From: Richard Henderson
The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
with respect to Fat_Pointer. Given that the Ada type, as defined in
s-stratt.ads, does not include alignment, I can't imagine why the C
type should have it.
This causes problems with the AArch64 calling
The Makfile.in and init.c changes are OK.
The types.h change is likely more controversial and may be problematic,
I'll let Eric comment.
> + system.ads
> IMO, this should really be called system-linux-lp64.ads, and should
> be usable for any 64-bit target that uses full ieee floating point,
> w
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The (admittedly ugly) reassoc stmt positioning stuff requires that
> we maintain uids in ascending order within each bb (equal uid for several
> adjacent stmts is ok), including debug stmts.
> We assign those initially, and for stmts we add we m
> The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
> with respect to Fat_Pointer. Given that the Ada type, as defined in
> s-stratt.ads, does not include alignment, I can't imagine why the C
> type should have it.
See gcc-interface/utils.c:finish_fat_pointer_type.
> This cause
> -Original Message-
> From: Joey Ye [mailto:joey...@arm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:37 PM
> To: 'Richard Biener'
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: RE: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>
> > Ok for trunk and branches after a while. Why does if-conversion not have
> > the same
> Similarly with the HAVE_GNAT_ALTERNATE_STACK stuff. There aren't any
> linux hosts that don't support sigaltstack, so why is this
> conditionalized?
Hum, I didn't know that Android also used the alternate stack... OK, let's
use it unconditionally on Linux then, except for IA-64 which is a tot
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> 2d part:
>
> 2014-04-15 Evgeny Stupachenko
>
>* config/i386/x86-tune.def (TARGET_SLOW_PHUFFB): Target for slow byte
>shuffle on some x86 architectures.
... (X86_TUNE_SLOW_PSHUFB): New tune definition.
Typo: TARGET_SL
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> 3d part:
>
> 2014-04-15 Evgeny Stupachenko
>
> * config/i386/i386.c (x86_add_stmt_cost): Fixing vector cost model for
> Silvermont.
... : Fix vector cost ...
OK for mainline with the above ChangeLog fix.
Thanks,
Uro
On 15/04/14 18:45, Eric Christopher wrote:
Testcase weirdness?
for (i < 0; i < N; ++i)
{
arr[i] = i;
expect[i] = __builtin_bswap64 (i);
if (y) /* Avoid vectorisation. */
abort ();
}
i < 0 :)
duplicated in all 3 testcases btw.
Oops, here it is fixed.
Thanks
On 02/04/14 13:55, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Pinging this for stage1, otherwise I'll forget about it and it'll fall through
the cracks...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01276.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
Ping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01276.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 24/0
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> This patch wraps a bunch of locally-used, non-debug functions in an
>>> anonymous namespace. These f
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Many source files currently define a global function that is not
>>> previously declared within that
> back in January in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00848.html Eric pointed
> out a testcase where the problem was SRA not scalarizing an aggregate
> because it was involved in a throwing statement. The reason is that
> SRA is likely to need to append new statements after each one
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> ISTR some more ???/FIXMEs and/or special-casings we could remove with
>> that. As followup, of course.
>
> It would be better to remove them all at once, so if you have specifics...
grepping for '[ \t!(]optimize[ )\$]' I find in tree-ssa-t
On 16 April 2014 06:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
>> Anyway, the real issue is indeed that implementing those bits requires a
>> new virtual function, and that would break the ABI.
>
>
> What is the status of the ABI half-break plan (abi_tag and such), necessa
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 09:53:16PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> As Robert pointed out here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>
> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
> The value at expand time is sensible, but after that asm_operand_
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> back in January in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00848.html Eric pointed
> out a testcase where the problem was SRA not scalarizing an aggregate
> because it was involved in a throwing statement. The reason is that
> SRA is lik
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> As Robert pointed out here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>
> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
> The value at expand time is sensible, but after that asm_operand_ok
> allow
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joey Ye [mailto:joey...@arm.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:37 PM
>> To: 'Richard Biener'
>> Cc: GCC Patches
>> Subject: RE: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>>
>> > Ok for trunk and branches af
On 15/04/14 02:59, Joey Ye wrote:
> If-converstion is harmful to optimized debugging as it generates conditional
> execution instructions with line number information, which resulted in a
> dillusion to developers that both then-else branches are executed.
>
> For example:
> test.c:
> 1: unsigned
On 16/04/14 10:30, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Joey Ye [mailto:joey...@arm.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:37 PM
>>> To: 'Richard Biener'
>>> Cc: GCC Patches
>>> Subject: RE: [patch] Disable if_conv
On 16-01-14 09:13, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Tom de Vries writes:
* The set of registers which are clobbered during a call by things like the plt
- these are not picked up by the use-caller-save optimization. We need the
hook to inform the compiler about these registers
Right, but...
