Hi, Jeff
Thanks for your advice.
can_replace_by.patch is the new patch to handle both cases.
pr43920-2.c.244r.jump2.ori is the original jump2 rtl dump
pr43920-2.c.244r.jump2.patch_can_replace_by is the jump2 rtl dump
after patch can_replace_by.patch
Could you help me to review the patch?
Th
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:40:49PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> with the log for the ubsan fails
> /src/gcc-5/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-10.c:19:11: runtime
> error: index 128 out of bounds for type 'char [128]'
> /src/gcc-5/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-10.c:19:11:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:49:52PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The followingpatch fixes
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65805
>
> The problem occurred when SP was changed between the original insn and
> rematerialized one and the rematerialized insn contained a reg which w
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 00:15 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > >
> > > extern void bad (const char *__assertion) __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
> > > struct link_map { long int l_ns; };
> > > extern struct link_namespaces
> > > {
> > >unsigned int _ns_n
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> As comments at PR65767 and PR65718, we should use namespace other than std
> to avoid duplicated definition problem on arm-none-eabi. This patch fixes
> the issue. It is an obvious change, but I will wait for approval because of
> GCC5 br
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> The only drawback of this, and some similar cases, is that we now
>> risk referring to older versions on a release branch.
> Yes, I realised that problem when making the change and linking to the
> versions that were current at the time. One option woul
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:17:21AM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As comments at PR65767 and PR65718, we should use namespace other than std
> > to avoid duplicated definition problem on arm-none-eabi. This patch fixes
> > the is
Some minor changes I suggest based on going through the page.
Applied, but happy to reconsider should others feel differently.
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html,v
retrieving revision
Ping?
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 12:02 PM
> To: 'Bernhard Reutner-Fischer'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; 'Paolo Bonzini';
> 'Seongbae Park'; 'Kenneth Zadeck
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> There is one sentence (preceding my patch) which I don't quite
>> understand (specifically around the "to"):
>>
>>"...which diagnose when code to is inserted for automatic
>>(re)allocation of a variable during assignment."
> Let me try to explai
Hi Jeff,
On 17/04/15 18:26, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/19/2015 08:39 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch fixes PR 65358. For details look at the excellent write-up
by Honggyu in bugzilla. The problem is that we're trying to pass a struct
partially on the stack and partially in regs during
Hello Ramana
>>
>
> Can you respin this now that we are in stage1 again ?
>
> Ramana
>
Attached the rebased, rechecked set of patches. Original with comments
posted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02455.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02458.html
https://gcc
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:35:07AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:40:49PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > with the log for the ubsan fails
> > /src/gcc-5/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-10.c:19:11: runtime
> > error: index 128 out of bounds for type 'char [128]'
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:12:26PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> I had it that way in my first patch, then decided to try deleting..
>
> I can certainly change it back even if only to do it the standard way
> for safety's sake, but I'm curious as to why they can't be deleted in
> this special case.
On 15/04/15 16:41, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/14/2015 02:07 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for looking at this.
On 13/04/15 19:18, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/16/2015 04:12 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Eyeballing the mult_by_coeff_cost function I think it has a typo/bug.
It's supposed
After having fixed the typo, regtesting went without regression.
Dominique
> Le 19 avr. 2015 à 20:35, Uros Bizjak a écrit :
>
> Hello!
>
> Attached patch removes reload_in_progress checks for x86 (LRA enabled)
> target. AFAICS, reload_in_progress is never set during the
> compilation, a watchp
On 20 Apr 2015, at 10:47, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> After having fixed the typo, regtesting went without regression.
I have done a bootstrap on i686-darwin10 with the amended patch - slow machine,
so testing still in progress (but looks OK so far),
NOTE: that there some references to reloa
Hi all,
The ICE in the PR happens when we pass a 1x(128-bit float) vector as an
argument.
The aarch64 backend erroneously classifies it as a composite type when in
fact it
is a short vector according to AAPCS64
(section 4.1.2 from
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0055b/IHI0055B_
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> After having fixed the typo, regtesting went without regression.
