On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:02:05AM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Am 04/16/2015 um 08:43 AM schrieb Senthil Kumar Selvaraj:
> >This patch fixes PR 65657.
>
> The following artifact appears to be PR63633.
>
I did see that one - unfortunately, that fix won't help here. IIUC, you
check if input/o
Ping~
Regards,
Renlin Li
On 16/04/15 10:09, wrote:
Ping~
Anybody has time to review it?
Regards,
Renlin Li
On 06/02/15 17:48, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi all,
This is a backport patch for branch 4.9. You can find the original=20
patch here:https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00356.html
A
This is a rework of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg01998.html
After second thinking, I feel it's better to fix this in earlier stage
during RTL expand which is more generic, and we also avoid making the
already complex combine pass complexer.
Currently gcc expand wide mode left
Hello!
Attached patch rewrites print_reg to optimize it and make it more
readable. Currently, it looks like 64bit registers were bolted on as
an afterthought.
2015-04-16 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/i386.c (print_reg): Rewrite function.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu
The following applies the patch produced earlier this year, applying
TLC to array bound warnings and catching a few more cases.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2015-04-16 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/64277
* tree-vrp.c (check_arr
The following avoids invoking bit-tracking on complex types which
have zero TYPE_PRECISION where wi::sext () invokes undefined behavior.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
Richard.
2015-04-16 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65774
* tre
The LTO early debug info prototype project has been completed.
The provided patch against the debug-early branch shows that the
general idea is sound and works. Now on to the details.
What works?
---
Simple C and C++ testcases (didn't test more), esp. now libstdc++
pretty-printers fi
Hi again,
On 04/15/2015 03:31 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
There are various places in the compiler that error and continue if
tf_error is set, but return error_mark_node immediately if not; it
seems reasonable to follow that pattern in the places that don't
currently check the return value.
Thus
The comments in vldN_lane_1.c say it is testing vld{1,2,3}{,q}_dup. This is
wrong, it is testing vld{1,2,3}{,q}_lane, as per test filename; I've pushed the
attached as r222148.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
gcc.target/aarch64/vldN_lane_1.c: Correct dup->lane in comments.
diff --git a/gcc/t
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> Save an instruction with -mprofile-kernel style profiling and require
> the mcount handler to save the LR to the stack.
>
> -mprofile-kernel is an undocumented gcc option that was introduced
> specifically for the Linux kernel, so it should
Jonathan,
I don't have commit access though, so if you could commit this for me
it'd be great.
Regards.
2015-04-15 11:55 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> On 15/04/15 11:15 -0300, Federico Lenarduzzi wrote:
>>
>> The idea of this patch is that using this function not depends from a
>> configuration
On 16/04/15 11:20 -0300, Federico Lenarduzzi wrote:
Jonathan,
I don't have commit access though, so if you could commit this for me
it'd be great.
Yes, but I'm waiting until I do the uncaught_exceptions() commit.
OK, thanks.
Jason
On 04/15/2015 09:00 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
- if (!cleared || num_nonzero_elements > 0)
How about adding || TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p), 1) to
this test rather than removing it entirely?
Jason
Hello,
Thanks!
On 15 Apr 12:30, Ryan Mansfield wrote:
> OK for trunk and gcc-5-branch?
The patch is OK for trunk and gcc-5-branch (when it is open).
--
K
On 15/04/15 14:10 -0300, Daniel Gutson wrote:
You might want to check this thread
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2015-04/msg00104.html
which is specially useful when creating multilibs with and without exceptions
and enabling linker's sections garbage collection.
Maybe you could commit the chan
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/15/2015 09:00 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
- if (!cleared || num_nonzero_elements > 0)
How about adding || TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p), 1) to this
test rather than removing it entirely?
That works too. Does the following patc
Attached is a work-in-progress patch for a new
-Wmisleading-indentation
warning I've been experimenting with, for GCC 6.
It kind-of-works, but there are some issues, so I wanted to get feedback
on it here.
The idea is to issue a warning when the C/C++ compiler's view of the
block structure does
Hi,
while working on the last patch I noticed that in a couple of functions
in class.c we name the tsubst_flags_t parameter flags instead of
complain. Besides the inconsistency, I find that choice especially
misleading, because normally in the front end a parameter of name flags
is just an in
I checked this patch into trunk and will backport it to GCC 5 branch.
H.J.