On 15-01-14 17:53, Tom de Vries wrote:
Eric,
This patch adds scanning of clobbers in CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE to
find_all_hard_reg_sets.
For MIPS, calls are split at some point. After the split, one of the resulting
insns may clobber $6. But before the split, that's not explicit in the rtl
repr
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:44 PM
> To: Joey Ye
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>
> Arguably, this is a bug in gdb. The debugger should understand when a
> breakpointed conditional i
On 16/04/14 11:02, Joey Ye wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Earnshaw
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:44 PM
>> To: Joey Ye
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>>
>> Arguably, this is a bug in gdb. The debugger should u
On 16/04/14 14:26 +0900, Luke Allardyce wrote:
Also the old standard seems to require that ios_base::fixed |
ios_base::scientific (or any other combination) falls through to the
uppercase test; I was trying to use abi_tag for a solution as not only
would two versions of _S_format_float be necessa
On 16/04/14 11:17, Joey Ye wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Earnshaw
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:04 PM
>> To: Joey Ye
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>>
>> On 16/04/14 11:02, Joey Ye wrote:
>>>
>>>
-Original
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:04 PM
> To: Joey Ye
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>
> On 16/04/14 11:02, Joey Ye wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Richard Earnshaw
Tom de Vries writes:
> On 16-01-14 09:13, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Tom de Vries writes:
>>> * The set of registers which are clobbered during a call by things
>>> like the plt
>>> - these are not picked up by the use-caller-save optimization. We
>>> need the
>>> hook to inform the comp
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:21 PM
> To: Joey Ye
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>
> On 16/04/14 11:17, Joey Ye wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Richard Earnshaw
> >>
On 16/04/14 11:30, Joey Ye wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Earnshaw
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:21 PM
>> To: Joey Ye
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [patch] Disable if_conversion2 for Og
>>
>> On 16/04/14 11:17, Joey Ye wrote:
-Original M
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 09:53:16PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> As Robert pointed out here:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>>
>> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
>> The value at expand time is sensib
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> As Robert pointed out here:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>>
>> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
>> The value at expand time is sensible, but
Hi,
This patch restarts the series for introducing Pointer Bounds Checker
instrumentation and supporting Intel Memory Protection Extension (MPX)
technology. Detailed description is on GCC Wiki page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler.
The first patch int
On 16/04/14 12:28, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > This patch introduces a hook that specifies which registers are implicitly
>> > clobbered by a call, not including the registers that are clobbered in the
>> > called function, and then uses that hook to add those registers to
>> > CALL_INSN_FUNCT
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:46:14AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >...why do we need two different mechanisms to deal with these two?
> >IMO the set recorded for the callee should contain what the callee
> >instructions clobber and nothing else. CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE
> >should contain everything
On Tuesday 15 April 2014 23:36:51 Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Those should be isolated and a compiler bug report opened including a
> minimized reproducer.
I'm not sure if this is a compiler bug or simply due to the fact that I didn't
add the virtual function to the ABI linker script.
> Anyway, the r
Hi,
This patch introduces Intel MPX bound registers and instructions. It was
approved earlier for 4.9 and had no significant changes since then. I'll
assume patch is OK if no objections arise.
Patch was bootstrapped and tested for linux-x86_64.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-04-16 Ilya Enkovich
Hello,
This is new patch version.
Lowering is applied only for bit-fields copy sequences that are merged.
Data structure representing bit-field copy sequences is renamed and reduced in
size.
Optimization turned on by default for -O2 and higher.
Some comments fixed.
Benchmarking performed on WebK
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:46:14AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> >...why do we need two different mechanisms to deal with these two?
>> >IMO the set recorded for the callee should contain what the callee
>> >instructions clobber and nothing else. CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE
>
Tom de Vries writes:
> On 16/04/14 12:28, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> > This patch introduces a hook that specifies which registers are
>>> > implicitly
>>> > clobbered by a call, not including the registers that are clobbered in
>>> > the
>>> > called function, and then uses that hook to add
Hi,
This patch introduces target hooks to be used by Pointer Bounds Checker. Hooks
set is different from what was approved for 4.9 (and later reverted). I added
hooks to work with returned bounds and to prepare incoming bounds for vararg
functions. It allowed to remove some target assumption
On 2014-04-15, 9:26 AM, Kito Cheng wrote:
Hi Vladimir:
Although this patch is safe. I guess it could wait for stage 1 as right now
we don't need this functionality.