>
> I have done a bootstrap on i686-darwin10 with the amended patch - slow
> machine, so testing still in progress (but looks OK so far),
>
> NOTE: that there some references
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 06:53:28PM +0100, Adam Butcher wrote:
> Test like this?
>
> /* { dg-do run { target c++14 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "..." } } */
What is this dg-final supposed to do here?
Marek
Hi all,
This patch attempts to improve the pipeline description documentation.
It fixes some grammar errors,typos and clarifies some concepts.
The sections on the syntactic constructs are formatted to have a
small description, and example, description of syntax elements and some
elaboration.
Is
Hi Gerald, this is the patch against GCC-5's release notes.
Okay to install?
Johann
Index: gcc-5/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.109
diff -u -p -r1.109 changes.html
---
Hi,
In PR64683 comment 11, Ian mentioned:
...
This bug may have the same symptoms but it has a completely different cause.
Next time, please do not reopen the bug unless you are certain it has the same
cause. Please open a new bug instead. Thanks.
...
I couldn't find a similar rule in the 'Rep
On 18/04/15 15:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 15/04/15 16:22, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch goes through the arm backend and replaces expressions of the
form
a >= lo && a <= hi with IN_RANGE (a, lo, hi) which is that tiny bit smaller
and easier to read in my opinion. I guess there's
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:03:11PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> The definition and comment on IN_RANGE in system.h is:
> /* A macro to determine whether a VALUE lies inclusively within a
>certain range without evaluating the VALUE more than once. This
>macro won't warn if the VALUE is un
Currently we don't mention libatomic anywhere in the libstdc++ manual,
even though it might be needed for std::atomic.
This fixes that and makes a few other drive-by improvements.
Committed to trunk. This would be suitable for all active branches,
so I might backport it once the gcc-5-branch ope
Hi Jeff,
On 17/04/15 20:38, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/14/2015 02:11 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Of course the effect on codegen of this patch depends a lot on the rtx
costs in the backend.
On aarch64 with -mcpu=cortex-a57 tuning I see the cost limit being
exceeded in more cases and the
expansion code
This changes gimple_build to follow fold_buildN behavior - combine
stmts only from the sequence(s) we are currently building. This
avoids possible issues with a straight-forward transitioning to
gimple_build in passes if they do not keep SSA form up-to-date.
Bootstrap and regtest in progress on
On 20/04/15 12:03, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 18/04/15 15:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 15/04/15 16:22, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This patch goes through the arm backend and replaces expressions of the
>>> form
>>> a >= lo && a <= hi with IN_RANGE (a, lo, hi) which is that ti
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 03-04-15 14:39, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > On 27-03-15 15:10, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this patch fixes PR65443, a todo in the parloops pass for function
> > > transform_to_exit_first_loop:
> > > ...
> > > TODO: the common case is th
Le 19/04/2015 17:58, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
> Hello world,
>
> here is the first installation of the matmul inlining patch.
>
> This patch calculates c=MATMUL(a,b) using DO loops where there is no
> dependency between a and c/b and c loops, taking care of realloc on
> assignment and bounds check
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:55:56AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:12:26PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > I had it that way in my first patch, then decided to try deleting..
> >
> > I can certainly change it back even if only to do it the standard way
> > for safety's sake,
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 04/19/2015 07:45 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>
>> stdarg_p() apparently returns false for a variadic function that has no
>> concrete parameters, e.g. "void foo (...);". This patch fixes this
>> issue by removing the predicate's seemingly
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:30:32PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > and there could be other debug insns for the same variable on that path,
> > say saying that decl lives in some other register, or can be computed using
> > an expression involving other registers, or memory etc. Say you could have
>
Hi,
I have been trying to figure out why I constantly get 2 extra TLS symbols in my
aarch64-linux-gnu libstdc++ ABI tests, and it turned out to be due to support
for non-TLS toolchain -- as discussed here [*].
However, as far as I understand, aarch64-linux-gnu postdates NPTL
implementation, so
As a dataflow maintainer, I approve this patch for the next release.
However, you will have to get approval of a release manager to get it
into 5.0.
On 04/20/2015 04:22 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Ping?
