On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:21:03PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Sergey has kindly tested the patch on SPEC2k6, but on 4 tests it revealed
> an ICE. Here is an incremental fix for that, for now it just punts on
> those. In theory the invariant conditional loads could be handled e.g.
> using gathe
I guess we should CC Jason for this ...
ccout...@google.com (Cary Coutant) a écrit:
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?
-
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:03:02AM +0100, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> I guess we should CC Jason for this ...
>
> ccout...@google.com (Cary Coutant) a écrit:
>
> This patch fixes a few ICEs I encountered when enabling DEBUG_MANGLE.
> I've also changed dump_substitution_candidates to output the substi
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:12:41PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Patch is OK everywhere, with or without the suggested change.
Ok, here is what I've committed, so far to trunk/4.8, after another
round of bootstrap/regtest:
2013-11-14 Jakub Jelinek
Uros Bizjak
PR target/591
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 0:57
> To: Joey Ye
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed
>
> > So you are suggesting change like this:
> > + Target Report Var(arm_pic_data_is_text_relat
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:26:08PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> So, Vlad, Steven, do you think that this time I have re-computed all
> that is necessary? Do you think the patch is OK?
>
> Thanks a lot and sorry for the breakage,
I'm afraid there are still issues left.
Last night I was bootstrap
> FAIL: gnat.dg/memtrap.adb (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gnat.dg/memtrap.adb scan-assembler
> __gnat_begin_handler|__gnat_raise_nodefer
> FAIL: gnat.dg/specs/addr1.ads (test for bogus messages, line 24)
> FAIL: gnat.dg/specs/atomic1.ads (test for errors, line 9)
> FAIL: gnat.dg/specs/atomic1.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Sergey Ostanevich wrote:
> 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?
You can disable the cost model via -fvect-cost-model=unlimited
Richard.
> On Wed, No
On 13 November 2013 11:16, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> 2013-11-13 Kyrylo Tkachov
>
> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c: Include aarch-cost-tables.h.
> (generic_rtx_cost_table): Remove.
> (aarch64_rtx_costs): Use fields from cpu_cost_table.
> * config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h (tune_params)
On 13/11/13 15:32, James Greenhalgh wrote:
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
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/10/13 20:11, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> OK. It sounds like there's a pretty general consensus that we ought ot
>> go ahead and leave in a load/store of a NULL pointer. I'll go ahead and
>> run with that. I'll probably just emit SSA_NAME = *0,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> FAIL: gnat.dg/memtrap.adb (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: gnat.dg/memtrap.adb scan-assembler
>> __gnat_begin_handler|__gnat_raise_nodefer
>> FAIL: gnat.dg/specs/addr1.ads (test for bogus messages, line 24)
>> FAIL: gnat.dg/specs/atomic1
On 18 Oct 13:30, Richard Biener wrote:
> Certainly better than the first version. Jakub should decide for the branch
> and eventually Honza for the merge to trunk. It still looks somewhat hackish,
> but I suppose that's because we don't have a LTO-state object where we
> can encapsulate all this.
On 14/11/13 08:23, Joey Ye wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Earnshaw
>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 0:57
>> To: Joey Ye
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed
>>
>>> So you are suggesting change like this:
>>> + Targ
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:24:54AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:26:08PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > So, Vlad, Steven, do you think that this time I have re-computed all
> > that is necessary? Do you think the patch is OK?
> >
> > Thanks a lot and sorry for the
> > No, introducing all these extra/almost duplicated files is not OK, you'd
> > need to find a way to share the existing files instead, thanks.
>
> I am not familiar with Ada. Can you recommend how to fix it?
Can you send a diff between the *-linux files and your new files? This
should help giv
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 11/13/2013, 8:34 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, this patch causes cc1 for powerpc64-linux to crash for me
> >> even when compiling "int main () { return 0; }" with -O due to a memory
> >> corruption somewhere:
> >
> I've just fixed it, Ulrich. Really sor
Jeff Law wrote:
> * PR middle-end/59119
> * gimple-ssa-isolate-paths.c (find_implicit_erroneous_behaviour): New
> function, extracted from gimple_ssa_isolate_erroneous_paths.
> (find_explicit_erroneous_behaviour): Similarly.
> (insert_trap_and_remove_trailing_statemen
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Julian Brown wrote:
> 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 th
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> > No, introducing all these extra/almost duplicated files is not OK, you'd
>> > need to find a way to share the existing files instead, thanks.
