap/58951

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > This worked for me and I checked it in. Gerald, please let me know if > you still have issues. Thanks Balaji and H.J. -- my tester successfully bootstrapped again (for the first time this month). Gerald

RE: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed

This patch address all comments. Thanks, Joey > -Original Message- > From: Richard Earnshaw > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 19:07 > To: Joey Ye > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed > > On 13/11/13 10:20, Joey Ye wrote: > >>> +@

Re: [PATCH] Fix infinite recursion between store_fixed_bit_field/store_split_bit_field with STRICT_ALIGNMENT

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Julian Brown wrote: > * gcc.dg/packed-struct-mode-1.c: New. I think this should be a torture test rather than specifying -O2, and should declare malloc itself rather than using . -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

[gomp4, WIP] Elementals improvements

Hi! Here is my latest elemental tweaks patch. While the patch has code to pass some argument in multiple vector arguments, it doesn't have something similar for return types. A lot of decisions whether to create elemental clone is done in a target hook (because, as long as we pass arguments in ve

Re: [testsuite] Fix gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-[45].c tests on Solaris 10+

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Rainer Orth wrote: > The following patch fixes this. Tested by the appropriate runtest > invocation on i386-pc-solaris2.10, ok for mainline? OK. The _POSIX_C_SOURCE definition was intended to allow for any systems whose system headers don't like pthreads in strict ISO C mo

Re: Add __auto_type C extension, use it in

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > > +In GNU C, but not GNU C++, you may also declare the type of a variable > > +as @code{__auto_type}. In that case, the declaration must declare > > +only one variable, > > What's the reason for

Re: [PATCH, i386]: AMD bdver4 enablement

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh wrote: > The attached patch (bd4-enablement.patch) enables the next version of AMD's > core. > New addition to the ISA (AVX2 and BMI2) are enabled for the new core. > Presently, the tuning is mostly copied from bdver3. This includes the

Ping Re: Clean up configure glibc version detection, add --with-glibc-version

Ping. This patch is pending review (build system or global reviewer). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed

On 13/11/13 15:57, Joey Ye wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Richard Earnshaw >> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 19:17 >> To: Joey Ye >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >> Subject: Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed >> >> On 13/11/13 10:20, Joey Ye wrote: > +

[PATCH] Fix *anddi_2 (PR target/59101)

Hi! If *anddi_2 is used with 64-bit integer constant that matches "Z" constraint, but has bit 31 set, we emit it as andl instead, but that is wrong unless just ZF is tested in the flags, because SF might be different (if operands[1] has bit 31 set, then SF from andl will be set, but for the 64-bit

Re: [gomp4 simd, RFC] Simple fix to override vectorization cost estimation.

I will get some tests. As for cost analysis - simply consider the pragma as a request to vectorize. How can I - as a developer - enforce it beyond the pragma? On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Sergey Ostanevich wrote: > >> The reason patch was in its o

Re: [PATCH] Merge cgraph_get_create_node and cgraph_get_create_real_symbol_node

Hello! > as discussed with Honza on many occasions, all users of > cgraph_get_create_node really want cgraph_get_create_real_symbol_node, > i.e. they are not interested in inline nodes and should get a > standalone node instead. So this patch changes cgraph_get_create_node > to do what cgraph_get

Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:45:54AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Many thanks, Jakub. > > I don't want to appear in this situation again. > Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all > required steps to test libsanitizer? > > libsanitizer is (unfortunately) a very sys

Re: [RFA][PATCH] Isolate erroneous paths optimization

Jeff Law wrote: > * Makefile.in (OBJS): Add gimple-ssa-isolate-paths.o > * common.opt (-fisolate-erroneous-paths): Add option and > documentation. > * gimple-ssa-isolate-paths.c: New file. This causes compiler segfaults for me when building Python 2.7.5. See http://gcc.gnu

Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:45:54AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> Many thanks, Jakub. >> >> I don't want to appear in this situation again. >> Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all >> required steps to te

Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009

On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily > ifdef out almost the whole source. > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_common_syscalls.inc: Likewise. That helps, but as Pat

Re: [PATCH] Fix *anddi_2 (PR target/59101)

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > If *anddi_2 is used with 64-bit integer constant that matches > "Z" constraint, but has bit 31 set, we emit it as andl instead, > but that is wrong unless just ZF is tested in the flags, because > SF might be different (if operands[1] has bi

[patch] Fix ICEs when DEBUG_MANGLE is enabled

This patch fixes a few ICEs I encountered when enabling DEBUG_MANGLE. I've also changed dump_substitution_candidates to output the substitution index in base 36, to match the actual mangled name. OK for trunk? -cary 2013-11-13 Cary Coutant gcc/ * cp/mangle.c (to_base36): New functio

Re: [patch] [arm] ARM Cortex-M3/M4 tuning

On 11/12/2013 10:20 PM, Joey Ye wrote: > Janis, can you please take a look at test case changes. > > Thanks, > Joey They look fine. Janis >> -Original Message- >> From: Ramana Radhakrishnan >> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 17:11 >> To: Joey Ye >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; jani...@c

Re: [PATCH 2/3] libstdc++-v3: ::tmpnam depends on uClibc SUSV4_LEGACY

On 13 November 2013 09:22, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 11 November 2013 12:30, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> How does __UCLIBC_SUSV4_LEGACY__ get defined? We'd have a problem if >> users defined that at configure time but not later when using the >> library. > That would be defined by uClibc

Re: [PATCH] Generate a label for the split cold function while using -freorder-blocks-and-partition

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: Is there a format for compiler-defined labels that would not be able to clash with other user-generated labels? >>> >>> My understanding is that the "." in the generated name ensures that it >>> will not clash with user-generated labe

Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:25:06AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek > > > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily > > ifdef out almost the whole source. > > * sanitizer_com

  1   2   >