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches
Hello,
The documentation for the __atomic builtins isn't clear about their expectations
and behaviour. In particular, assumptions about the C11/C++11 restrictions on
programs should be stated and the different behaviour of memory models in fences
and in operations should be noted. The behaviour o
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:23:17PM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> I have been trying to figure out why I constantly get 2 extra TLS symbols in
> my aarch64-linux-gnu libstdc++ ABI tests, and it turned out to be due to
> support for non-TLS toolchain -- as discussed here [*].
>
> However, as far
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
> +http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Spec-Files.html";>spec
> file.
> +If the compiler is used together with AVR-LibC, this requires at
> +least GCC 5.2 and a version of AVR-LibC which implements
Really 5.2?
-Andi
Hi!
add_AT_wide is the only add_AT_* that doesn't clear or otherwise initialize
dw_attr_val.val_entry field, so it contains random garbage, which isn't
desirable when ggc walks it during collections.
Supposedly this omission originates from the val_entry addition being added
everywhere only after
Bootstrapped on aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
Pushed as r34.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_simd_emit_pair_result_insn): Delete.
* config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h (aarch64_simd_emit_pair_result_insn):
Delete.
Hi,
I've added an assert to this patch to detect a related condition. Prior
to this patch, the prologue code was causing us to incorrectly call the
expand-time routine rs6000_emit_vsx_le_store(). This was harmless, but
we should have caught this sooner. The patch removes this problem, but
we sh
This fixes a thinko in offsettable_ok_by_alignment. It's not the
absolute placement that matters, but the toc-pointer relative offset.
So alignment of r2 also needs to be taken into account.
Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64-linux. OK for mainline
and gcc-5 branch? Without the dead c
Hi all,
I'm trying to reduce the cases where the midend calls the backend rtx costs on
bogus rtl for which the backend
doesn't have patterns or ways of handling. Having to handle these kinds of
rtxes sanely bloats those
functions and makes them harder to maintain.
One of the cases where this o
Hi!
Currently if a compiler is configured with enabled offloading, the 'devices'
array in libgomp is filled properly with a number of available devices.
However, if a program is compiled with -foffload=disable, the resolve_device
function returns a pointer to the device, and host-fallback is not h
Hi!
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:20:07 +0100, I wrote:
> In r219682, I have committed to trunk our current set of OpenACC changes,
> which we had prepared on gomp-4_0-branch. Thanks to everyone who has
> been contributing!
>
> Note that this is an experimental feature, incomplete, and subject to
> cha
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:23:17PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> This fixes a thinko in offsettable_ok_by_alignment. It's not the
> absolute placement that matters, but the toc-pointer relative offset.
> So alignment of r2 also needs to be taken into account.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested p
On 04/20/2015 09:02 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
But never mind, I'm getting hundreds of failures from C tests that
define main without a parameter list e.g. "int main () { ... }". This
is an issue not worth fixing..
Yep, that's what I was wondering. I think it makes sense to fix this
testcase i
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:06:16PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> With C++ templates and attribute ((aligned)), you can have TYPE_ALIGN and
> TYPE_USER_ALIGN set on a type before you know its size, so layout_type and
> kin need to respect them if they are already set.
>
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
This patch adds missed '%>' to the error_at () message in
c[p]_parser_omp_target_update. Committed as obvious.
gcc/c/
* c-parser.c (c_parser_oacc_enter_exit_data): Remove excess semicolon.
(c_parser_omp_target_update): Add missed %> to error_at ().
gcc/cp/
* parser.c (cp_
On 04/20/2015 05:09 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 17/04/15 20:38, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/14/2015 02:11 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Of course the effect on codegen of this patch depends a lot on the rtx
costs in the backend.
On aarch64 with -mcpu=cortex-a57 tuning I see the cost limit bein
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:56:16PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> This patch adds missed '%>' to the error_at () message in
> c[p]_parser_omp_target_update. Committed as obvious.
Please commit also to gcc-5-branch.
The Swedish translation is the only one that has this message (with the bug
in it) tr
On 20/04/15 16:06, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/20/2015 05:09 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 17/04/15 20:38, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/14/2015 02:11 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Of course the effect on codegen of this patch depends a lot on the rtx
costs in the backend.
