Dear Andre,
I am persuaded by the arguments of Jerry and Dominique that this is
good for trunk. Please commit as early as possible in order that any
regressions can be caught, if possible, before release.
Thanks
Paul
On 21 March 2015 at 15:11, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
> Dear Andre,
>
> I hav
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 14:20 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > After noticing tree-parloop.c passing crap to split_block (a tree
> > rather than a gimple or an rtx) I noticed those CFG functions simply
> > take void * pointers. The following patch fixes t
Jan Hubicka writes:
> * ipa-devirt.c: Include demangle.h
This breaks ada.
../libiberty/libiberty.a(cplus-dem.o): In function `ada_demangle':
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20150323/Build/libiberty/../../libiberty/cplus-dem.c:895:
multiple definition of `ada_demangle'
ada/adadecode.o:/
Hi,
I'd like to ping for this patch, which I hope can still go in the gcc-5 release:
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00817.html for the
patch files.
Thanks,
Bernd.
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:53:00 +0100
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> when looking at the m68k I realized the following, which
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:00:33PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> 2015-03-18 Uros Bizjak
>>>
>>> PR rtl-optimization/60851
>>> * recog.c (constrain_operands): Accept a pseudo r
Hi Paul,
thanks for the reviews. Let me ask one questions before I do something wrong.
You have reviewed and approved (with changes) the patches:
- vtab_access_rework1_v1.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00074.html
- vtab_access_rework2_v1.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/
Hi,
May this patch go into trunk at this point? It is very important for
dynamic MPX codes.
Thanks,
Ilya
2015-03-18 14:56 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> Hi,
>
> This patch fixes PR target/65444 by passing '-z bndplt' to linker when
> appropriate. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-g
> From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:stevenb@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 8:14 PM
>
> I put the cprop_reg_p check there instead of !HARD_REGISTER_P
> because
> I like to be able to quickly find all places where a similar check is
> performed. The check is whether the reg is something t
Dear Andre,
Yes, that's right. The first three (vtab rework 1/2 and pr64787) are
combined and reformatted in the .diff file that I sent you. Please use
that and then apply the pr55901 patch. This is what I am okaying.
Cheers
Paul
On 23 March 2015 at 10:45, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
> Hi Paul,
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:11:24PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> PR ipa/65475
> * ipa-devirt.c: Include demangle.h
> ===
> --- ipa-devirt.c (revision 221572)
> +++ ipa-devirt.c (working copy)
> @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@
On 23/03/15 11:22, Joern Wolfgang Rennecke wrote:
On 20/03/15 16:02, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
Hi Joern,
I have a small patch for ARC backend that fixes the value of
instruction length attribute when the instruction is predicated. Ok
to apply?
Assuming you tested it, this patch is OK.
>>
> >> I have a small patch for ARC backend that fixes the value of
> >> instruction length attribute when the instruction is predicated. Ok
> >> to apply?
> >
> > Assuming you tested it, this patch is OK.
>
> Sorry, I replied to the wrong patch - I meant to reply to your email with the
> patch
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> What about the cprop_reg_p that needs to be negated? Did I miss something
> that makes it ok?
You didn't miss anything. I sent the wrong patch. The one I tested on
ppc64 also has the condition reversed:
@@ -1328,9 +1329,8 @@ implicit_
Hi all,
commited as r221591 to gcc_4.9-branch. Okayed by Paul via IRC on 2015-03-22.
Thanks, Paul.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
2015-03-23 Andre Vehreschild
Janus Weil
Backported from mainline
PR fortran/60255
Initial patch version: Janus Weil
* class.c
Le 20/03/2015 14:51, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> during checking that pr 61275 is really fixed, I found a indentation issue and
> a piece of my former code, that could be done nicer and more readable. This
> patch addresses both these issues.
>
> Bootstraps and regtests ok on x86_64
26/02/2015 18:17, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> This first patch is only preparatory and does not change any of the semantics
> of
> gfortran at all.
Sure?
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.c b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
> index ab6f7a5..d28cf77 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/expr.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
This fixes PR65494 - I don't remember why I re-allocated matches
before recursing into operands. But that at least breaks backtracking.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2015-03-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65494
* tree-vect-sl
Hi Mikael,
thanks for looking at the patch. Please note, that Paul has sent an addendum to
the patches for 60322, which I deliberately have attached.