>>
>> I am not familiar with Ada. Can you recommend how to fix it?
>
> Can you send a diff betw
Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/11/13 07:32, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > 2013-11-11 Ulrich Weigand
> >
> > * calls.c (store_unaligned_arguments_into_pseudos): Skip PARALLEL
> > arguments.
> OK, so after a lot of worrying, I think this is OK. I kept thinking
> this had to tie into the BLKmode ret
Hi,
sorry, for the delay.
Sandra seems to be even more busy than me...
Attached is a combined patch of the original part 1, and the update,
in diff -up format.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:10:45, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Sandra Loosemore
> wrote:
>> On 10/29/2013 02:
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 18:00
> To: Joey Ye
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] [arm] New option for PIC offset unfixed
>
> On 14/11/13 08:23, Joey Ye wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Richard Earnsh
In mainline and arm/embedded-4_8-branch now.
> -Original Message-
> From: Janis Johnson [mailto:janis_john...@mentor.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:45
> To: Joey Ye; jani...@codesourcery.com
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Subject: Re: [patch] [arm] ARM Co
Hi,
The algorithm choosing candidates in IVOPT has some defects that optimal iv
set can't be found in some cases. This patch slightly tunes the algorithm
to make it more accurate. The reasons are:
1) Changes in iv_ca_extend. Dependences could be changed in the loop,
causing check condition " !i
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> On 18 Oct 13:30, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Certainly better than the first version. Jakub should decide for the branch
>> and eventually Honza for the merge to trunk. It still looks somewhat
>> hackish,
>> but I suppose that's because we don'
> >> I am not familiar with Ada. Can you recommend how to fix it?
> >
> > Can you send a diff between the *-linux files and your new files? This
> > should help giving some options.
> >
>
> This is the total diff.
OK so I would declare a new type in System.Linux (e.g. time_t),
have a new varian
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:24:34PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I don't think we should make -fPIE the default for all users.
Yeah, definitely not.
Marek
From: Trevor Saunders
Hi,
this patch adds and starts to use a class auto_bitmap, which is a very thin
wrapper around bitmap. Its advantage is that it takes care of delocation
automatically. So you can do things like
int
f ()
{
auto_bitmap x;
// do stuff with x
}
Another advantage of this
> Here is a patch. OK to install?
Yes, thanks.
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi,
we have a test in the gnat.dg testsuite (stack_usage1.adb) which checks that
the allocation of big temporaries created in non-overlapping blocks on the
stack is optimal, i.e. that they share a stack slot. It is run at -O0 and
passes. If you run it at -O2, it also passes. Now, if you run
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:09:22 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Julian Brown
> wrote:
> > 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. Th
Martin Jambor writes:
> Hi,
Hi Martin,
[...]
>
> 2013-11-04 Martin Jambor
>
> PR rtl-optimization/10474
> * ira.c (interesting_dest_for_shprep): New function.
> (split_live_ranges_for_shrink_wrap): Likewise.
> (find_moveable_pseudos): Move calculation of domi
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
> In mainline and arm/embedded-4_8-branch now.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Janis Johnson [mailto:janis_john...@mentor.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:45
>> To: Joey Ye; jani...@codesourcery.com
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;
Hi, Mike,
Recently the new nds32 port is approved and I committed it into trunk.
According to gcc testsuite report on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-11/msg00751.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-11/msg00752.html
I would like to modify some testcases for nds32 target
Because the unordered containers now have noexcept move constructors
it is no longer necessary to ensure that is_copy_constructible depends
on the value_type, so remove that kluge.
2013-11-14 Jonathan Wakely
* include/bits/alloc_traits.h (__allow_copy_cons): Remove.
(__check_copy
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> >> I am not familiar with Ada. Can you recommend how to fix it?
>> >
>> > Can you send a diff between the *-linux files and your new files? This
>> > should help giving some options.
>> >
>>
>> This is the total diff.
>
> OK so I would dec
The new gcc.dg/torture/float128* tests FAIL on Solaris 9/x86 which lacks
. Fixed by the patch below, tested with the appropriate runtest
invocations on i386-pc-solaris2.9 and i386-pc-solaris2.11.
Ok for mainline?