On aarch64 with -mcpu=cortex
Oops, missed off the patch actually pushed. Attached now.
Cheers, Alan
Alan Lawrence wrote:
Bootstrapped on aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
Pushed as r34.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_simd_emit_pair_result_insn):
Delete.
* config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h
On 04/19/2015 10:51 PM, Yoshinori Sato wrote:
+ if (TARGET_H8300H && (TARGET_H8300S || TARGET_H8300SX))
+{
+ target_flags ^= MASK_H8300H;
+}
I'm a bit concerned by this. Why did you need to make this change?
The flag is exclusion, but it's set both.
Hmmm, IIRC the port has many
Hi all,
This is an attempt to add native CPU detection to AArch64 GNU/Linux targets.
Similar to other ports we use SPEC rewriting to rewrite -m{cpu,tune,arch}=native
options into the appropriate CPU/architecture and the architecture extension
options
when appropriate (i.e. +crypto/+crc etc).
Fo
Am 04/20/2015 um 03:40 PM schrieb Andi Kleen:
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
+http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Spec-Files.html";>spec
file.
+If the compiler is used together with AVR-LibC, this requires at
+least GCC 5.2 and a version of AVR-LibC which implements
Really 5.
Hi all,
When trying to compile a testcase with -mcpu=cortex-a57+crypto+nocrc I got the
weird assembler error:
Assembler messages:
Error: missing architectural extension
Error: unrecognized option -mcpu=cortex-a57+crypto+no
The problem is the aarch64_rewrite_selected_cpu that is used to rewrite
Hi all,
A pet project of mine is to get to the point where backend rtx costs functions
won't have
to handle rtxes that don't match down to any patterns/expanders we have. Or at
least limit such cases.
A case dealt with in this patch is QImode PLUS. We don't actually generate or
handle these an
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:21:30PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Am 04/20/2015 um 03:40 PM schrieb Andi Kleen:
> >Georg-Johann Lay writes:
> >>+http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Spec-Files.html";>spec
> >>file.
> >>+If the compiler is used together with AVR-LibC, this requires
Hi all,
The aarch64_rtx_mult_cost helper is supposed to handle multiplication costs as
well as
PLUS/MINUS operations combined with multiplication or shift operations. The
shift
operations may contain an extension. Currently we do not handle all these cases
properly.
We also don't handle other
Hi all,
Currently we do not handle the MNEG patterns properly in rtx costs.
These instructions are similar to the MSUB ones.
This patch handles them by catching the NEG at the appropriate position,
extracting its operands and letting the rest of the aarch64_rtx_mult_cost
function
handle the addi
Hi all,
When calculating the rtx costs of an arithmetic operation combined with
zero or sign extension of its operand we should use the extend_arith
cost rather than the arith_shift cost.
Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Kyrill
2015-04-20 Kyrylo Tkachov
*
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 17:03:27 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:56:16PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > This patch adds missed '%>' to the error_at () message in
> > c[p]_parser_omp_target_update. Committed as obvious.
>
> Please commit also to gcc-5-branch.
> The Swedish
Hi all,
To build a GCC-4.9.2 ARM cross-compiler for my setting I need to
configure it with "--with-sysroot=/
--with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.9.2".
But I found that gcc driver removes the leading slash from resulting paths:
`gcc -print-prog-name=cc1plus` -v
...
ignoring nonexistent
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> This fixes a thinko in offsettable_ok_by_alignment. It's not the
> absolute placement that matters, but the toc-pointer relative offset.
> So alignment of r2 also needs to be taken into account.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64-
PR 65658 shows a case where we fail to thread jumps in a block that is
trivially threadable and would generate no code if threaded. That in
turn results in inefficient code and a false positive from -Wuninitialized.
The problem is the problem block has a clobber statement and
redirection_bl
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:14:03AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>while (!gsi_end_p (gsi)
>&& (gimple_code (gsi_stmt (gsi)) == GIMPLE_LABEL
>|| is_gimple_debug (gsi_stmt (gsi))
> - || gimple_nop_p (gsi_stmt (gsi
> + || gimple_nop_p (gsi_stmt (gsi))
> +
On 04/20/2015 03:27 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 15/04/15 16:41, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/14/2015 02:07 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for looking at this.
