Hi,
this patch adds a new variable in push_fields_onto_fieldstack, improving
readability.
Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
Committed to trunk as obvious.
Thanks,
- Tom
Add var in push_fields_onto_fieldstack
2015-10-27 Tom de Vries
* tree-ssa-structalias.c (push_fields_onto_fields
[ was: Re: [PATCH, 1/2] Add handle_param parameter to
create_variable_info_for_1 ]
On 26/10/15 17:23, Tom de Vries wrote:
Why does create_variable_info_for_1 only handle
the single-field case? That is, I expected this to be handled by
c_v_r_f_1
fully.
Yep, that's the goal of PR67742. I've
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:35:20PM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> I used that generic message for all of those clauses except for _GANG,
> _WORKER and _VECTOR. The gang clause, at the very least, needed it to
> disambiguate the static and num arguments. If you want I can handle
> _WORKER and _VE
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Richard, Jakub,
> this updates patch 1 to use the target-insns.def mechanism of detecting
> conditionally-implemented instructions. Otherwise it's the same as
> yesterday's patch. To recap:
>
> 1) Moved the subcodes to an enumerat
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 04:11:20PM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Jakub, Richard,
> This is the updated version of patch 7, using target-insns.def for the new
> insns. Otherwise same as yesterday's, which had the following changes:
>
> The significant change is that now the head/tail unique marke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Oct 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, as discussed earlier, the types_compatible_p in operand_equal_p
> > > seems redundant. (it is callers work to figure out how much of type
> > > matching it wants. If not, we probably want to treat
Hi!
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:39:25 +0200, I wrote:
> Some bits extracted out of gomp-4_0-branch, and some other bits
> rewritten; here is a patch to support OpenACC Combined Directives in C,
> C++. (The Fortran front end already does support these.)
>
> As far as I know, Jakub is not available at t
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
Richard.
2015-10-27 Richard Biener
* cfg.c (free_edge): Add function argument and use it instead of cfun.
(clear_edges): Likewise.
* cfg.h (clear_edges): Adjust prototype.
* cfgexpand.c (pa
On 9 October 2015 at 09:46, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the following fixes PR 67794 by properly remapping SSA_NAMEs which are
>> based on PARM_DECLs which are about to be removed as unnecessary. And
>> by "properly" I mean also when they are de
Hi!
As was pointed out in previous thread
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg00723.html), sometimes
PGO-built binaries can actually introduce performance regressions. We
could identify affected object files and disable PGO for them by simply
removing corresponding .gcda file.
My
Hi Jakub!
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:48:57 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> this patch adds a missing private clause in libgomp.c++/member-2.C (as
> you suggested in the PR).
>
> This allows the test to succeed consistently.
I'm seeing occasional (very rarely) failure of libgomp.c++/member-1.C
(withou
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> An upcoming patch adds a fold from hypot(x,x) to fabs(x)*sqrt(2).
>> This is unusual in that it could trigger in the gimplifier but would
>> require new SSA names to be created. This patch makes sure that we
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:15:11AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> ... looks a bit as if it might need to get the same patch applied that
> Tom has applied to libgomp.c++/member-2.C:
You're right, member-2.C is a templatized version of member-1.C,
a change to add private (R::r) to that correspondi
Hi all,
recently, support for ISL 0.15 was added to GCC and also
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ now contains ISL 0.15.
Hence, there is no reason not to download the newest version by
download_prerequisites.
OK for the trunk? (One could also add it to GCC 5 as the ISL 0.15
patches land
Hi!
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:08:15 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:15:11AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > ... looks a bit as if it might need to get the same patch applied that
> > Tom has applied to libgomp.c++/member-2.C:
>
> You're right, member-2.C is a templatized
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 05:05:26PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch enables the autoprefetcher heuristic for scheduling in AArch64.
> It is enabled for the Cortex-A53, Cortex-A57 cores and is off for the other
> cores,
> leaving their behaviour unchanged.
>
> When enabled, t
On 10/26/2015 11:46 PM, Anatoliy Sokolov wrote:
This patch change code 'REGNO (subreg) + subreg_regno_offset (...)'
with subreg_regno (subreg).
The patch has whitespace damage that makes it difficult to apply. Please
use text/plain attachments.
Index: gcc/reg-stack.c
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:16:25PM +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> The ARMv8.1 architecture extension adds two Adv.SIMD instructions,
> sqrdmlah and sqrdmlsh. This patch series adds the instructions to the
> AArch64 backend together with the ACLE feature macro and NEON intrinsics
> to make use of the
On 26/10/15 13:24, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/26/2015 02:17 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_freorder): Add
-fprofile-use flag.
Hmmm, the testcases themselves which use this predicate onl
On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
Yes. In all of the related testcases, only -freorder-and-partition flag
is provided explicitly.
How about creating a new dg-add-options for freorder?
proc add_options_for_freorder { flags } {
return "$flags -freorder-blocks-and-partition -fprofile-us
On 10/09/2015 11:36 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
So, I keep on seeing inaccurate schedule time on the conditional
branches after a store, and tracked it down to this type of solution.