Btw., the new fenv_exceptions effective-target keywords needs
documenting in source
Hi,
we are getting bug reports about this issue with NSDMIs in template
classes, like:
struct B
{
template
struct A
{
int X = N;
};
};
57887.C:6:13: error: ‘N’ was not declared in this scope
Looking at cp_parser_class_specifier_1, the comments about the late
parsing of default arguments (wh
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have a test in the gnat.dg testsuite (stack_usage1.adb) which checks that
> the allocation of big temporaries created in non-overlapping blocks on the
> stack is optimal, i.e. that they share a stack slot. It is run at -O0 and
>
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> Thanks. It's pretty much what I expected. Obviously for other codes
> there may be a lot more changes that you have to slog through, but I
> think this example shows the main concepts.
>
> Presumably in this new world order, the various gimple state
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Julian Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:09:22 +0100
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Julian Brown
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This patch addresses an issue where the compiler gets stuck in an
>> > infinite mutually-recursive loo
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> 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 overw
libcilkrts.so fails to link on Solaris 9/x86 with Sun as since this
configuration lacks visibility support:
Text relocation remains referenced
against symbol offset in file
__cilkrts_get_tls_worker0x41.libs/cilk-abi.o
__cilkrts_
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:33:46PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > > Well, we had been thinking about this, but right now it seems we're not
> > > going to be able to make that change throughout the ecosystem
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
>> In mainline and arm/embedded-4_8-branch now.
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Janis Johnson [mailto:janis_john...@mentor.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:45
>>> To: Joey Ye;
> I also changed s-osinte-posix.adb and s-osprim-posix.adb
> for x32. They aren't Linux specific. What should I do with
> them?
I would use the time_t type defined in s-osinte* (all POSIX implementations
of s-osinte* have such definition, or if they don't, it's easy to add), and
in the s-osinte-
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Rainer Orth wrote:
> The new gcc.dg/torture/float128* tests FAIL on Solaris 9/x86 which lacks
> . Fixed by the patch below, tested with the appropriate runtest
> invocations on i386-pc-solaris2.9 and i386-pc-solaris2.11.
>
> Ok for mainline?
fenv_exceptions isn't correct fo
The attached patch backports
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-2013/194748.html
to gcc trunk and eliminates the asan.exp failures at -m64 on darwin. Bootstrap
and regression tested on
x86_64-apple-darwin12 and x86_64-apple-darwin13.
Jack
p
"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
>> Btw., the new fenv_exceptions effective-target keywords needs
>> documenting in sourcebuild.texi.
>
> Duplicating documentation for effective-target keywords in
> sourcebuild.texi seems to me to be a mistake like the documentation for
> specs in invoke.texi - in bot
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:42 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 18:29 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:25:06AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc:
> > > > Temporarily
> > > > ifdef out
On 11/14/2013 07:59 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
/* Make sure that any template parameters are in scope. */
maybe_begin_member_template_processing (decl);
Hmm, it seems that we use this for non-template member functions of
template classes as well; I wonder when that happened. I guess we
should
*kind ping*
thanks,
Alexander
2013/11/8 Alexander Ivchenko :
> ups, I did ping in the wrong thread about this issue. Sorry.
>
>
> Anyway, I noticed that after r204334 my patch cannot be applied
> without conflicts.
> Here is the updated one attached. Bootstrapped and regtested on
> x86_64-unknown
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:04:53 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Julian Brown
> wrote:
> > So that leaves us with store_fixed_bit_field and
> > store_split_bit_field being unable to deal with accesses to packed
> > structures with non-BLKmode. I experimented earlier wi
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
> From: Trevor Saunders
>
> Hi,
>
> this patch adds and starts to use a class auto_bitmap, which is a very thin
> wrapper around bitmap. Its advantage is that it takes care of delocation
> automatically. So you can do things like
>
> int
> f ()
> {
>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>The attached patch backports
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-2013/194748.html
> to gcc trunk and eliminates the asan.exp failures at -m64 on darwin.
> Bootstrap and regression tested on
> x86_64-apple-dar
This patch splits out the force_gimple_operand parts of gimplify.[ch]
into their own file which will prevent the front ends from having to see
iterators, and breaks the annoying dependency cycle between gimple.h,
gimplify.h and gimple-iterator.h. I suspect more stuff may end up here,
but this
patch2 contains the resulting include changes.
the remaining changes...
Andrew
* asan.c: Include only gimplify.h, gimplify-be.h, and/or gimple.h as
required.
* cfgloopmanip.c: Likewise.
* cgraphunit.c: Likewise.
* cilk-common.c: Likewise.
* fold-const.c: Likewise.
