On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Cong Hou wrote:
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
> +2014-04-07 Cong Hou
> +
> + PR testsuite/60773
> + * testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp:
> + Add check_effective_target_vect_widen_mult_si_to_di_pattern.
> Attached is a patch reverting the two commits for PR ada/54040:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=PR+ada%
> 2F54040
I don't think that's sufficient though, IIRC there were followup changes, so
you'd better diff the current code with the revision just prior to the c
Cong Hou writes:
> In the patch of
> PR60656(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01668.html), the
> test case requires GCC to vectorize the widen-mult pattern from si to
> di types. This may result in test failures on some platforms that
> don't support this pattern. This patch adds a ne
> richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already
> have support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it.
> Does this approach make sense?
r209187 causes thousands of g++ test failures. AFAICT the failing tests are
those with no
explicit 'dg-do compile' directive which are now t
This completes the switch to EHABI for ARM/Android.
2014-04-08 Eric Botcazou
PR ada/60411
* gcc-interface/Makefile.in (arm% linux-android): Switch to EHABI.
* s-linux-android.ads: New file.
* s-intman-android.adb: Likewise.
--
Eric BotcazouIndex: s-linux-and
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Andreas Krebbel
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:19:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> The adjusted testcases now fail on x86_64/i?86 at least. See PR60776.
>
> They seem to require at least -O2 on x86 with that change. Ok to apply?
Hmm, they passed before yo
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 04/05/14 07:52, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> we have front-end warnings about returning the address of a local
>>> variable. However, quite often in C++, people don't directly return the
>
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 06:22:14PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:19:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The adjusted testcases now fail on x86_64/i?86 at least. See PR60776.
>
> They seem to require at least -O2 on x86 with that change. Ok to apply?
The reason why
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:18:26 +0200
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> here is an updated version of my earlier ipa.c change. It turns out that the
>> problem was that I did not drop always_inline.
>> In this version I just drop always_inline attrib
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 06:22:14PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:19:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > The adjusted testcases now fail on x86_64/i?86 at least. See PR60776.
>>
>> They seem to require at leas
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:26:30AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Andreas Krebbel
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:19:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> The adjusted testcases now fail on x86_64/i?86 at least. See PR60776.
> >
> > They seem to require at
On 04/08/2014 10:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:26:30AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Andreas Krebbel
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:19:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
The adjusted testcases now fail on x86_64/i?86 at lea
Jason Merrill writes:
> richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already have
> support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it. Does this approach make
> sense?
ERROR: tcl error sourcing
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20140408/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp.
ERROR: can
This fixes PR60785 where we tried to insert a stmt right after
the definition of a default def (oops). That can't work and
is even wrong, so the patch avoids this.
There is still possibly wrong-code going on here for a loop
like
b = foo ();
x = 0;
do {
...
x = b;
} while (...);
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:53:19AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 10:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:26:30AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Andreas Krebbel
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:19:06PM +0200, Richa
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 04/07/2014 04:33 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> The patch allowed i386-pc-solaris2.11 bootstraps to finish without
>> regressions on trunk and 4.8 branch, still need to test 4.7 branch.
>>
>> Ok for trunk, 4.8 and 4.7 branches once testing completes?
>>
>> Rainer
On 04/08/2014 11:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:53:19AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> On 04/08/2014 10:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:26:30AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Andreas Krebbel
wrote:
>
Hi,
On 04/08/2014 11:01 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jason Merrill writes:
richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already have
support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it. Does this approach make
sense?
ERROR: tcl error sourcing
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-2014040
gt;>> sense?
>> ERROR: tcl error sourcing
>> /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20140408/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp.
>> ERROR: can't rename "dg-save-unknown": command doesn't exist
>> while executing
>> "rename dg-save-unknown unknown"
>&
Dave confirmed that a patch like the following fixes the
inconsistency in printing double-ints that fit 64bits on
HWI32 hosts vs. HWI64 hosts. When the host has a 64bit
type, that is.
Bootstrap running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Dave, did testing on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 show any testsuite
fa
On 04/07/14 14:22, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/07/2014 03:39 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Jason, I shall leave it to your discretion as to whether we should
continue with this patch, or revert the original one (for 4.9).
This is OK. Post 4.9 we might try removing the warn_ecpp check and see how t
Hi,
On 04/08/2014 11:58 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
I guess this depends on dejagnu >= 1.5, which added support for nested
calls to dg-test.
I see, thanks Andreas. In fact I'm using 1.4.4 here. Then, either update
prerequisites.html or tweak the code to not rely on 1.5.x features.
Paolo.
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:21:56AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 11:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:53:19AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> >> On 04/08/2014 10:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:26:30AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote
Hi,
what about that one?
Tested on x86_64, s390, and s390x.
Bye,
-Andreas-
2014-04-08 Andreas Krebbel
* gcc.dg/builtin-bswap-6.c: Use -mbranch-cost=0 for s390.
* gcc.dg/builtin-bswap-7.c: Likewise.
Revert
2014-04-04 Andreas Krebbel
* gcc.dg/buil
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:41:41PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> what about that one?