---
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 222150)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2015-04-16 H.J. Lu
+
+ * gcc.target/i386/m
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 08:35:27AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I checked this patch into trunk and will backport it to GCC 5 branch.
Ok for GCC 5 branch now.
> --- ChangeLog (revision 222150)
> +++ ChangeLog (working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
> +2015-04-16 H.J. Lu
> +
> + * gcc.target/i386/mpx/a
On Apr 14, 2015, at 8:07 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I can confirm that the most current patch bootstraps on
>> x86_64-apple-darwin14 and that all of the new tests show up as
>> unsupported in the test suite.
>> Jack
>
> I am re-posting this patch. OK for trunk?
If Jack is happy, I’m happy.
Am 04/16/2015 um 11:28 AM schrieb Senthil Kumar Selvaraj:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:02:05AM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Am 04/16/2015 um 08:43 AM schrieb Senthil Kumar Selvaraj:
This patch fixes PR 65657.
The following artifact appears to be PR63633.
I did see that one - unfortunately,
...and the sketch against 4.9
Index: config/avr/avr.c
===
--- config/avr/avr.c (revision 221321)
+++ config/avr/avr.c (working copy)
@@ -287,6 +287,94 @@ avr_to_int_mode (rtx x)
}
+static void
+avr_rest_of_handle_expand_xload (vo
-Original Message-
From: Moore, Catherine [mailto:catherine_mo...@mentor.com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 2:37 AM
To: Petar Jovanovic; 'Matthew Fortune'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; 'Maciej W.
Rozycki'
Cc: Moore, Catherine
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro
2015-04-16 19:47 GMT+03:00 Georg-Johann Lay :
>
> Am 04/16/2015 um 11:28 AM schrieb Senthil Kumar Selvaraj:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:02:05AM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 04/16/2015 um 08:43 AM schrieb Senthil Kumar Selvaraj:
This patch fixes PR 65657.
>>>
>>>
>>> The
On Apr 16, 2015, at 8:01 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> Attached is a work-in-progress patch for a new
> -Wmisleading-indentation
> warning I've been experimenting with, for GCC 6.
Seems like a nice idea in general.
Does it also handle:
if (cone);
stmt;
? Would be good to add that to the test
As per bugzilla entry, indices in the generated assembly for bigendian are
flipped when they should not be (and, flipped always relative to a Q-register!).
This flips the lane indices back again at assembly time, fixing PR. The
"indices" contained in the RTL are still wrong for D registers, but
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Petar Jovanovic wrote:
> > There isn't any need to execute a large testcase. Instead, try adding a
> short version of your test to the directory gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips.
> > There are examples of other tests there they check for specific assembler
> sequences by using s
On 16/04/15 17:01, David Malcolm wrote:
Attached is a work-in-progress patch for a new
-Wmisleading-indentation
warning I've been experimenting with, for GCC 6.
It sounds very cool...
(D) tabs vs spaces. This is probably the biggest can of worms.
I would suggest to be very conservative
Hello!
This part merges *fop__1_sse with *fop__1_mixed.
2015-04-16 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/predicates.md (register_mixssei387nonimm_operand): New.
* config/i386/i386.md (*fop__1_mixed): Merge with
*fop__1_sse using enabled attribute. Use
register_mixssei387nonimm_operand op
Uninitialized common symbol behavior in executables is target and linker
dependent. default_binds_local_p_3 is made public and updated to take an
argument to indicate if common symbol may be local. If common symbol
may be local, default_binds_local_p_3 will treat non-external variable
as defined
Hi Andre,
The delta patch is OK for trunk and eventual backport to 5.2.
Thanks for all the hard work
Paul
On 14 April 2015 at 19:00, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> during further testing of a big Fortran software I encounter two bugs with
> class arrays, that are somehow connected to p
OK.
Jason
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> This fixes missed tracking of alignment of non-invariant addresses
>> in CCP.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, queued for GCC 6.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>> 2015-02-25
On 03/11/2015 07:34 PM, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
From: Zhouyi Zhou
In function setup_left_conflict_sizes_p, left conflict subnodes sizes
are computed in a bottom-to-up fashion through the regnodes foreast.
Speed up the process from prevent node itself to involve in this
computation.
I have no write
On 28 December 2014 at 20:21, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
> Any comments on this?