* function.c: Likewis
Hi,
This patch follows up the problem outlined here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00152.html
The patch attached prevents adding clobbers when LRA is running
in insn_invalid_p function and lra_in_progress variable is being set
just before check_rtl call. This should stop modification of i
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:21:03PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Sergey has kindly tested the patch on SPEC2k6, but on 4 tests it revealed
> > an ICE. Here is an incremental fix for that, for now it just punts on
> > those. In theory the invariant co
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
> related to or require a statement. gimple.h is becoming the home for
> just 0gimple statements. There are 3 (for the moment) major classes of
> things that are in statements
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> Why not give bitmap_head a constructor/destructor and allow auto use of
> that. Isn't that exactly what should get 'auto' handling automagically?
auto != c++98 :-/
Ciao,
Michael.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry, for the delay.
> Sandra seems to be even more busy than me...
>
> Attached is a combined patch of the original part 1, and the update,
> in diff -up format.
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:10:45, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Put another way: what do you envision that gimple expressions would be.
> For example what would you propose we could do with them?
The only expressions I have in mind are memory references and
aggregates, which can get pretty convoluted.
On 11/14/2013 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
related to or require a statement. gimple.h is becoming the home for
just 0gimple statements. There are 3 (for the moment) major class
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 07:05:49AM -0700, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> The calls are emitted by default, but the __asan_stack_malloc call is
> done under a run-time flag
> __asan_option_detect_stack_use_after_return.
> So, to use the stack-use-after-return feature you should simply
> compile with
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>
>>> There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
>>> related to or require a statement. gimple.h is becoming th
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> This patch splits out the force_gimple_operand parts of gimplify.[ch] into
> their own file which will prevent the front ends from having to see
> iterators, and breaks the annoying dependency cycle between gimple.h,
> gimplify.h and gimple
On 11/14/2013 10:37 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/14/2013 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
related to or require a statemen
> To avoid having a partial ABI implementation in tree, it seems best
> to commit this whole patch series as a single commit.
> Is the series OK for mainline?
The 8 patch series implementing and enabling ELFv2 is okay, including
the implementation of command line switches.
There appear to be a f
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > That's why I think talking about a gimple expression as if they were
> > somehow some stand-alone concept is fairly confusing, and introducing it
> > now as if it would somewhen exist would lead to going down some inferior
> > design paths.
>
>
On 11/14/2013 10:57 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
That's why I think talking about a gimple expression as if they were
somehow some stand-alone concept is fairly confusing, and introducing it
now as if it would somewhen exist would lead to going down so
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > I think if following through with the whole plan there would (and
> > should) be nothing remaining that could be called a gimple expression.
>
> very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can change
> the name back to gimple-de
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can change the
> name back to gimple-decl.[ch] or some such thing if you like that better.
As much as I hate to paint name sheds: gimple-val.[ch].
Diego.
Can we revisit the decision for this? Here are the reasons:
1) It seems that the motivation to make C++ consistent with c99 is to
avoid confusing users who build the C source with both C and C++
compilers. Why should C++'s default behavior be tuned for this niche
case?
2) It is very confusing for
On 11/14/2013 11:23 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think if following through with the whole plan there would (and
should) be nothing remaining that could be called a gimple expression.
very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can ch
Hi,
On 11/14/2013 03:41 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I don't think we need a new parameter; just pass the FIELD_DECL into
maybe_end_member_template_processing and adjust it appropriately.
Also, call m_e_m_t_p from cp_parser_late_parsing_nsdmi rather than
cp_parser_class_specifier_1.
Thanks, much
David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> > To avoid having a partial ABI implementation in tree, it seems best
> > to commit this whole patch series as a single commit.
>
> > Is the series OK for mainline?
>
> The 8 patch series implementing and enabling ELFv2 is okay, including
> the implementation of command
On 11/14/2013 10:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
This patch splits out the force_gimple_operand parts of gimplify.[ch] into
their own file which will prevent the front ends from having to see
iterators, and breaks the annoying dependency cycl
Where you have
+ error ("break statement within <#pragma simd> loop body");
+ error ("continue statement within <#pragma simd> loop body");
I think you mean %< and %> (i.e. quotes) not < and >.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:49:41AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> +case OMP_PARALLEL:
> +case OMP_TASK:
> +case OMP_FOR:
> +case OMP_SIMD:
> +case OMP_SECTIONS:
> +case OMP_SINGLE:
> +case OMP_SECTION:
> +case OMP_MASTER:
> +case OMP_ORDERED:
> +case OMP_CRIT
On 11/14/13 09:57, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Where you have
+ error ("break statement within <#pragma simd> loop body");
+ error ("continue statement within <#pragma simd> loop body");
I think you mean %< and %> (i.e. quotes) not < and >.
