On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:17 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> OK for trunk - thanks.
Committed. :)
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Tim Shen
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> The fallback delegitimization I've added as last option mainly for
>> debug info purposes, when we don't know if the base is a PIC register
>> or say a PIC register plus some addend,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:28 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:43:12AM +, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> > On 11/05/14 02:30, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> >> Thanks very much for reviewing. I refined the patch according to your
>> >> com
Ping. Anybody have a look?
Thanks,
bin
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This is the patch implementing ldp/stp optimization for aarch64. It
> consists of two parts. The first one is peephole part, which further
> includes ldp/stp patterns (both peephole patterns and t
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:13:10AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> >> The fallback delegitimization I've added as last option mainly for
> >> debug info purposes, when we don't know if
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:35:09AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> My last 2 bootstraps failed, both because of a race while building
> host gengtype (each time different gengtype*.o).
Found bootstrap failures even with this patch (dunno what changed on my box
that I started getting these last night
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
> Committed. Thank you too!
I'm backporting this patch to gcc-4_9-branch. Do we usually boot &
test it and then commit directly, or it should be reviewed again?
--
Regards,
Tim Shen
commit 1e146769d08ff19cc01a08b91ca8fd3151f34faf
Author: timshen
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard Henderson
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 4:57 PM
> To: Zhenqiang Chen; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Marcus Shawcroft
> Subject: Re: [PATCH, AARCH64] Fix ICE in CCM
Hi,
This patch partly fixes PR bootstrap/63995 by avoiding duplicating static
bounds vars. With this fix bootstrap still fails at stage 2 and 3 comparison.
Bootstrapped and checked on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-11-25 Ilya Enkovich
PR bootstr
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
> Committed with comment fix and slight change on testcase
> (VERIFY(false) at end of the try block -- must throw).
Is it possible to backport this patch to 4.9 branch? It's an important
fix, but I'm not sure if there's any binary compatibilit
Hi,
This patch adds check for mempcpy availability for tests requiring it. Checked
with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32,}' i386.exp=chkp-*". OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
2014-11-25 Ilya Enkovich
PR target/64056
* gcc.target/i386/chkp-strlen-4.c: Add mempcpy target
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/22/14 11:50, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> These two tests fix PR target/63847 [1], where x87 excess precision
>> causes testcase to fail. The problem was triggered by -fpic, please
>> see the PR for analysis.
>>
>> The patch adds -
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As mentioned in the PR, when preprocessing very large files, if there are
> huge numbers of lines where no #line is emitted, we might not detect
> overflowinging into adhoc locations.
> Apparently in the add_map case we already handl
On 11/25/2014 09:41 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> I want to confirm with you two things before I rework it.
> (1) expand_insn needs an optab_handler as input. Do I need to define a
> ccmp_optab with different mode support in optabs.def?
No, look again: expand_insn needs an enum insn_code as input.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I ran into a problem with my oacc kernels directive patch series where
> tail-merge added another entry into a region that was previously
> single-entry-single-exit.
>
> That resulted in hitting this assert in calc_dfs_tree:
> ...
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> > TREE_LIST should die (with the typical replacement being vec);
>> > most lists do not need all the overhead of individually allocated objects
>> > with (code, flags, type, chain, value, purpose
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/23/14 15:22, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>> >The second patch attached limits the search for FSM jump threads to loops.
>> >With
>> >that patch, we are now down to 470 jump threads in an x86_64-linux bootstrap
>> >(and 42
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/22/14 11:50, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> These two tests fix PR target/63847 [1], where x87 excess precision
>>> causes testcase to fail. The problem was triggered by
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch partly fixes PR bootstrap/63995 by avoiding duplicating static
> bounds vars. With this fix bootstrap still fails at stage 2 and 3 comparison.
>
> Bootstrapped and checked on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
>
> T
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch adds check for mempcpy availability for tests requiring it.
> Checked with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32,}' i386.exp=chkp-*". OK
> for trunk?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Ilya
> --
> 2014-11-25 Ilya E
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> On 17 Nov 10:57, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
>> > On 14 Nov 09:01, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
>> >> > On 14 Nov 08:46, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> >> What
2014-11-25 12:43 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch partly fixes PR bootstrap/63995 by avoiding duplicating static
>> bounds vars. With this fix bootstrap still fails at stage 2 and 3
>> comparison.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and c
On 2014.11.24 at 22:05 +, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> I got my scripts installed on the gcc-farm. I first used an x86_64 gcc75 and
> valgrind was crashing not recognizing how to decode an instruction. Then I
> moved to gcc112 a powerpc64-linux where I got this data from stage2 cc1plus
> compiling
On 25/11/14 00:41 -0800, Tim Shen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
Committed. Thank you too!
