On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As discussed on IRC, we have a problem because fold_stmt can call
> force_gimple_operand_1, which in turn does
> push_gimplify_context/pop_gimplify_context (NULL), even when inside
> of some gimplify_ctxp and thus pushes the decls into function c
Hi Richard,
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 8:03 PM
> To: Kumar, Venkataramanan
> Cc: Gerald Pfeifer (ger...@pfeifer.com); gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Patch wwwdocs] gcc-5/changes.html : Document AM
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following fixes a stupid bug with -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores.
> We were treating all but the same base as candidate to determine
> whether a ref was accessed unconditionally ...
>
> Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
App
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > The patch was bootstrapped and tested on x86/x86-64.
> >
> > Committed as rev. 225618.
> >
> > 2015-07-09 Vladimir Makarov
> >
> > PR rtl-optimization/66782
> > * lra-int.h (struct lra_insn_recog_data): Add comment about
> >
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 09:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:34:25AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/09/2015 08:13 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:56:35PM +0200, mliska wrote:
>
> ---
Hi all,
Currently when evaluating expressions like (a ? 24 : 25) we will move 24 and 25
into
registers and perform a csel on them. This misses the opportunity to instead
move just 24
into a register and then perform a csinc, saving us an instruction and a
register use.
Similarly for csneg and
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:34 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Currently when evaluating expressions like (a ? 24 : 25) we will move 24 and
> 25 into
> registers and perform a csel on them. This misses the opportunity to instead
> move just 24
> into a register and then perform a cs
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> That violates the coding style by not using tabs ;)
>
> I knew it! Somebody would notice, pffft. Fixed in the committed version.
I also noticed it but didn't care ;) But now I notice
Hi Andrew,
On 10/07/15 09:40, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:34 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Currently when evaluating expressions like (a ? 24 : 25) we will move 24 and 25
into
registers and perform a csel on them. This misses the opportunity to instead
move just
Richard Biener wrote:
> Note this opens the window for other important wrong-code fixes - please
> CC me on any you'd like to propose for GCC 5.2 and wait for my
> explicit approval.
Can I backport the patch in
[SH] Fix PR target/66780
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00472.html
to
Hi,
As I wrote at
[PATCH, libcpp]: Use asm flag outputs in search_line_sse42 main loop
https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg113610.html
I wont repeat myself with reasons summary is that current sse4.2 code is
reduntant as it has same performance as sse2 one.
This improves s
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> That violates the coding style by not using tabs ;)
>>
>> I knew it! Somebody would notice, pffft. Fixed in the committed ve
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> On 10/07/15 09:40, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:34 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Currently when evaluating expressions like (a ? 24 : 25) we will move 24
>>> and
Hi!
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 20:25:22 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> This is the patch I committed.
:-) Whee!
From testing this, two things:
1. Can you please have a look at the following ICE? I suppose you can
reproduce this in your non-checking build by just unconditionally
enabling that df_veri
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
> > Note this opens the window for other important wrong-code fixes - please
> > CC me on any you'd like to propose for GCC 5.2 and wait for my
> > explicit approval.
>
> Can I backport the patch in
>
> [SH] Fix PR target/66780
> ht
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 07:56 AM, mliska wrote:
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2015-07-09 Martin Liska
>>
>> * tree-ssa-tail-merge.c (gimple_operand_equal_value_p): Remove.
>> (gimple_equal_p): Remove.
>> (gsi_advance_bw_nondebug_nonlo
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Kumar, Venkataramanan
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 8:03 PM
>> To: Kumar, Venkataramanan
>> Cc: Gerald Pfeifer (ger...@pfeifer.com); gcc-patches@gcc.
Pinging this patch.
Thank you,
- Mantas
On 13/02/15 10:03, Mantas Mikaitis wrote:
Hi all,
This is a backport for gcc-4_9-branch of the patch " [PATCH][ARM]
__ARM_FP & __ARM_NEON_FP defined when -march=armv7-m" posted in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00250.html
arm-none-linux-
Hello!