> 26/02/2015 18:17, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> > This first patch is only preparatory and does not change any of the
> > semantics of gfortran
Le 23/03/2015 13:43, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> Hi Mikael,
>
> thanks for looking at the patch. Please note, that Paul has sent an addendum
> to
> the patches for 60322, which I deliberately have attached.
>
>> 26/02/2015 18:17, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
>>> This first patch is only prepar
This fixes PR65518 where the vectorizer builds a gigantic
load/interleaving chain for single element interleaving with
a very large distance. This situation isn't really "supported"
(and works by luck with generating absymal code), thus the following
simply disables support for it.
Bootstrapped
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:11:24PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> --- testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
> +++ testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> +/* { dg-lto-do link } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wno-odr" } */
Wasn't this supposed to be dg-lto-options ins
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> The gnat-style.texi part is OK. I cannot approve the fdl part though.
> Gerald,
>
> Can you approve the fdl part?
Let's assume I can. Okay.
Can you just describe the _why_ a bit in a @comment (in simple
words beyond showing the error message), that is
Hi!
The recent IPA ICF hashing changes broke -fcompare-debug, hashing in
pointers is not stable not just for -fcompare-debug, but supposedly even
just different runs with the exact same options could yield different
assembly. Hashing on DECL_UID is not good either, that is not guaranteed to
be th
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The recent IPA ICF hashing changes broke -fcompare-debug, hashing in
> pointers is not stable not just for -fcompare-debug, but supposedly even
> just different runs with the exact same options could yield different
> assembly. Hashing on DECL_
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:11:24PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> --- testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
>> +++ testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
>> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
>> +/* { dg-lto-do link } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-O2
Hi!
As expand_set_or_movmem_prologue_epilogue_by_misaligned_moves uses
src = src - (adjusted_dest - dest)
without proper REG_POINTER flags the aliasing code is very easily confused
on what is really a pointer and what is not - as REG_POINTER was used
after forwprop only on dest, but not on anythin
Hi!
Honza's recent change to use the libiberty demangler inside of gcc
broke Ada bootstrap. The issue is that there is a symbol clash,
libiberty contains ada_demangle symbol (with one API), and ada/adadecode.c
(since around 3.3 time, claimed for compatibility) contains another one,
with incompati
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> As expand_set_or_movmem_prologue_epilogue_by_misaligned_moves uses
> src = src - (adjusted_dest - dest)
> without proper REG_POINTER flags the aliasing code is very easily confused
> on what is really a pointer and what is not - as REG_POINT
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:07:10PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:11:24PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> --- testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
> >> +++ testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
>
> In any case, for compatibility, this patch just changes the guard so that
> adadecode.c's ada_demangle is compiled only into libgnat*.{a,so} and not
> into gnat1, which can then successfully link against libiberty
> cplus-dem.o.
>
> The ipa-devirt.c change is obvious IMHO, the same header is inc
Hi Mikael,
> This pointer stuff is very difficult to swallow to me.
I totally understand. When doing the patch I had to restart twice, because I
mixed up the development on the class arrays so completely, that I couldn't get
it right again.
> I understand that for classes, the CLASS_DATA (sym)-
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Yvan Roux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a fix for PR64208 where LRA loops when dealing with
> iwmmxt_arm_movdi insn. As explain in the PR, the issue was introduced
> on trunk and 4.9 branch by fix of PR rtl-optimization/60969 and then
> workaround by r211798 (-fuse-ca
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch is the second part fixing memset-inline-{4,5,6,8,9}.c failures on
>>> cortex-a9. It adds a function check
Hi all,
The ICE in the PR happens on arm during the hoist pass when the code
generates a SET rtx of the form:
(set (reg:OI) (const_int 0)). It checks whether const_int 0 is a
general_operand for OImode which involves asking the backend whether it's a
legitimate constant.
arm_legitimate_constant_p
Hello Vladimir:
Did you get a chance to look at the below patch.