I'm backporting this patch to gcc-4_9-branch. Do we usually boot &
test it and then commit directly, or it should be reviewed again?
I approved it for the branch (in the bugzi
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
These two tests fix PR target/63847 [1], where x87 excess precision
causes testcase to fail. The problem was triggered by -fpic, please
see the PR for analysis.
The patch adds -ffloat-store for 32bit x86 target, a stand
Hi Honza,
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:57:42 +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> +cgraph_node::call_for_symbol_thunks_and_aliases_1 (bool (*callback)
> + (cgraph_node *, void *),
> + void *data,
> + bool include_overwritable,
> + bool exclude_virtual_thunks)
>
> Instead of adding _1 variant into public API,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2014-11-25 12:43 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch partly fixes PR bootstrap/63995 by avoiding duplicating static
>>> bounds vars. With this fix bootstrap st
On 24-11-14 11:56, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 18:19, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 13:14, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
I'm submitting a patch series with initial support for the oacc kernels
directive.
The patch series uses pass_parallelize_loops to implement parallelization of
loops in the
On 15-11-14 18:20, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 13:14, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
I'm submitting a patch series with initial support for the oacc kernels
directive.
The patch series uses pass_parallelize_loops to implement parallelization of
loops in the oacc kernels region.
The patch series
On 15-11-14 18:21, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 13:14, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
I'm submitting a patch series with initial support for the oacc kernels
directive.
The patch series uses pass_parallelize_loops to implement parallelization of
loops in the oacc kernels region.
The patch series
On 15-11-14 18:21, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 13:14, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
I'm submitting a patch series with initial support for the oacc kernels
directive.
The patch series uses pass_parallelize_loops to implement parallelization of
loops in the oacc kernels region.
The patch series
On 15-11-14 18:22, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 13:14, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
I'm submitting a patch series with initial support for the oacc kernels
directive.
The patch series uses pass_parallelize_loops to implement parallelization of
loops in the oacc kernels region.
The patch series
On 15-11-14 18:22, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 13:14, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
I'm submitting a patch series with initial support for the oacc kernels
directive.
The patch series uses pass_parallelize_loops to implement parallelization of
loops in the oacc kernels region.
The patch series
On 15-11-14 18:23, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 13:14, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
I'm submitting a patch series with initial support for the oacc kernels
directive.
The patch series uses pass_parallelize_loops to implement parallelization of
loops in the oacc kernels region.
The patch series
Hi,
we are crashing on this kind of invalid code because we don't early
check the case with check_for_bare_parameter_packs. Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
//
/cp
2014-11-25 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/63786
* parser.c (cp_parser_label_for_labeled_statemen
2014-11-25 14:11 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Ilya Enkovich
> wrote:
>> 2014-11-25 12:43 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
Hi,
This patch partly fixes PR bootstrap/63995 by avoiding duplicati
Hi,
As proposed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63853
this patch replaces some function calls with pointer arithmetic.
I didn't mention PR in Changelog, as they are not actually related.
Ok for trunk?
gcc/
* gcc.c (handle_foffload_option): Remove unnecessary calls to strc
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 03:15:04PM +0300, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> As proposed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63853
> this patch replaces some function calls with pointer arithmetic.
> I didn't mention PR in Changelog, as they are not actually related.
> Ok for trunk?
> @@ -3408,8 +3408
Hello.
Following patch is fix sreal problems that are mentioned in PR64050, PR64060.
I added new GCC plugin test where I test sreal arithmetics and number
comparison.
Patch can bootstrap on ppc64-linux-pc and x86_64-linux-pc and can pass
regression
tests.
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-1
Hi,
The enclosed testcase fails on x86 when compiled with -Os since we pass
a byte parameter with a byte load in caller and read it as an int in
callee. The reason it only shows up with -Os is x86 backend encodes
a byte load with an int load if -O isn't used. When a byte load is
used, the upper
On 11/25/14 7:56, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> + gcc_assert (wi::fits_to_tree_p(value, integer_type_node));
>
> Watch formatting: space before '(' in the wi::fits_to_tree_p call.
> Applies elsewhere in this patch as well.
>
OK, thanks, I shall notice next.
OK.
Jason
I am testing the following patch which reverts order of group
and pattern analysis to 4.8 state. It doesn't really matter but
it avoids pattern analysis to know about groups which its failure
causes the wrong-code in the PR.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Help wi
The following might fix PR64065 but is certainly a bug.
Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Richard.
2014-11-25 Richard Biener
PR lto/64065
* lto-streamer-out.c (output_struct_function_base): Stream
last_clique field.
* lto-streamer-in.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Tested as usual... okay for trunk?
>
>
> Segher
>
>
> 2014-11-24 Segher Boessenkool
>
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/sysv4.h (ASM_OUTPUT_REG_POP): Use addi instead
> of addic.
Okay.
Thanks, David
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> As Richard pointed out, those do nothing more than code/CODE.
> Tested etc.; okay for trunk?
>
>
> Segher
>
>
> 2014-11-21 Segher Boessenkool
>
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.md (iorxor, IORXOR): Delete code_attrs.
>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Michael Haubenwallner
wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/2014 04:02 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> Why does the configure change match with p*-*-aix... instead of power*
>> or powerpc*? Yes, it's unique and will match, but why make it as
>> short as possible, whi
vld1_lane intrinsics ICE at -O0 because they contain a call to the vset_lane
intrinsics, through which the lane index is not constant-propagated. (They are
fine at -O1 and higher!). This fixes the ICE by replacing said call by a macro.
Rather than defining many individual macros
__aarch64_vset
I will test the following patch fixing a tree sharing issue in
PR62238 and plugging a SSA name leak. The issue here is that
force_gimple_operand and friends modify trees in-place, injecting
SSA name uses to them. If you end up not emitting their definitions
or and up re-using those trees in not
This patch adds CFI directives to the floating point support code for ARM.
Previously, if we tried to do a backtrace from that code in a debug session we'd
get something like this:
(gdb) bt
#0 __nedf2 () at
../../../../../../gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/config/arm/ieee754-df.S:1082
#1 0x0db6 in __aeab
On 15-09-14 18:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
libstdc++-v3/
* testsuite/Makefile.am (check_p_numbers0, check_p_numbers1,
check_p_numbers2, check_p_numbers3, check_p_numbers4,
check_p_numbers5, check_p_numbers6, check_p_numbers,
check_p_subdirs): New variables.
(c
We need to use unknown_type_node for non-dependent arguments, too; we
don't know what type the variable has until we look up the specialization.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit c348ed4ea7152054ff623a3efbca7fab49227a5f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mon Nov 24 19:14:04 2014
Hi Prachi,
> OK with fixes to the changelog entry:
>
> latency not latency. Remember to tab in the changelog entry and split the
> line as it will exceed 80 chars. Also two spaces between the date/name and
> name/email. E.g.
>
> 2014-11-05 Prachi Godbole
>
> * config/mips/mips.c (mips
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Following patch is fix sreal problems that are mentioned in PR64050,
> PR64060.
> I added new GCC plugin test where I test sreal arithmetics and number
> comparison.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64-linux-pc and x86_64-linux-pc and
On 25-11-14 10:28, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
Richard,
I ran into a problem with my oacc kernels directive patch series where
tail-merge added another entry into a region that was previously
single-entry-single-exit.
That resulted in hitting thi
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The enclosed testcase fails on x86 when compiled with -Os since we pass
> a byte parameter with a byte load in caller and read it as an int in
> callee. The reason it only shows up with -Os is x86 backend encodes
> a byte load with an int
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The enclosed testcase fails on x86 when compiled with -Os since we pass
>> a byte parameter with a byte load in caller and read it as an int in
>> callee. The reason it only show
Re: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02879.html
The new FPXX tests now work correctly for soft-float configurations.
Tests should only need to specify one of the 5 floating-point options
and any other options are then inferred from that. The FPXX tests
were the first tests to really r
On 20/11/2014, 16:51 , Tom de Vries wrote:
OK for trunk?
This is fine. Thanks.
Diego.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 25-11-14 10:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Tom de Vries
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> I ran into a problem with my oacc kernels directive patch series where
>>> tail-merge added another entry into a r
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The enclosed testcase fails on x86 when compiled with -Os since we pass
>> a byte parameter with a byte load in caller and read it as an int in
>> callee. The reason it only show
On 25/11/14 01:36, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tuesday 2014-11-18 09:38, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Here's what I propose.
+ The cryptographic extensions to the ARMv8-A architecture are no
+ longer enabled by default when specifying the
+ -mcpu=cortex-a53, -mcpu=cortex-a57 or
+
On 11/24/14 21:55, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/24/14 18:09, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Sebastian Pop wrote:
I removed the return -1 and started a bootstrap on powerpc64-linux.