> As I wrote at
>
> [PATCH, libcpp]: Use asm flag outputs in search_line_sse42 main loop
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg113610.html
>
> I wont repeat myself with reasons summary is that current sse4.2 code is
> reduntant as it has same performance as sse2 one.
>
Hi all,
this means that pr66775 is to be closed as resolved invalid, because the
current implementation is alright, but only the program to compile is garbage.
Ok, suits me.
- Andre
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 12:41:31 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:59:08PM +0200, Andre Vehreschi
Hi all,
As subject says.
Committed as obvious with r225659.
Thanks,
Kyrill
2015-07-10 Kyrylo Tkachov
* expr.c (expand_cond_expr_using_cmove): Fix typos in comment
above function.
diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
index 34930c5..6f6ee9d 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/expr.c
@@
Richard Biener wrote:
>> Can I backport the patch in
>>
>> [SH] Fix PR target/66780
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00472.html
>>
>> to gcc-5.2? It's a few lines change for a SH specific wrong code bug
>> with -fstack-protector which is disastrous for Debian SH folks who use
>>
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for the suggestion! I will committed it first and continue
working on it.
Regards,
Renlin Li
On 08/07/15 21:56, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/08/2015 09:03 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi all,
In simplify_const_relational_operation function, there are cases a const
rtx
will be returned.
Hi All,
Here is presented simple transformation which tries to hoist out of
outer-loop a check on zero trip count for inner-loop. This is very
restricted transformation since it accepts outer-loops with very
simple cfg, as for example:
acc = 0;
for (i = 1; i <= m; i++) {
for (j = 0; j
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> gen_rtx_ZERO_EXTEND isn't suitable in ix86_md_asm_adjust since ZERO_EXTEND
>> may be expaned. We should call gen_zero_extendqiXi2 instead.
>>
>> OK for trunk?
>
> No, your patch will clobber flags when multiple flag outputs are used.
>
> (I p
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:37:18AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > As I wrote at
> >
> > [PATCH, libcpp]: Use asm flag outputs in search_line_sse42 main loop
> >
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg113610.html
> >
> > I wont repeat myself with reasons summary is th
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the German team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/de.po
(This file, 'gcc-5.1.0.de.po', has just
> After looking into this some more, because the PR got reopened, there were
> two issues: 1) __builtin_adjust_trampoline call needing a frame or chain (as
> can be seen on the new testcases) that wasn't added to parallel/task/target
> clauses 2) for !optimize, there is code to add those, when fram
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I've been threatening to do this for a couple of months, and now that the
> regressions are under control I think it's time. This patch changes the
> default C++ dialect to C++14.
>
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
This caus
Pinging this patch.
Thank you,
- Mantas
On 05/03/15 10:14, Mantas Mikaitis wrote:
Hello,
Tests gcc.target/arm/macro_defs0.c and gcc.target/arm/macro_defs1.c fail
in multilib which forces -marm as pointed out in this message:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00483.html .
This patc
On 10 July 2015 at 09:14, Christian Bruel wrote:
>
> On 07/09/2015 05:39 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Some multilibs do not support Thumb mode on ARM targets. This is the
>> case for instance when target is arm-linux-gnueabihf and with
>> -march=armv5-t: Thumb-1 hard-float VFP ABI is not implemen
On 10/07/15 12:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 10 July 2015 at 09:14, Christian Bruel wrote:
>>
>> On 07/09/2015 05:39 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Some multilibs do not support Thumb mode on ARM targets. This is the
>>> case for instance when target is arm-linux-gnueabihf and with
>>> -march=
On 10 July 2015 at 08:51, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:46:08PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
[toupper/tolower patch withdrawn]
>> I don't think this can be correct for all locales which need not
>> have a lower-case charac
On 10 July 2015 at 13:40, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
>
> On 10/07/15 12:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 10 July 2015 at 09:14, Christian Bruel wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/09/2015 05:39 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Some multilibs do not support Thumb mode on ARM targets. This is the
case for
Hi,
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I also noticed it but didn't care ;) But now I notice
> >
> > switch (TREE_CODE (t))
> > {
> > case SSA_NAME:
> >
> > cases are indented too much, it should be
> >
> > switch (TREE_CODE (t))
> > {
> > case SSA_NAME:
I like
I was just testing the patch below which runs into latent issues when
building libjava (at least)...