On 13/04/15 19:18, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/16/2015 04:12 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Eyeballing the mult_by_coeff_cost fu
I have retested a clean tree with only the patches for pr 65792 [first patch]
and Andre’s one for pr59678: i.e., without any patch from pr61831, and I still
see the conflict between the two patches.
Dominique
> Le 19 avr. 2015 à 10:39, Dominique d'Humières a écrit :
>
>> Snip
>> Both patche
On 04/20/2015 02:25 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Hmmm, so what happens if the difference is < 0? I'd be a bit worried
about that case for the PA (for example).
So how about asserting that the INTVAL is >= 0 prior to returning so
that we catch that case if it ever occurs?
INTVAL being
On 04/19/2015 09:10 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
This patch removes bogus debug info left around by shrink-wrapping,
which on some powerpc targets with just the right register allocation
led to assembly errors.
Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64-linux and x86_64-linux.
I did see some regressi
On 04/19/2015 07:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch resolves the failures in a number of address
sanitizer tests on powerpc64*-*-*-* discussed in bug 65479 (the
failures in c-c++-common/asan/swapcontext-test-1.c reported in
pr65643 remain unresolved).
The patch has been tested on powe
With FUSION you might get farther. See the arm port as I recall.
The quick overview, FUSION allows instructions that are not contiguous to be
paired up and fused together. it was built for load/load store/store combining.
On Apr 19, 2015, at 10:09 PM, sameera wrote:
> Gentle reminder!
>
> -
On 04/17/2015 11:37 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
On 04/17/2015 08:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Have you received confirmation from the FSF WRT your copyright
assignment was accepted?
jeff
Yes, it's ID is [gnu.org #972407]. Should I forward the PDF to you?
Can't hurt for a confirmation.
Jeff
On 04/20/2015 09:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/19/2015 07:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch resolves the failures in a number of address
sanitizer tests on powerpc64*-*-*-* discussed in bug 65479 (the
failures in c-c++-common/asan/swapcontext-test-1.c reported in
pr65643 remain unreso
On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:16 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>>> After having fixed the typo, regtesting went without regression.
>>
>> I have done a bootstrap on i686-darwin10 with the amended patch - slow
>> machine, so testing still in progress (b
On 04/20/2015 12:38 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
Perhaps enable unwind tables in GCC spec if -fsanitize=address is
present? Sanitizer backtraces typically won't work without unwind tables
anyway so IMHO this makes sense.
BTW why do we need asynchronous tables? Wouldn't simple -funwind-tables
be enough
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:38:03PM +0300, Yury Gribov wrote:
> >>--- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> >>+++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> >>@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
> >>+2015-04-19 Martin Sebor
> >>+
> >>+PR sanitizer/65479
> >>+* gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/misalign-1.c [powerpc*-*-*-*]:
> >>+Us
This patch set adds musl libc[0] support to GCC.
The patches were originally developed by Gregor Richards[1][2],
who I believe have already done the FSF copyright assignment and agrees
with the changes I made (please verify). I only did minor cleanups
to make the patches better suited for upstrea
On Apr 20, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> add_AT_wide is the only add_AT_* that doesn't clear or otherwise initialize
> dw_attr_val.val_entry field, so it contains random garbage, which isn't
> desirable when ggc walks it during collections.
>
> Supposedly this omission originates from
This are minor correctness fixes required for musl.
(fcntl.h is the standard header and always available on Linux,
sys/fcntl.h is just a legacy alias, so use the standard one.)
libitm/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
* config/arm/hwcap.cc: Use fcntl.h instead of sys/fcntl.h.
On 04/20/2015 09:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:38:03PM +0300, Yury Gribov wrote:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+2015-04-19 Martin Sebor
+
+PR sanitizer/65479
+* gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/misalign-1.c [powerpc*
On 04/20/2015 08:04 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to reduce the cases where the midend calls the backend rtx
costs on bogus rtl for which the backend
doesn't have patterns or ways of handling. Having to handle these kinds
of rtxes sanely bloats those
functions and makes them harde
Add musl libc support to gcc and the command line option -mmusl following other
libc support code.