Thanks & Regards
Ajit
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
Behalf Of Ajit Kumar Agarwal
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:25 AM
To: vmaka...@redhat.com; Jeff Law
Hello All:
Did you get a chance to look at the below patch.
Thanks & Regards
Ajit
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
Behalf Of Ajit Kumar Agarwal
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 3:57 PM
To: vmaka...@redhat.com; GCC Patches
Cc
This restores bootstrap for --enable-symvers=gnu-versioned-namespace
by disabling the new std::string ABI.
After GCC 5.1 (probably for GCC 6, rather than 5.2) I will make
another attempt to make gnu-versioned-namespace use the new
std::string only (and bump the soname from libstdc++.so.7 to .so.8
The patch below fixes a failure of the test on powerpc64.
The test looks for the lxv (Load VSX Vector) instruction
which is emitted on powerpc64le but on powerpc64 gcc emits
an lvx (Load Vector Indexed). Both are correct here.
Is this okay to commit to trunk?
Martin
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/C
On 03/23/2015 09:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
As expand_set_or_movmem_prologue_epilogue_by_misaligned_moves uses
src = src - (adjusted_dest - dest)
without proper REG_POINTER flags the aliasing code is very easily confused
on what is really a pointer and what is not - as REG_POINTER was used
GCC can be compiled for aarch64 target with busybox sed except for
the geniterators.sh script which uses nonstandard basic regex.
I explicitly set LC_ALL=C too because the regex depends on collation
order.
I tested that the script gives the same result on iterators.md.
Ok?
gcc/Changelog:
2015-
The patch below fixes a failure of the test on powerpc64.
The test looks for the lxv (Load VSX Vector) instruction
which is emitted on powerpc64le but on powerpc64 gcc emits
an lvx (Load Vector Indexed). Both are correct here.
Is this okay to commit to trunk?
+ PR testsuite/63175
+ *
Martin Sebor writes:
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\t\(lxv|lvsr|stxv\)" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\t\(lvx|lxv|lvsr|stxv\)" } } */
You might want to remove the backslashes before the parens, which are
ignored anyway.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GP
> > In any case, for compatibility, this patch just changes the guard so that
> > adadecode.c's ada_demangle is compiled only into libgnat*.{a,so} and not
> > into gnat1, which can then successfully link against libiberty
> > cplus-dem.o.
> >
> > The ipa-devirt.c change is obvious IMHO, the same h
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:07:10PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:11:24PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >> --- testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
> > >> +++ testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (rev
> On 03/23/2015 09:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >As expand_set_or_movmem_prologue_epilogue_by_misaligned_moves uses
> >src = src - (adjusted_dest - dest)
> >without proper REG_POINTER flags the aliasing code is very easily confused
> >on what is really a pointer and what is not - as REG
Hi,
On 23 March 2015 at 17:08, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Yvan Roux wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a fix for PR64208 where LRA loops when dealing with
>> iwmmxt_arm_movdi insn. As explain in the PR, the issue was introduced
>> on trunk and 4.9 branch by fix of
http://gcc.gnu.org/r221602
Applied this path so that it is allowed to specify the same -mmcu=MCU more than
once. This is the easiest way to manage situation where it is hard to control
the command line arguments, in particular when the compiler is called by linker
plugin.
Johann
P
Hi,
The attached patch is the same as posted in the PR with a test case
added. Tested with on sh-elf with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}"
and on sh4-linux by Kaz. Committed as r221604.
Cheers,
Oleg
gcc/ChangeLog:
Hi,
This patch adds bootstrap-mpx.mk so that we test mpx in gcc build by
configuring GCC with
--enable-libmpx --with-build-config="bootstrap-mpx"
OK to install?
H.J.
---
2015-03-23 H.J. Lu
* bootstrap-mpx.mk: New file.
diff --git a/config/bootstrap-mpx.mk b/config/bootstrap-mpx.mk
Le 23/03/2015 16:49, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> I see your point. Currently I am bootstraping and regtesting some patches for
> commit. While this is running, my machine is nearly unusable. I will look into
> this as soon, as my machine allows, but probably not before tomorrow.
>
There is no hu
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 14:45:55 +, Julian Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:01:13 +0300
> Ilya Verbin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 20:25:11 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:36:08 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > > > Julian Brown wrote:
> > > > > This
Hi!