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/libjava/java/lang/natClassLoader.cc: In
function ‘java::lang::Class* _Jv_FindClassInCache(_Jv_Utf8Const*)’:
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/libjava/java/lang/natClas
On 7 July 2015 at 13:33, Jiong Wang wrote:
> 2015-07-06 Jiong Wang
>
> gcc/
> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_load_symref_appropriately): Mark mem as
> READONLY and NOTRAP for PIC symbol.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> * gcc.target/aarch64/got_mem_hoist.c: New test.
Looks, OK to me. Follow t
Hi Mantas,
On 13/02/15 10:03, Mantas Mikaitis wrote:
Hi all,
This is a backport for gcc-4_9-branch of the patch " [PATCH][ARM]
__ARM_FP & __ARM_NEON_FP defined when -march=armv7-m" posted in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00250.html
arm-none-linux-gnueabi/hf tested without any
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:57:31PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 10:16:38AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote
Hi all,
Some of the testcases in aarch64.exp can fail their scan-assembler patterns if
if-conversion becomes more aggressive.
This patch adjusts the testcases in case the branches are eliminated and
further optimisations occur that may remove the
scan-assembler patterns.
With this patch the pat
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This moves more patterns that show up during bootstrap.
>
> Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Due to regressions caused I split off the fold_plusminus_mult_expr
part.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, com
Hi all,
This patch makes if-conversion more aggressive when handling code of the form:
if (test)
x := a //THEN
else
x := b //ELSE
Currently, we can handle this case only if x:=a and x:=b are simple single set
instructions.
With this patch we will be able to handle the cases where x:=a and
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:19 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:57:31PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Richard Biener
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >>> On Thu
yOn Fri, 10 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I was just testing the patch below which runs into latent issues when
> building libjava (at least)...
>
> /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/libjava/java/lang/natClassLoader.cc: In
> function ‘java::lang::Class* _Jv_FindClassInCache(_Jv_Utf8Const*)’:
On 10/07/15 13:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
+ to compute a value for x. Put the rtx cost of the insns
+ in TEST_BB into COST. Record whether TEST_BB is a single simple
+ set instruction in SIMPLE_P. If the bb is not simple place all insns
+ except the last insn into SEQ. */
+
That las
Uros had the idea of using std::min/max instead of our MIN/MAX
macros defined in system.h. I thought I would do this cleanup,
but very soon I ran into a problem of failed template argument
substitution: std::min/max function templates require that both
arguments be of the same type:
/home/marek/s
On 07/10/2015 04:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
The patch was bootstrapped and tested on x86/x86-64.
Committed as rev. 225618.
2015-07-09 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/66782
* lra-int.h (struct lra_insn_recog_data):
bah. I forgot that tilepro generates 2 source file that are in the
source tree... so it overwrites any changes directly to the includes.
These probably ought to be generated into the build directory so this
isn't an issue. Although I suppose its probably only an issue for me
anyway :-P
anyw
Ping^5.
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 09:42:39AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Ping^4.
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:08:51AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > I'm pinging the C++ parts.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:44:36PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Ping.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:43:48PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:37:18AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > Have you tried new SSE4.2 implementation (the one with asm flags) with
> > unrolled loop?
