On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> The problem in this PR is that rs6000_stack_info spends an enormous amount
> of time when compiling thunks. This turns out to be a loop in
> compute_vrsave_mask that loops (almost) 4G times because the loop counter
> is unsigned and the
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:51:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Won't the patch pessimize say const method calls through vtable?
I was worried about accidental pessimization too, so ran a full gcc
build with the patch and compared against one with s/ABI_AIX/ABI_NONE/
in rs6000_has_function_descri
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Richard Biener
> >> Did you check whether other targets have function descriptors (seem
> >> to remember the Itanic here at least)?
Yes, ia64 and hppa64 use function descriptors. I don't know of any
On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:06 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> +@item #pragma GCC unroll @var{"n"}
>> +@cindex pragma GCC unroll @var{"n"}
>
> @var contains the name of a metasyntactic variable; it doesn't make sense
> for quotes to be included in that name. And
On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> + if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (expr))
>> + || TREE_CODE (expr) != INTEGER_CST
>> + || (lunroll = tree_to_shwi (expr)) < 0
>> + || lunroll > USHRT_MAX)
>> +{
>> + c_parser_er
On Jan 29, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> The patch is OK for GCC 6
We will be releasing 5.x compilers for the next decade?! Does he really have
to wait 10 years?
Why not, just OK for stage 1?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> The patch is OK for GCC 6
>
> We will be releasing 5.x compilers for the next decade?! Does he really have
> to wait 10 years?
>
> Why not, just OK for stage 1?
You missed the memo on the v
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:19:51PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > This means that you still will be able to create a testcase that is
> > > miscompiled with exposing the address-taking to points-to analysis.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't s
On 01/29/15 13:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 07:30:31AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
@@ -2643,6 +2644,34 @@ try_combine (rtx_insn *i3, rtx_insn *i2, rtx_insn *i1,
rtx_insn *i0,
|| GET_CODE (src) == LSHIFTRT)
nshift++;
}
+
+ /* If I0
On 01/29/15 12:27, David Edelsohn wrote:
As discussed in the PR and referenced by the comment in the testcase
itself, the failure is expected on PowerPC and also occurs on SPARC.
Thanks, David
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c: XFAIL for powerpc*-*-* and sparc*-*-*.
Seems good to me. As Raine
On 01/28/15 15:16, Rainer Orth wrote:
Jakub Jelinek writes:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:42:47PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
2015-01-28 Rainer Orth
gcc/testsuite:
* gcc.dg/guality/guality.h (main): Add argv[0] to
guality_gdb_command.
OK.
As for what to do with guality,
On 01/29/15 07:44, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
So here's the updated patch which handles all 4 testcases from the PR as well
as a couple of my own.
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+/* PR 15184 first two tests, plus two addition ones. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -m32 -march=pentiumpro"
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:12:27PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2014-December/123776.html
> shows gcc-5 miscompiling a powerpc64 linux kernel. The executive
> summary is that the rs6000 backend has a bug in its RTL description of
> indirect calls. We
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:15:02 +
Joseph Myers wrote:
> > +#if 0
> > + /* Check needs to be implemented. */
> > + fuic (-1. + 0.i);
> > + vuic = -1. + 0.i;
> > +#endif
>
> The #if 0 cases should have a bug filed in Bugzilla to track that
> certain checks aren't implemented.
Thanks for revi
101 - 114 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