Re-ping. :) The original message is
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01614.html
>
> On 19 December 2014 at 09:21, Ville Voutilainen
> wrote:
>> Tested on Linux-x64.
>>
>> /cp
>> 2014-12-19 Ville Voutila
Hi all,
the below is an attempt to warn a user when she/he builds a cross
compiler for *-*-freebsd* without giving a major version number.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Andreas
2015-04-16 Andreas Tobler
* config.gcc: Exit with a comment when we do not have a major version
number f
> -Original Message-
> From: Maciej W. Rozycki [mailto:ma...@linux-mips.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:23 PM
> To: Petar Jovanovic
> Cc: Moore, Catherine; 'Matthew Fortune'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro
>
> On Thu, 16
OK.
Jason
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, on the following testcase we ICE, because for
# DEBUG D#2 => b
# DEBUG D#1 => a[D#2].t
# DEBUG c => D#1
during expansion we get the a[D#2].t added as MEM_EXPR of a MEM, and because
we can't mem_loc_descriptor that MEM (I'll post separately a trunk only
patch that
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787 identifies an issue
where the powerpc64le vector swap optimization miscompiles some code.
The code for handling vector extract operations did not expect to find
those operations wrapped in a PARALLEL with a CLOBBER, but this test
shows that th
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:11:06PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> during expansion we get the a[D#2].t added as MEM_EXPR of a MEM, and because
> we can't mem_loc_descriptor that MEM (I'll post separately a trunk only
> patch that fixes that in this case, but generally not all MEMs can be
> represent
I would like to ping the following patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01925.html
Review: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02672.html
I fixed minor issues mentioned in the review and updated the changelog
message. Rebased on current trunk (r222157), bootstrapped and r
On 15/04/15 21:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Kugan wrote:
>>> 2015-04-15 Kugan Vivekanandarajah < >
>>> Zhenqiang Chen <>
>>>
>>> PR target/65768
>>> * cprop.c (try_replac
From: Trevor Saunders
Hi,
Last stage 1 I introduced a second form of hash_table that stored elements of
value_type in addition to the old form that stored elements of type value_type
*. That lead to a fair bit of code dupplication in hash_table, but it
simplified the transition by allowing it t
On 01/22/2015 11:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Christian Bruel wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I thought one of my current issue would be solved by this patch, but it is
>> not
>> : I have some inlining failures with the attribute target on ARM. (e.g
>> inline-3.c) where obvio
The following is an old patch that teaches the SSA propagator to mark
stmts it will never re-visit again and thus are safe for pattern
matching.
Re-bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2015-04-16 Richard Biener
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (likely_value): See i
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:51:33AM +0200, Arnaud Bienner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've submitted a patch to bug 62182 [1], and I would like to have some
> feedback about it (this is still WIP as noted in the bug).
> As it is my first patch to gcc, I'm not sure what is the best way to
> discuss/review patc
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:48 PM
>
> I know there were several followups between Steven and yourself.
> With
> stage1 now open, can you post a final version and do a final
> bootstrap/test with it?
Here is what came out of our discussion with Steven
[stage1 ping^2]
On 10-03-15 16:30, Tom de Vries wrote:
[stage1 ping]
On 22-02-15 14:13, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 19-02-15 14:03, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 19-02-15 11:29, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
I'm posting this patch series for stage1:
- 0001-Disable-l
[stage1 ping^2]
On 10-03-15 16:31, Tom de Vries wrote:
[stage1 ping]
[was: Postpone expanding va_arg until pass_stdarg]
On 24-02-15 07:48, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 23-02-15 11:09, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 23-02-15 09:26, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
Btw, I'm
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [stage1 ping^2]
> On 10-03-15 16:30, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > [stage1 ping]
> > On 22-02-15 14:13, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > On 19-02-15 14:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 19-02-15 11:29, Tom
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [stage1 ping^2]
> On 10-03-15 16:31, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > [stage1 ping]
> > [was: Postpone expanding va_arg until pass_stdarg]
> > On 24-02-15 07:48, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > On 23-02-15 11:09, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > > On 23-02-15 09:26, Michael Ma
Am 04/16/2015 um 08:43 AM schrieb Senthil Kumar Selvaraj:
This patch fixes PR 65657.
The following artifact appears to be PR63633.
When cfgexpand.c expands a function call, it first figures out the
registers in which the arguments will go, followed by expansion of the
arguments themselves (ri
55 matches
Mail list logo