>
> Also, the SSE4.2 implementation looks shorter, so more I-cache friendly,
>
Hi,
I've spotted a likely typo:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:13:53AM +0200, Martin Liska wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-07-03 Martin Liska
>
> * ipa-reference.c (ipa_ref_opt_summary_t): New class.
> (get_reference_optimization_summary): Use it.
> (set_reference_optimization
Hi,
thanks for working on this and sorry for a tad late review:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:13:52AM +0200, Martin Liska wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-07-03 Martin Liska
>
> * cgraph.c (symbol_table::create_edge): Introduce summary_uid
> for cgraph_edge.
> * cgraph.h (stru
Yes, it should be closed. When I asked you to open it,
I thought the issue was a corner case in your patch.
--
steve
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:44:32AM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
>
> this means that pr66775 is to be closed as resolved invalid, because the
> current implementation is alrig
On 10/07/15 10:00, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 10/07/15 09:40, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:34 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Currently when evaluating expressions like (a ? 24 : 25) we will move 24
Hi,
I know the patch has been approved by Jeff, but please do not commit
it before considering the following:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:13:53AM +0200, Martin Liska wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-07-03 Martin Liska
>
> * ipa-cp.c (struct edge_clone_summary): New structure.
> (c
On 07/09/2015 04:43 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
This final version which I agreed with Richard Sandiford.
Hope this can be finally installed to trunk?
Patch can bootstrap and survive regression tests on x86_64-linux-gnu.
FWIW, I confirmed this version of the patch fixes the build issues on
powerpc6
With the attached patch, libatomic will build and pass 100% of the tests
on DragonFly.
suggested entry for libatomic/ChangeLog:
2015-07-XX John Marino
* configure.tgt: Add *-*-dragonfly to supported targets.
Please consider this patch for trunk.
Thanks,
John
--- libatomic/configure.t
Hi everyone,
attached is a rather trivial patch to fix a linker issue when unlimited
polymorphism is used and the vtabs of intrinsic types are referenced from two
different locations (e.g. module and main program). Gfortran finds the vtab
defined in the scope of a module's subroutine and tries to
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 10:29 AM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> This is critically important as various parts of the compiler will take a
> degenerate PHI node and propagate the RHS of the PHI into the uses of the
> LHS of the PHI -- without doing any conversions.
I
Hi,
I have noticed that in the mips.exp dg-option handling code the isa and
arch_test_option_p variables are not updated after the pre-arch to arch
dependency handling. This means that if this code changes the
architecture the post-arch dependency handling code (which relies on
arch_test_opti
Hello!
When using __readeflags, we have to prevent possible flag-clobbering
zero-extensions and make flag-setting operation persistent.
2015-07-10 Uros Bizjak
PR target/66703
* gcc.target/i386/readeflags-1.c (readeflags_test): Declare with
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)). Chan
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On July 7, 2015 6:29:21 PM GMT+02:00, Jim Wilson
> wrote:
>>signed sub-word locals. Thus to detect the need for a conversion, you
>>have to have the decls, and we don't have them here. There is also
>
> It probably is. The decks for the
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 10:13:49PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> I was under impression that peephole2 pass doesn't see subregs of hard
>> regs (all x86 predicates are written in this way). Even documentation
>> somehow agrees with this:
[...
ira-lives.c and lra-lives.c both define the same function named
bb_has_abnormal_call_pred. I think let's factor out this function to
basic-block.h where it really belongs.
Bootstrap/regtest running on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk if it passes?
2015-07-10 Marek Polacek
PR middle-end/663
Le 10/07/2015 16:51, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> Hi everyone,
>
> attached is a rather trivial patch to fix a linker issue when unlimited
> polymorphism is used and the vtabs of intrinsic types are referenced from two
> different locations (e.g. module and main program). Gfortran finds the vtab
Hello all,
I'm not completely convinced by the standard excerpts that have been
quoted about this topic, as they don't have any explicit mention of
allocatable variables/expressions.