Bootstrap passed on top of the 4 previous patches on powerpc64-linux.
I will report the valgrind output.
The output from valg
On 11/24/14 20:44, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
I wonder how this survived so long, I must be building some strange
configs (it failed on an avr cross). Okay for trunk?
Segher
2014-11-24 Segher Boessenkool
libgcc/
* crtstuff.c (__do_glbal_ctors_1): Add missing semicolon.
I think th
From: Trevor Saunders
Hi,
this is a new warning to find places where virtual functions are over ridden,
but not marked override.
included test passes, I expect comments so regtest is pending, and ChangeLog is
omitted.
Trev
---
gcc/c-family/c.opt| 5 +
gcc/c
On 11/24/14 20:56, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
This caused ICEs on sh64.
`min_cost' and `def' here are supposed to refer to the same element;
removing it from the heap before asking the heap for the key doesn't
work (and at the end of the loop here we will ask for min_key on an
empty heap, which t
On 11/24/14 20:37, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
`lcc' is not an insn but just a pattern. This caused a build error in
libgcc.
Tested with a cross compiler build (which fails without and succeeds
with the patch). Not tested much more; this compiler really likes to
ICE, something with ipa-icf.
Is t
On 11/24/14 09:51, Alan Lawrence wrote:
Having just been experimenting with testing of installed compilers - yes
something like this could be useful, however: to do cross-testing I
found I also (a) had to set my target_list; so either an extra flag for
that, or maybe just a generic 'extra_site_fl
Hi all,
This patch improves current optimization of ASAN_CHECKS performed by
sanopt pass. In addition to searching the sanitized pointer in
asan_check_map, it also tries to search for definition of this pointer.
This allows more checks to be dropped when definition is not a gimple
value (e.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:44:35AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/24/14 20:37, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >`lcc' is not an insn but just a pattern. This caused a build error in
> >libgcc.
> A good example of a case that would have been caught if we get to a
> point where stuff in the insn chain
On 11/25/14 10:14, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:44:35AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/24/14 20:37, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
`lcc' is not an insn but just a pattern. This caused a build error in
libgcc.
A good example of a case that would have been caught if we get to
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:41:40AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/24/14 20:56, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >This caused ICEs on sh64.
> >
> >`min_cost' and `def' here are supposed to refer to the same element;
> >removing it from the heap before asking the heap for the key doesn't
> >work (and at t
On 11/25/14 10:26, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:41:40AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/24/14 20:56, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
This caused ICEs on sh64.
`min_cost' and `def' here are supposed to refer to the same element;
removing it from the heap before asking the heap fo
Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/24/14 21:55, Jeff Law wrote:
> >On 11/24/14 18:09, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> >>Sebastian Pop wrote:
> >>>I removed the return -1 and started a bootstrap on powerpc64-linux.
> >>
> >>Bootstrap passed on top of the 4 previous patches on powerpc64-linux.
> >>
> >>>I will report th
Hello!
2014-11-25 Uros Bizjak
* intrinsics/env.c (getenv): Remove unused variable res_len.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Almost trivial, but ... OK for mainline?
Uros.
Index: intrinsics/env.c
===
--- intrinsics/env.c
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 07:17:17PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> 2014-11-25 Uros Bizjak
>
> * intrinsics/env.c (getenv): Remove unused variable res_len.
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
> Almost trivial, but ... OK for mainline?
>
Yes.
--
Steve
On 11/14/14 12:19, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
If I2 is a PARALLEL of two SETs, split it into two instructions, I1
and I2. If there already was an I1, rename it to I0. If there
already was an I0, don't do anything.
This surprisingly simple patch is enough to let combine handle such
PARALLELs pro
On 11/14/14 12:19, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
With this new field in place, we can have LOG_LINKS for insns that set
more than one register and distribute them properly in distribute_links.
This then allows many more PARALLELs to be combined.
Also split off new functions can_combine_{def,use}_p f
Hi Jakub,
On Wednesday 2014-11-12 14:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> This patch mentions __builtin_*_overflow in gcc-5/changes.html.
> Ok for CVS?
I've fallen a bit behind with GCC patches, sorry.
What do you think about this follow-up patch on top of yours?
Gerald
Index: changes.html
=
Ping^4 for: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
>
>> Patches posted early enough during Stage 1 and not yet fully reviewed
>> may still get
>> 2014-11-24 Rohit
>>
>> PR bootstrap/63703
>> * config/rs6000/darwin.h (REGISTER_NAMES): Update based on 32 newly
>> added GCC hard register numbers for SPE high registers.