The patch is ok for the stage1 which is probably about a month away.
ping
is this patch ok now?
Yes, I approved it alread
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:43:12AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "X" was defined against reload, which always reloaded MEM addresses
> to follow the appropriate base and index register classes. This was
> done as a first pass before matching against the constraints:
I think it would be fine i
Could someone install this on my behalf?
Hi Vladimir:
thanks your replay and approve, however I don't have commit right yet,
can you help to commit it? thanks!
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 2014-04-15, 9:26 AM, Kito Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vladimir:
>>
>>> Although this patch is safe. I guess it could wai
Could someone install this for me?
Hi,
This patch introduces built-in functions used by Pointer Bounds Checker. It is
mostly similar to what was reverted from 4.9, I just added types and attributes
to builtins. This patch also introduces pointer_bounds_type_node to be used in
built-in function type declarations.
Bootstrapped
On 16/04/14 13:19 +0200, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
On Tuesday 15 April 2014 23:36:51 Paolo Carlini wrote:
Those should be isolated and a compiler bug report opened including a
minimized reproducer.
I'm not sure if this is a compiler bug or simply due to the fact that I didn't
add the virtual f
Hi,
This patch introduces attributes used by Pointer Bounds Checker. Comparing to
what was approved for 4.9, this one has additional attribute 'bnd_instrument'
to be used for selective instrumentation.
Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-04-16 I
Hi,
This patch add new static constructor types used by Pointer Bounds Checker. It
was approved earlier for 4.9 and I'll assume patch is OK for trunk if no
objections arise.
Patch was bootstrapped and tested for linux-x86_64.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-04-16 Ilya Enkovich
* ipa.c
Hi,
This patch adds flags and ifaces to mark instrumented calls, extends return
stms with additional operand and introduces some basic bounds predicates.
These changes were previously reverted from 4.9 and I'll assume patch is OK for
trunk if no objections arise.
Patch was bootstrapped and te
Hi,
This patch add new field for varpool_node to mark vars requiring bounds
initalization. These changes were previously reverted from 4.9 and I'll assume
patch is OK for trunk if no objections arise.
Patch was bootstrapped and tested for linux-x86_64.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-04-16 Ilya E
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:43:12AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "X" was defined against reload, which always reloaded MEM addresses
>> to follow the appropriate base and index register classes. This was
>> done as a first pass before matching against the constraints:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:24:06PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > side-effect of inline-asm on certain location in memory, but don't really
> > need the address of that memory. Often "memory" is too big hammer,
> > people often say that certain inline-asm uses or sets or uses/sets or
> > clob
On 16 April 2014 13:38, Zoran Jovanovic wrote:
> Hello,
> This is new patch version.
The comment from the previous iteration still holds true:
> +@item -fbitfield-merge
you are talking about '-fmerge-bitfields' up until here.
Please fix all occurances of "bitfield-merge", both in the docs as we
Hi,
This patch introduces changes in call graph for Pointer Bounds Checker.
New fields instrumented_version, instrumentation_clone and orig_decl are added
for cgraph_node:
- instrumentation_clone field is 1 for nodes created for instrumented version
of functions
- instrumented_version points
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Zoran Jovanovic
wrote:
> Hello,
> This is new patch version.
> Lowering is applied only for bit-fields copy sequences that are merged.
> Data structure representing bit-field copy sequences is renamed and reduced
> in size.
> Optimization turned on by default for
For the 3d part of the patch there was a misprint in estimated
constant. It should be 1.7 instead of 1.8.
- retval = (retval * 18) / 10;
+ retval = (retval * 17) / 10;
Bootstarp passed.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Evgeny
On 04/15/2014 03:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/03/14 14:54 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
In string_view I botched the noexcept specification of operations
like find and friends with CharT* arguments.
I'm a little surprised the inconsistency between string_view and
string_view.tc
C++11 [ptr.align].
This should probably not be inline. But for now this avoids any ABI
changes.
* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/align/1.cc: New file.
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/memory (align): New function.
---
libstdc++-v3/include/std/memory | 35 +
libstdc++-v3/testsuit
C++11: [meta.trans.other]
* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/aligned_union/1.cc: New file.
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits (__strictest_alignment): New
helper struct.
(aligned_union): New struct (C++11).
(aligned_union_t): New type alias (C++14).
---
libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_trait
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:32 PM
> To: Moore, Catherine
> Cc: Rozycki, Maciej; Matthew Fortune; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] Fix operands for microMIPS SW16, SH16 and
> SB16
On 16/04/14 17:06 +0200, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
C++11 [ptr.align].