For what it's worth, in my opinion, the handling of allocatable that was
proposed by Andre makes sense to me. It's
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Indirect sibcall with register arguments is OK when there is register
> available for argument passing.
>
> OK for trunk if there is no regression?
>
>
> H.J.
> ---
> gcc/
>
> PR target/66819
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_function_ok
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-06/msg00075.html
Le 21/06/2015 11:48, Mikael Morin a écrit :
> Le 16/05/2015 18:43, Mikael Morin a écrit :
>> Hello,
>>
>> this is about PR61831 where in code like:
>>
>> type :: string_t
>> character(LEN=1), dimension(:), allocatable ::
Hi Mikael, hi all,
I only had the chance to check with ifort (different versions; including the
most recent one) and that compiler is consistent with gfortran as it is now,
I.e., the executable segfaults after the function has been called.
I am though curious what other compilers opinion on tha
hello Andre.
Le 06/07/2015 13:54, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> please find attached the next version of the patch for pr66035 fixing an ICE.
> Scope (copied from first submit):
>
> An ICE occurred when in a structure constructor an allocatable component of
> type class was initializ
Hi,
in this rather old issue, we fail to include explicit constructors in
the second step of a copy-initialization and the below is rejected. I'm
not 100% sure, but using the existing comments as a guide, I think I
found the place where we wrongly set LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING for the
second step
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Indirect sibcall with register arguments is OK when there is register
>> available for argument passing.
>>
>> OK for trunk if there is no regression?
>>
>>
>> H.J.
>> ---
>> gcc/
>>
>>
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Indirect sibcall with register arguments is OK when there is register
>>> available for argument passing.
>>>
>>> OK for trunk if there is
Hi Thomas!
On 07/09/2015 03:51 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Jim!
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:19:39 -0500, James Norris
wrote:
This patch fixes an issue where the deviceptr clause in an outer
directive was being ignored during implicit variable definition
on a nested directive.
Committed to gom
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Indirect sibcall with register arguments is OK when there is register
avail
On 07/09/2015 11:53 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:24:44AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Thanks for working on it.
+ wide_int offset = wi::neg (addend, &overflow);
+ addend = wide_int_to_tree (TREE_TYPE (addend), offset);
+ if (overf
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 06:20:47PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
>
> I'm not completely convinced by the standard excerpts that have been
> quoted about this topic, as they don't have any explicit mention of
> allocatable variables/expressions.
I did not quote 12.3.3 about "characteristics of functi
OK.
Jason
> We need to skip the constexpr default constructors.
That's actually not sufficient so I have installed the attached patch instead.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline as obvious.
2015-07-10 Eric Botcazou
c-family/
* c-ada-spec.h (cpp_operation): Revert latest chan
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:19:10PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Uros had the idea of using std::min/max instead of our MIN/MAX
> macros defined in system.h. I thought I would do this cleanup,
> but very soon I ran into a problem of failed template argument
> substitution: std::min/max function te
noticed obstack.h was being included in a few files which already
include backend.h, so its redundant. Just taking them out.
Bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, with no new regressions.
finishing up a config-list.mk using targets from the changes just to be
sure.
OK for trunk assuming
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:58 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Indirect sibcall with reg
Hi Thomas,
On 07/09/2015 03:29 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Jim!
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 13:00:16 -0500, James Norris
wrote:
This patch adds handling of the deviceptr clause when
used within a Fortran program.
Please motivate such non-obvious code changes by a test case. At least
to me, it's
On 07/10/2015 10:09 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
ira-lives.c and lra-lives.c both define the same function named
bb_has_abnormal_call_pred. I think let's factor out this function to
basic-block.h where it really belongs.
Bootstrap/regtest running on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk if it passes?
2015-07
On 07/10/2015 07:25 AM, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:43:48PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:37:18AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Have you tried new SSE4.2 implementation (the one with asm flags) with
unrolled loop?