>>
>
> IMO, it's obvious, and as you say, doesn't touch any other target.
After further confirmations
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 07:50:02PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On Wednesday 2014-11-12 14:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > This patch mentions __builtin_*_overflow in gcc-5/changes.html.
> > Ok for CVS?
>
> I've fallen a bit behind with GCC patches, sorry.
>
> What do you think abou
Hello!
Recently, gcc bootstrap started to emit following warnings when
building libobjc:
libobjc/sendmsg.c:338:13: warning: ‘get_implementation’ is static but
used in inline function ‘get_imp’ which is not static
libobjc/sendmsg.c:335:15: warning: ‘sarray_get_safe’ is static but
used in inline fu
On 11/14/14 12:19, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Now that LOG_LINKS are per regno, we can distribute them on PARALLELs
just fine. Do so. This makes PARALLELs not lose their LOG_LINKS early
when e.g. a trivial reg-reg move is combined, so that they can be used
in more useful combinations as well.
On 11/20/2014 02:48 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
this issue fixes a type-overflow issue caused by trying to cast a UHWI
via tree_to_shwi.
As soon as value gets larger then SHWI_MAX, we get an error for it.
So we need to cast it via tree_to_uhwi, and then casting it to the signed
variant.
The problem s
The original length 18 is not enough for HOST_WIDE_INT printing, need
use 20 instead of.
Also need additional bytes for printing related prefix and suffix, and
give a related check.
It passes testsuite under fedora 20 x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
2014-11-26 Chen Gang
* c-family/c-cppbui
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Recently, gcc bootstrap started to emit following warnings when
> building libobjc:
>
> libobjc/sendmsg.c:338:13: warning: ‘get_implementation’ is static but
> used in inline function ‘get_imp’ which is not static
> libobjc/sendmsg.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The enclosed testcase fails on x86 when compiled with -Os since we pass
>>> a byte parameter with a byte load in ca
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 03:27:40PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> This patch fixes that by ensuring that we print that unsupported message only
> once.
>
> The resulting test result comparison diff is:
> 2014-11-25 Tom de Vries
>
> * testsuite/libstdc++-prettyprinters/prettyprinters.exp:
The following patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
The patch was tested and bootstrapped on x86/x86-64.
Committed as rev. 218509.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
Index: ira-lives.c
===
-
On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 10:15 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/25/14 10:14, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:44:35AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 11/24/14 20:37, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> `lcc' is not an insn but just a pattern. This caused a build error in
> >>> libgcc
On Nov 23, 2014, at 4:06 PM, FX wrote:
> One question to build maintainers, and one patch submitted to top-level
> configure.ac
So, not sure who wants to review this. From the darwin perspective, Ok.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The following patch fixes
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
>
> The patch was tested and bootstrapped on x86/x86-64.
>
> Committed as rev. 218509.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
I checked in t
> > Index: gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
> > ===
> > --- gcc/ipa-pure-const.c (revision 215888)
> > +++ gcc/ipa-pure-const.c (working copy)
> > @@ -744,6 +744,8 @@ analyze_function (struct cgraph_node *fn, bool ipa
> > {
> > /* Thunk gets propa
On 25/11/14 20:37, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 4:06 PM, FX wrote:
>> One question to build maintainers, and one patch submitted to top-level
>> configure.ac
>
> So, not sure who wants to review this. From the darwin perspective, Ok.
I mean from my limited viewpoint it looks fine. As
> From: Trevor Saunders
>
> Hi,
>
> the interesting symbol in the test case for pr61324 is __GLOBAL__sub_I_s. It
> refers to nothing, and is called by nothing, however it is kept (I believe
> because of -fkeep-inline-functions). That means ipa_comdats never tries to
> put
Aha, that explans w
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Vladimir Makarov
> wrote:
>> The following patch fixes
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
>>
>> The patch was tested and bootstrapped on x86/x86-64.
>>
>> Committed as rev. 218509.
>>
>> ht
Sebastian Pop wrote:
> I will bootstrap and regression test this patch on x86_64-linux and
> powerpc64-linux. I will also run it on our internal benchmarks, coremark, and
> the llvm test-suite.
>
> I will also include a longer testcase that makes sure we do not regress on
> coremark.
Done all th
> Build and regtested on x86-64-gnu-linux.
> OK for the trunk?
OK
> (a) those majority which might need buffering (gfc_error, gfc_warning);
Is there a plan for those in the longer term?
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86-64-gnu-linux.
> OK for the trunk?
OK
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