This should probably not be inline. But for now this avoids any ABI
changes.
Adding new non-member functions is fine ABI purposes (adding new
virtual functions is not).
Hello!
I am new to GCC.
I want to add a warning to GCC when bit comparison is always true/false.
Example:
if ((x&4)==0) {} // <- no warning
if ((x&4)==4) {} // <- no warning
if ((x&4)==5) {} // <- warn!
When this warning is triggered, the most common cause is that somebody
mad
On 16/04/14 17:06 +0200, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
C++11: [meta.trans.other]
* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/aligned_union/1.cc: New file.
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits (__strictest_alignment): New
helper struct.
(aligned_union): New struct (C++11).
(aligned_union_t): New type alias
On 16/04/14 16:19 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/04/14 17:06 +0200, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
C++11 [ptr.align].
This should probably not be inline. But for now this avoids any ABI
changes.
Adding new non-member functions is fine ABI purposes (adding new
virtual functions is not).
Act
Likely after this was checked in appeared following on x86
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-11.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (internal
compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-11.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-12.c -flto -ffat-lto-objec
On 04/16/2014 12:39 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
>> with respect to Fat_Pointer. Given that the Ada type, as defined in
>> s-stratt.ads, does not include alignment, I can't imagine why the C
>> type should have it.
>
> See gcc-int
> Thanks! I was hoping to implement it the straightforward way, but was
> thwarted by http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59012
There are certainly nicer ways to implement it. At least in C++14
there should be a usable constexpr std::max instead of the verbose
?: usage. Maybe sizeof/ali
Of course I forgot to replace one _M_ instance. This should work now.
Sorry about this.
-- 8< - >8 --
C++11: [meta.trans.other]
* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/aligned_union/1.cc: New file.
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits (__strict
> * Eric: In libgcc/config/sparc/sol2-unwind.h, I've removed the Solaris 9
> cases after verifying that the cuh_pattern's used there only occur in
> Solaris 9 (from FCS to the latest libthread.so.1 patch), but not even
> in Solaris 10 FCS.
>
> For Solaris 10, do you have any more details o
> Anyway, others can have different opinion on what "X" should mean,
> CCing Jeff and Eric.
I personally think that we should not change it and adjust LRA instead to
error out instead of ICEing (even if this means erroring out in a few more
cases with LRA than with reload for now, e.g. gcc.dg/to
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> * Eric: In libgcc/config/sparc/sol2-unwind.h, I've removed the Solaris 9
>> cases after verifying that the cuh_pattern's used there only occur in
>> Solaris 9 (from FCS to the latest libthread.so.1 patch), but not even
>> in Solaris 10 FCS.
>>
>> For Solaris 10,
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> Anyway, others can have different opinion on what "X" should mean,
>> CCing Jeff and Eric.
>
> I personally think that we should not change it and adjust LRA instead to
> error out instead of ICEing (even if this means erroring out in a few more
> cases with LRA than wit
OK.
Jason
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Rong, David, Dehao, Teresa
> I would like to have some rought idea of what we could merge this stage1.
> There is
> certainly a lot of interesting stuff on the google branch including AutoFDO,
> LIPO,
> the multivalue profile counters that ma
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> For the 3d part of the patch there was a misprint in estimated
> constant. It should be 1.7 instead of 1.8.
> - retval = (retval * 18) / 10;
> + retval = (retval * 17) / 10;
>
> Bootstarp passed.
The change is also OK.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Now that 4.9 has branched, it's time to actually remove the obsolete
> Solaris 9 configuration. Most of this is just legwork and falls under
> my Solaris maintainership.
>
> A couple of questions, though:
>
> * Uros: I'm removing all sse_os_su
On 04/15/2014 03:56 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
The testsuite doesn't hit this code with C++, but does hit this code
with C. The thing is, if we have e.g.
enum { A = 128 };
void *fn1 (void) __attribute__((assume_aligned (A)));
then handle_assume_aligned_attribute walks the attribute arguments
and g
This avoids a template instantiation when storing a function pointer
in a std::function.
At some point I want to extend the definition of
__is_location_invariant to include trivially-copyable object types.
I suspect this may be why boost::function can perform significantly
better than our std::fu
On 04/14/2014 01:02 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:01:31PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
So, now that 4.9 has branched, are both patches ok for trunk, or just the
first one? The first one fixes --with-build-config=bootstrap-ubsan
fully and --with-build-config=bootstrap-asan p
I'll approve both patches, if you agree to think about a way to solve
this problem without module-specific configury changes for each such
command line option. I understand the usefulness of having
instrumentation, but the configure hack is a hack.