On the following testcase we ICE, because we don't verify we have the
ERF_RETURNS_ARG argument, on non-verified builtins that is possible.
Other uses of ERF_RETURNS_ARG seem to verify it.
Also, there was an unneeded extra gimple_call_return_flags call,
the condition has already checked that ER
Hi!
Since recent gimplifier changes, memcpy at least on some architectures might
not be folded already during gimplification, so we need to wait until ccp1.
Regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, tested with hppa-linux
cross-compiler too, ok for trunk?
2015-03-23 Jakub Jelinek
PR
On March 23, 2015 8:56:32 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Since recent gimplifier changes, memcpy at least on some architectures
>might
>not be folded already during gimplification, so we need to wait until
>ccp1.
>
>Regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, tested with hppa-linux
>cros
On March 23, 2015 8:54:54 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>On the following testcase we ICE, because we don't verify we have the
>ERF_RETURNS_ARG argument, on non-verified builtins that is possible.
>Other uses of ERF_RETURNS_ARG seem to verify it.
>Also, there was an unneeded extra gimp
> FWIW, you have to be very careful depending on REG_POINTER. I believe
> Ada can still set REG_POINTER on things that are not pointers (via
> virtual origins) and cross jumping can cause problems too where one arm
> has x + y with X as the pointer and the other arm has x + y with Y as
> the point
Sorry, for postponing it. I was going to do this when stage1 starts.
After reading this today I have some comments. I believe the copy
frequency should be not changed. If you want coalesce copies according
the frequency of loop back edges on which the allocno involved in given
copy lives yo
On 2015-03-23 12:35 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> Did you get a chance to look at the below patch.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Ajit
>
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> Sent: We
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted
by the French team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/fr.po
(This file, 'cpplib-5.1-b20150208.
This patch fixes google internal bug b/19277289. It can only be
reproduced in google 4.9 branch.
In function param_change_prob, there is following function call
walk_aliased_vdefs (&refd, gimple_vuse (stmt), record_modified, &info, NULL);
If the source code is compiled with optimization, but cfu
Hi Vladimir,
I am studying IRA in my offer hours because it is marvellous and very
educative.
Did you get a chance to look at the below patch.
The elements of allocno_hard_regs_subnode_index are setup in function
setup_allocno_hard_regs_subnode_index where elements representing subnodes of
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This fixes PR65494 - I don't remember why I re-allocated matches
> before recursing into operands. But that at least breaks backtracking.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
>
> Richard.
>
> 2015-03-23 Richa
On 03/21/2015 01:48 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi Martin,
I've applied your latest patch to top of trunk and looked at the code gen on
powerpc-darwin9 (and a cross from x86-64-darwin12 => powerpc64-linux-gnu).
Thanks for the review!
2015-03-13 Anton Blanchard
PR target/63354
On 2015-03-23 9:50 PM, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> I am studying IRA in my offer hours because it is marvellous and very
> educative.
Thanks. If you are interesting in RA whose code is available, you could
also look at Fred Chow's RA code in Pathscale compiler.
> Did you get a ch
I've checked in this patch to add missing @cindex entries for many
attributes listed in extend.texi, and make the format of the existing
entries consistent. Along the way I noticed some obsolete or
miscategorized target-specific attribute documentation, which I fixed
along with a few typos and
ok.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Carrot Wei wrote:
> This patch fixes google internal bug b/19277289. It can only be
> reproduced in google 4.9 branch.
>
> In function param_change_prob, there is following function call
>
> walk_aliased_vdefs (&refd, gimple_vuse (stmt), record_modified, &info
On 03/20/2015 10:53 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
* tree.c (strip_typedefs): Ignore alignment
difference during processing template.
+ || (processing_template_decl
+ && TYPE_ALIGN (t) != TYPE_ALIGN (result)))
Your change is actually ignoring alignment differences when *not*
process
On 03/23/2015 03:33 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
FWIW, you have to be very careful depending on REG_POINTER. I believe
Ada can still set REG_POINTER on things that are not pointers (via
virtual origins) and cross jumping can cause problems too where one arm
has x + y with X as the pointer and the ot
68 matches
Mail list logo