Also, the SSE4.2 implementation looks s
On 07/10/2015 02:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
But the warning on the "bogus" line will still be warranted, so user goes and
fixes it.
But when the user gets the "bogus" line, he may look at the code and
determine that the reported line can't possibly be executed -- so they
get confused, assume
On 07/10/2015 01:49 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
noticed obstack.h was being included in a few files which already
include backend.h, so its redundant. Just taking them out.
Bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, with no new regressions.
finishing up a config-list.mk using targets from the chan
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 01:21:05PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Some of the testcases in aarch64.exp can fail their scan-assembler patterns
> if if-conversion becomes more aggressive.
>
> This patch adjusts the testcases in case the branches are eliminated and
> further optimisations
On 07/09/2015 05:08 PM, Kugan wrote:
Done. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86-64-none-linux-gnu with
no new regressions. Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks for the additional testcases.
+ else
+{
+ /* If arg1 is an INTEGER_CST, fold it to new type. */
+ if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P
On 07/09/2015 10:48 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
On 08.07.2015 13:55, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I don't know of anybody who actually uses the DMGL_TYPES support. I
don't know why anybody would.
Ian
Thanks for pointing that out. I updated the testcases, so that now they
don't depend on DMGL_TYPES
I noticed a few annoying bits around the graphite files that I decided
to cleanup.
- omega.h shouldn't include "config.h". including params.h is fine
since it is needed, but it should be within the #ifndef GCC_OMEGA_H guard.
- sese.h is required for compilation of graphite-poly.h, and basicall
Looking at the concepts work led me to notice this bug: we weren't
finding packs used only in variable template-ids.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 29ae93b90171f5202ec1de7507b77d09b2dff643
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri Jul 10 15:27:11 2015 -0400
* pt.c (find_par
Andrew Bennett writes:
> I have noticed that in the mips.exp dg-option handling code the isa and
> arch_test_option_p variables are not updated after the pre-arch to arch
> dependency handling. This means that if this code changes the
> architecture the post-arch dependency handling code (which r
I've committed this patch to fix a df verify crash Thomas pointed me at.
Thomas, I think this means you can revert the workaround you just committed?
nathan
2015-07-10 Nathan Sidwell
* config/nvptx/nvptx.c (nvptx_reorg): Move df problem setting, set
dirty flags.
Index: conf
I've committed this patch to remove library versions of the num threads and
thread id. This has been busted since my reorg of the tid and ntid builtins,
but wasn't noticed because they're not used anyway.
nathan
2015-07-10 Nathan Sidwell
* config/nvptx/gomp-tids.c: Delete.
Bernd,
I'mm working through the mkoffload machinery. mkoffload.c emits a C file, and
the quoting in the source is quite confusing. This patch introduces a quoting
macro 'Q' that allows one to write raw C to be stringized and written out.
ok? (more cleanups to follow)
nathan
2015-07-10 Nath
On 10 July 2015 at 14:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch makes if-conversion more aggressive when handling code of the
> form:
> if (test)
> x := a //THEN
> else
> x := b //ELSE
> The current code adds the costs of both the THEN and ELSE blocks and proceeds
> if they don't
On 11 July 2015 at 01:00, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> On 10 July 2015 at 14:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> PS: no -mbranch-cost and, a tad more seriously, no --param branch-cost either
> ;)
err, arm and aarch64 have no -mbranch-cost, a couple of prominent
other arches do..
On 07/11/2015 12:53 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I'mm working through the mkoffload machinery. mkoffload.c emits a C
file, and the quoting in the source is quite confusing. This patch
introduces a quoting macro 'Q' that allows one to write raw C to be
stringized and written out.
ok? (more cleanup
After posting the first testsuite results for DragonFly, it was clear
that the -fcilkplus functionality was broken:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-07/msg01046.html
The problem was related to the __cpu_model symbol not getting exported.
The solution was to create libgcc/config/i386/t-
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