>
> Tested on x86_64, s390, and s390x.
LGTM, thanks.
> 2014-04-08 Andreas Krebbel
>
> * gcc.dg/builtin-bswap-6.c: Use -mbranch-cost=0 for s390.
> * gcc.dg/builtin-bswap-7.c: Likewise.
>
>
As described in the PR, gcc.c-torture/compile/pr28865.c FAILs on Solaris
9/SPARC with /bin/as at -O0. Given that Solaris 9 support will be
removed post-4.9, we agreed to just XFAIL the test, which this patch
does.
Tested with the approprite runtest invocations on sparc-sun-solaris2.9
(both as and
> diff --git a/libitm/config/generic/asmcfi.h b/libitm/config/generic/asmcfi.h
> --- a/libitm/config/generic/asmcfi.h
> +++ b/libitm/config/generic/asmcfi.h
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
>
> #include "config.h"
>
> -#ifdef HAVE_AS_CFI_PSEUDO_OP
> +#if defined(HAVE_AS_CFI_PSEUDO_OP) && defined(__GCC_HAVE
Hi,
I have been working on this issue, a minor regression, looking for the
safest fix. What I have got so far seems neat enough to me, but maybe
not totally safe (from the diagnostic quality point of view only, of
course).
The ICE happens in unify, in:
/* Check for mixed types and val
This fixes PR60761 by dumping decl context of function clones
as origin with appended instead of that now
appears after we (compared to 4.8) clear DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC.
Thus for the testcase in PR60761 we now print
t.ii: In function 'void foo(int) ':
t.ii:14:13: warning: iteration 3u invokes und
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:58:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> t.ii: In function 'void foo(int) ':
> t.ii:14:13: warning: iteration 3u invokes undefined behavior
> [-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
> z[i] = i;
> ^
Looks reasonable to me, but I'll defer this to Jason.
> 2014-
On 8-Apr-14, at 6:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Dave, did testing on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 show any testsuite
fallout?
No. It fixes the PR and there were no observed regressions on
hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
hppa-unknown-linux-gnu and hppa64-hp-hpux11.11. This covers host wide
integers
of 3
Hi,
this patch fixes a recently discovered name-clash in gfc_build_class_symbol.
Fortunately it is quite easy to fix: just make sure that the class names of
target
classes end with "_t", and target array classes end with "[0-9]t".
This trick makes all names unique again.
I hope it is not too la
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 09:26 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Attached is a patch reverting the two commits for PR ada/54040:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=PR+ada%
> > 2F54040
>
> I don't think that's sufficient though, IIRC there were followup changes, so
> you'
Sorry, wrong subject, again...
>
> Hi,
>
> this patch fixes a recently discovered name-clash in gfc_build_class_symbol.
>
> Fortunately it is quite easy to fix: just make sure that the class names of
> target
> classes end with "_t", and target array classes end with "[0-9]t".
> This trick makes
Lin,
are you still working on this?
Thanks
Bernd.
Hi Bernd,
in a way,yes.I am testing it.Since I don't have a FSF copyright
mark,and I have no idea what is that file saying,I can't commit my
patch.If you are interested in it,please help me commit it.
By the way,there is another way to work it out,and it has been
mentioned in t
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:41:02PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Thus, please commit any of these variants, if you go for
> /* { dg-additional-options "-mbranch-cost=0" { target s390*-*-* } } */
> plus reverting your earlier changes, you can also consider
> addition of two new tests that would cont
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I just found a little typo in gcc/config/avr/avr-mcus.def.
For the atxmega256a3bu the define is wrong __AVR_ATxmega258A3BU__ I
changed it to __AVR_ATxmega256A3BU__.
The patch is in the attachment.
Regards
Georg von Zengen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:44:21PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > PR51088 contains some Really Bizzare code. We should tell users
> > not to do any shenanigans like that.
> >
> > Ok for trunk?
>
> I don't think a doc patch resolves this bug. The
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:13:27AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> while looking into devirtualization dumps, I noticed that I got one "false"
> typed out as "true". Not sure what I was thinking of.
>
> Martin, this may fix the wrong code issue you see in Firefox, hopefully.
it did not seg
This patch removes the printing of details for BBs that are being removed.
When printing bb details, dump_bb_info will invoke check_bb_profile, which will
flag spurious profile insanities in the removed bb since the incoming edges
have already been removed. This makes it harder to identify true pr
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:13:27AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > while looking into devirtualization dumps, I noticed that I got one "false"
> > typed out as "true". Not sure what I was thinking of.
> >
> > Martin, this may fix the wrong code issue you see in Firefox, hopefully.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Sorry for the nit, but maybe it'd be better to use %qs for the second
> > attributes, so that we can use the same translation string for all
> > conflicts.
> > Same with the later messages (where the quotes that come with %qs are
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:10 +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> > richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already
> > have support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it.
> > Does this approach make sense?