Note that -m cannot be entirely correct: there are build time decisions
based on the default libc.
gcc/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
* config.gcc (LIBC_MUSL): New tm_defines mac
Set up dynamic linker name for aarch64.
gcc/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
Szabolcs Nagy
* config/aarch64/aarch64-linux.h (MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKER): Define.
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-linux.h b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-linux.h
index 9abb252..5ff83dd 100
Set up dynamic linker name for arm.
gcc/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
* config/arm/linux-eabi.h (MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKER): Define.
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h b/gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h
index e9d65dc..f12e6bd 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h
+++ b/gcc/confi
Set up dynamic linker name for microblaze.
gcc/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
* config/microblaze/linux.h (MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKER): Define.
(DYNAMIC_LINKER): Change.
diff --git a/gcc/config/microblaze/linux.h b/gcc/config/microblaze/linux.h
index a7faa7d..14fe41e 100644
--
Set up dynamic linker name for mips.
gcc/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
* config/mips/linux.h (MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKER): Define.
diff --git a/gcc/config/mips/linux.h b/gcc/config/mips/linux.h
index 91df261..5057bc5 100644
--- a/gcc/config/mips/linux.h
+++ b/gcc/config/mips/linux.h
Set up dynamic linker name for powerpc. Musl only supports powerpc
with secure plt, so appropriate options are passed to the linker by
default.
gcc/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
* config.gcc (secure_plt): Add *-linux*-musl*.
* config/rs6000/linux64.h (MUSL_DYNAMIC_LI
Set up dynamic linker name for sh.
gcc/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
* config/sh/linux.h (MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKER): Define.
diff --git a/gcc/config/sh/linux.h b/gcc/config/sh/linux.h
index 0f5d614..16524da 100644
--- a/gcc/config/sh/linux.h
+++ b/gcc/config/sh/linux.h
@@ -43,7 +43
Set up dynamic linker name for x86.
gcc/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
* config/i386/linux.h (MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKER): Define.
* config/i386/linux64.h (MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKER32): Define.
(MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKER64, MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKERX32): Define.
diff --git a/gcc/config/
No fixincludes are needed for musl.
fixincludes/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
* mkfixinc.sh: Add *-musl* with no fixes.
diff --git a/fixincludes/mkfixinc.sh b/fixincludes/mkfixinc.sh
index 6653fed..0d96c8c 100755
--- a/fixincludes/mkfixinc.sh
+++ b/fixincludes/mkfixinc.sh
@@ -
dl_iterate_phdr depends on USE_PT_GNU_EH_FRAME.
I think USE_PT_GNU_EH_FRAME could be enabled more generally (whenever
libc provides dl_iterate_phdr), but I only made a conservative change.
libgcc/Changelog:
2015-04-16 Gregor Richards
Szabolcs Nagy
* unwind-dw2-fde-dip.
libgcc/gthr-posix.h uses weak reference logic to determine if libpthread
is linked into the application or not. This is broken unless there is
special workaround with libc internal knowledge and even then static
linking needs further manual link time workaround, so this was disabled
for os/generic
The posix_memalign declaration is incompatible with musl for C++,
because of the exception specification. It also pollutes the
namespace and lacks protection against a potential macro definition
that is allowed by POSIX. The fix avoids source level namespace
pollution but retains the dependency o
Hi Johann,
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Okay to install?
+The AVR port uses a new scheme to describe supported devices:
+For each supported device the compiler provides a device-specific
+http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Spec-Files.html";>spec
file.
+
On 04/20/2015 11:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:14:03AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
while (!gsi_end_p (gsi)
&& (gimple_code (gsi_stmt (gsi)) == GIMPLE_LABEL
|| is_gimple_debug (gsi_stmt (gsi))
-|| gimple_nop_p (gsi_stmt (gsi
+
Sameera Deshpande writes:
> Gentle reminder!
Thanks Sameera. Just a couple of comments inline below and a question
for Catherine at the end.
> - Thanks and regards,
>Sameera D.
>
> On Monday 30 March 2015 04:58 PM, sameera wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Sorry for delay in sending this patch for rev
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