Note that in a combined tree this isn't a probl
"Moore, Catherine" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:32 PM
>> To: Moore, Catherine
>> Cc: Rozycki, Maciej; Matthew Fortune; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] Fix operands for
Vladimir,
All patches for the fuse-caller-save optimization have been ok-ed. The only part
not approved is the MIPS-specific part.
The objection of Richard S. is not so much the patch itself, but more the idea
of the hook fn_other_hard_reg_usage.
For clarity, I'm restating the current hook defin
operand[0] has a subreg taken (as operand[3]), which is modified
before operand[1] is used.
Built succesfully but I'm not set up to run the testsuite, sorry.
It fixes the testcase of course.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-04-16 Segher Boessenkool
* config/m68k/m68k.md (extendplussidi): Add ear
Tom de Vries writes:
> Vladimir,
>
> All patches for the fuse-caller-save optimization have been ok-ed. The only
> part
> not approved is the MIPS-specific part.
>
> The objection of Richard S. is not so much the patch itself, but more the idea
> of the hook fn_other_hard_reg_usage.
>
> For clari
On 04/15/2014 12:21 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
a lot of time ago I noticed that these parameters are unused: should I
prepare a ChangeLog for the below or we have stylistic, etc, reasons for
keeping the parameters?
I'd leave them alone, we might want to print something sometime.
PS: I also see
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
>
> * Ian: I've removed Solaris 8 and 9 support from libgo. I'm uncertain
> if you want this or rather keep that support for the 4.[789] branches?
I want it. I don't try to maintain exact copies of older GCC
branches.
Your patch appears sep
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>>
>> * Ian: I've removed Solaris 8 and 9 support from libgo. I'm uncertain
>> if you want this or rather keep that support for the 4.[789] branches?
>
> I want it. I don't try to maintain exact copies of older
Hi,
On 04/16/2014 09:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/15/2014 12:21 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
a lot of time ago I noticed that these parameters are unused: should I
prepare a ChangeLog for the below or we have stylistic, etc, reasons for
keeping the parameters?
I'd leave them alone, we might
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Rainer Orth
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> * Ian: I've removed Solaris 8 and 9 support from libgo. I'm uncertain
>>> if you want this or rather keep that support for the 4.[789] branches?
>
On 04/16/14 13:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
operand[0] has a subreg taken (as operand[3]), which is modified
before operand[1] is used.
Built succesfully but I'm not set up to run the testsuite, sorry.
It fixes the testcase of course.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-04-16 Segher Boessenkool
On 04/08/2014 09:56 PM, seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
+/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* && lp64 } } } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "" { powerpc*-*-darwin* } { "*" } { "" } } */
Please leave out the default arguments. Why does this need skipping
on Darwin?
+;; Define the TImode operations
> >> Did you see the failures even after your mips_regno_mode_ok_for_base_p
> >> change? LRA should know how to reload a "W" address.
> >
> > Yes but I realize there is more. It fails because $sp is now included
> > in BASE_REG_CLASS and "W" is based on it. However, I suppose that
> > it would be
On 04/16/14 07:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Creating a (mem (scratch)) too early may pessimize code too much,
perhaps it can be used during say sched1 etc. for alias analysis, (mem
(scratch)) is considered to alias everything,.
Plus, I think at least so far we have not been doing different decisions
On 04/16/14 09:27, Daniel Marjamäki wrote:
Hello!
I am new to GCC.
I want to add a warning to GCC when bit comparison is always true/false.
Example:
if ((x&4)==0) {} // <- no warning
if ((x&4)==4) {} // <- no warning
if ((x&4)==5) {} // <- warn!
When this warning is trigg
On 04/16/14 13:41, Richard Sandiford wrote:
IMO CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE is like a "varargs" part of the call pattern.
In other words it's a way of allowing the set of uses and clobbers to
vary from call to call without having to define lots of different call
define_insns. If you look at it lik
Samuel Thibault, le Sat 12 Apr 2014 01:04:49 +0200, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault, le Fri 11 Apr 2014 23:51:44 +0200, a écrit :
> > So, do we really want to let munmap poke a hole at address 0 and thus
> > let further vm_map() return address 0?
>
> i.e. we could apply this:
I have applied it.
Samu
On 01/13/14 01:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00140.html
- Ensure GET_MODE_{SIZE,INNER,NUNITS} (const) is constant rather than
memory load after optimization (I'd like to keep the current
patch for the reasons mention
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