>
> r209187 causes thousands of g++ test failures. AFAICT the failing tes
The patch for PR60604 stopped nonimmediate_operand from accepting
(subreg:M (reg:N R)) for combinations that are forbidden by
REG_CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_P, to match the existing register_operand behaviour.
This stopped rs6000's movdi pattern from accepting such subregs as a
destination (they were alrea
On 04/08/2014 04:10 AM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
r209187 causes thousands of g++ test failures. AFAICT the failing tests are
those with no
explicit 'dg-do compile' directive which are now trying to give an executable
while
before r209187 they were using -S.
Does this fix it?
commit 94d8c7
On 04/08/2014 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Jason, is good or shall I use sth else (do we annotate in-charge vs.
not in-charge
constructors specially for example?).
The names of the in-charge and not-in-charge constructor clones are
complete_ctor_identifier and base_ctor_identifier (and dt
OK.
Jason
On 03/25/2014 11:20 AM, Pat Haugen wrote:
Power8 can use lq/stq instructions for TI mode atomic_load/store.
Bootstrap/regtest with no new failures. Ok for trunk and 4.8 (once
bootstrap/regtest finishes)?
-Pat
2014-03-25 Pat Haugen
* config/rs6000/sync.md (AINT mode_iterator): Move
Hi,
Recently I posted a patch to use vnor to invert the permute control
vector for little-endian permutes. It's come to my attention that, when
available, the vnand instruction should be used in preference to vnor
for possible future processor exploitation. This patch checks for
availability of
This is the first step for support coindexed variables on the RHS / in
expressions. While the committed patch only defines some variables, I
have a draft patch which handles the communication for scalars. Together
with the existing support for coarrays on the LHS (scalars and arrays),
the curre
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently I posted a patch to use vnor to invert the permute control
> vector for little-endian permutes. It's come to my attention that, when
> available, the vnand instruction should be used in preference to vnor
> for possible future
Something broke in the compiler to cause combine to incorrectly optimize:
(insn 12 11 13 3 (set (reg:SI 604 [ D.6102 ])
(lshiftrt:SI (subreg/s/u:SI (reg/v:DI 601 [ x ]) 0)
(reg:SI 602 [ D.6103 ]))) t.c:47 4436 {lshrsi3}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 602 [ D.6103 ])
(
The test gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ifcombine-13.c has been failing on MIPS ever
since it was added because MIPS sets LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT to 0 and
so the optimization being checked for is not done. This patch removes
mips from the list of platforms where we check for the optimization.
Tested on
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:48:21PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> The test gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ifcombine-13.c has been failing on MIPS ever
> since it was added because MIPS sets LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT to 0 and
> so the optimization being checked for is not done. This patch removes
> mips fro
On 20 December 2013 13:16, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> On 13 November 2013 18:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> 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 probl
Jason,
I tried the patch you sent to Dominique and it doesn't fix everything on MIPS.
The other problem is in gcc-dg-test-1 where you set extra_tool_flags. I don't
think it can be set and restored there so I moved that into dg-build-dso.
Also, I don't like setting dg-do-what-default back t
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, dw wrote:
> Problem description:
> The existing documentation does an inadequate job of describing gcc's
> implementation of the "asm" keyword. This has led to a great deal of
> confusion as people struggle to understand how it works. This entire section
> requires a rewrite th
The following patch improves the code generated for TImode add/sub so
that we now generate a 2 insn sequence which makes use of the carry bit.
Bootstrap/regtest (on both BE/LE) with no new failures. Ok for trunk and
4.8?
-Pat
2014-04-08 Pat Haugen
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (addti
Thanks for the comments, and the attached file is the updated patch.
thanks,
Cong
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Cong Hou writes:
>
>> In the patch of
>> PR60656(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01668.html), the
>> test case requires GCC to vectorize the wid
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Cong Hou wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>> @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
>> +2014-04-07 Cong Hou
>> +
>> + PR testsuite/60773
>> + * testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp:
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 07:06:58PM -0500, Pat Haugen wrote:
> The following patch improves the code generated for TImode add/sub so
> that we now generate a 2 insn sequence which makes use of the carry bit.
> +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* && lp64 } } } */
> +/* { dg-skip-if
On 04/08/2014 05:58 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
I guess this depends on dejagnu >= 1.5, which added support for nested
calls to dg-test.
Hmm, the PCH tests already use nested calls to dg-test, I wonder why
they don't break this way?
Jason
Hi,
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Also, do we really want to document the trick in
> "m" ((@{ struct @{ char x[10]; @} *p = (void *) ptr ; *p; @}))
> (note: reformatted GNU-style and confusing @{ @} dropped)
We already document this since quite some time, and yes, it's indeed
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 07:40:09PM -0700, Cong Hou wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Cong Hou wrote:
> >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> >> @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
> >> +2014-04-07 Cong Hou
>
Jason Merrill writes:
> Hmm, the PCH tests already use nested calls to dg-test,
Do they? I don't think so. There are calls to dg-test in dg-flags-pch,
which is called by dg-pch, and then pch.exp runs dg-pch on each test,
but I see no other dg-test in the call chain.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schw
66 matches
Mail list logo