Indeed. Fixed.
Thank you.
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 00:13 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/08/13 12:02, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> I wouldn't mind seeing a small example proof of concept posted to help
> >> those who don't see where this is going understand the goal. I would
> >> recommend against posting another large patch for
Diego Novillo wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Andrew MacLeod
>wrote:
>
>> very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can change
>the
>> name back to gimple-decl.[ch] or some such thing if you like that
>better.
>
>As much as I hate to paint name sheds: gimple-val.[ch].
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 07:05:49AM -0700, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> The calls are emitted by default, but the __asan_stack_malloc call is
>> done under a run-time flag
>> __asan_option_detect_stack_use_after_return.
>> So, to use the st
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:39:02AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 11/14/13 10:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> [Balaji, see below for question.]
>
> >On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:49:41AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >>+case OMP_PARALLEL:
> >>+case OMP_TASK:
> >>+case OMP_FOR:
> >>+
As part of the generalized FSA optimization work we need the ability to
start a jump threading path with a joiner, then later in the path have a
normal jump threading block (ie, has side effects and thus requires
duplication).
thread_through_normal_block needs one tweak to make that possible
This patch from Dave Cheney fixes the list of supported operating
systems and architectures in libgo. syslist.go used to be a generated
file in the master Go library, but it was changed a while back to a
fixed list. This patch makes the same change to libgo. Bootstrapped
and ran Go testsuite on
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:56:36PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> I thought about alignment but did not reflect it anywhere in the
> interface/comments.
> The alignment should be min(4096, N), which is enough for most purposes.
You mean max(4096, N), right? And, what exactly is N? 1 << (c
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 07:08:17PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:56:36PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > I thought about alignment but did not reflect it anywhere in the
> > interface/comments.
> > The alignment should be min(4096, N), which is enough for most pur
All RX opcodes which take a dsp:8 also take a dsp:16 so we can relax
this offset check. Committed.
* config/rx/rx.c (rx_mode_dependent_address_p): Allow offsets up
to 16 bits.
Index: config/rx/rx.c
===
--- config/rx
Well, if you don't change anything in omp-low.c, then it wouldn't diagnose
setjmp call in #pragma simd, but given that also the OpenMP 4.0 spec
requires that #pragma omp simd doesn't contain calls to setjmp or longjmp
(ditto for #pragma omp declare simd functions), then scan_omp_1_stmt
should be
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
>>> 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 s
This patch expands the recent one from Dave Cheney to add all the known
gccgo architectures. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline.
Ian
diff -r 5d4a0b7216b6 libgo/go/go/build/syslist.go
--- a/libgo/go/go/build/syslist.go Thu Nov 14 10:07:00 2013 -0
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Can we revisit the decision for this? Here are the reasons:
>
> 1) It seems that the motivation to make C++ consistent with c99 is to
> avoid confusing users who build the C source with both C and C++
> compilers. Why should C++'s default
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:18:24PM +, Matthew Leach wrote:
> Martin Jambor writes:
>
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > 2013-11-04 Martin Jambor
> >
> > PR rtl-optimization/10474
> > * ira.c (interesting_dest_for_shprep): New function.
> > (split_liv
Hi!
I've committed following fix to unbreak asan on -fsection-anchors targets.
If anyone has better ideas how to represent for RTL artificial label
we emit from final.c at the beginning of current function, I'd appreciate
it.
2013-11-14 Jakub Jelinek
PR sanitizer/59122
* asan.
On 11/14/2013 11:37 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ ? TREE_TYPE (CLASSTYPE_TEMPLATE_INFO (DECL_CONTEXT (decl)))
Use CLASSTYPE_TI_TEMPLATE instead. OK with that change.
Jason
See the following code:
#include
using std::complex;
template
complex<_Tp>&
mult_assign (complex<_Tp>& __y, const complex<_Up>& __z)
{
_Up& _M_real = __y.real();
_Up& _M_imag = __y.imag();
const _Tp __r = _M_real * __z.real() - _M_imag * __z.imag();
_M_imag = _M_real * __z.imag() + _M_i
That extra alignment causes some branches to go out of range.
2013-11-14 Joern Rennecke
* config/arc/arc.md (doloop_begin_i): Remove extra alignment;
use (.&-4) idiom.
Index: config/arc/arc.md
===
--- config/arc/a
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