On my machine, I can run these two in the same cycle, but with a
REG_DEP_OUTPUT dependency it was moving the branch to t
On 10/26/2015 01:27 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:57:53PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/26/2015 12:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Because the amount of code that uses this (including GCC itself) is just too
huge, s
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:19:20PM +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> The ARMv8.1 architecture extension adds two Adv.SIMD instructions,
> sqrdmlah and sqrdmlsh. This patch adds the instructions to the
> aarch64-simd patterns, making them conditional on the TARGET_SIMD_RDMA
> feature macro introduced in
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:20:55PM +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> The ARMv8.1 architecture extension adds two Adv.SIMD instructions,
> sqrdmlah and sqrdmlsh. This patch adds the GCC builtins to generate the new
> instructions which are needed for the NEON intrinsics added later in
> this series.
>
On 10/19/2015 09:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
* calls.c (prepare_call_address): Don't handle -fno-plt here.
Is any other target using -fno-plt? If not, and if that's really just a
revert I'll approve it on the condition that the x86 maintainers are
happy with the rest of the changes.
Your
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> An upcoming patch adds a fold from hypot(x,x) to fabs(x)*sqrt(2).
>>> This is unusual in that it could trigger in the gimplifier but would
>>>
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:22:16PM +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> The ARMv8.1 architecture extension adds two Adv.SIMD instructions,
> sqrdmlah and sqrdmlsh. This patch adds the feature macro
> __ARM_FEATURE_QRDMX to indicate the presence of these instructions,
> generating it when the feature is av
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Alan Hayward wrote:
>
>
> On 26/10/2015 13:35, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Alan Hayward
>>wrote:
>>> There is a potential bug in vectorizable_live_operation.
>>>
>>> Consider the case where the first op for stmt is valid, but the
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 09:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> * calls.c (prepare_call_address): Don't handle -fno-plt here.
>
>
> Is any other target using -fno-plt? If not, and if that's really just a
aarch64 is the only target which checks -fno-pl
On 27/10/15 14:06, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
Yes. In all of the related testcases, only -freorder-and-partition flag
is provided explicitly.
How about creating a new dg-add-options for freorder?
proc add_options_for_freorder { flags } {
return "$flags -f
On 10/27/2015 12:38 PM, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Anyway, disabling any compile options provided by user explicitly sounds
like a bad idea for me, so disabling -freorder-blocks-and-partition if
it can't find .gcda file seems to be not acceptable.
The current situation is that -fr-b-a-p is disable
This patch ensures that an internally generated subprogram body that completes
an expression function inherits the SPARK_Mode from the expression function
spec.
-- Source --
-- expr_funcs.ads
package Expr_Funcs with SPARK_Mode is
function F1 return Boolean is (True)
When a response file was created and the link failed, the response file
was not deleted. It is deleted now.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2015-10-27 Vincent Celier
* gnatlink.adb: Always delete the response file, even when the
invocation of gcc to link fail
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Caroline Tice wrote:
> Here is my promised backport to the GCC 5 branch, for the patch below
> that went into ToT last week. As with the previous patch, I've
> verified that it fixes the problem, bootstraps and has no new
> regression test failures. Is this ok to
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Caroline Tice wrote:
> Here is my promised backport to the GCC 4.9 branch, for the patch below
> that went into ToT last week. As with the previous patch, I've
> verified that it fixes the problem, bootstraps and has no new
> regression test failures. Is this ok
This patch corrects an omission on the legality check for allocators with
a qualified expression when the expression is of a limited type. The check
must be performed after the expression is fully resolved, to handle properly
complex overloading cases such as indexings of parameterless functions th
This patch modifies the analysis of pragma Refined_Global to treat objects and
states as constituents only when their encapsulating state appears in pragma
Global.
-- Source --
-- pack.ads
package Pack
with Abstract_State => (State1, State2),
Initializes=>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 07:52:45AM +0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Evandro Menezes
> wrote:
> > Some micro-architectures may favor one of sign or zero extension over the
> > other in the base plus extended register offset addressing mode.
>
> Yes I was going to cre
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ (define_operator_list RINT BUILT_IN_RINT
> >
> > /* Fold (A & ~B) - (A & B) into (A ^ B) - B. */
> > (simplify
> > - (minus (bit_and:cs @0 (bit_not @1)) (bit_and:s @0 @1))
> > + (minus
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch fixes the referenced PR by rewriting the
> vfp3_const_double_for_bits function in arm.c
> The function is supposed to accept positive CONST_DOUBLE rtxes whose value
> is an exact power of 2
> and whose log2 is between
On 27/10/15 08:25, Tom de Vries wrote:
@@ -5968,7 +5990,16 @@ intra_create_variable_infos (struct function *fn)
for (; p; p = vi_next (p))
{
if (p->only_restrict_pointers)
- make_constraint_from_global_restrict (p, "PARM_RESTRICT");
+
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:56:48AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> After your backport in the gcc-5 branch, I see build failures:
> /tmp/2849532_27.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-sra.c:
> In function ‘tree_node* replace_removed_params_ssa_names(tree_node*,
> gimp
On 10/26/2015 02:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 10/21/2015 04:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/21/2015 11:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM,
--in-reply-to
On 26/10/15 08:58, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>> + chrec2 = fold_build2 (LSHIFT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (rhs1),
>> + build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (rhs1), 1),
>
> 'type' instead of TREE_TYPE (rhs1)
I presume y
On 27/10/15 13:24, Tom de Vries wrote:
Thinking it over a bit more, I realized the constraint handling started
to be messy. I've reworked the patch series to simplify that first.
1Simplify constraint handling
2Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
On 27/10/15 13:24, Tom de Vries wrote:
Thinking it over a bit more, I realized the constraint handling started
to be messy. I've reworked the patch series to simplify that first.
1Simplify constraint handling
2Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
The following patch adjusts negate_expr_p to account for the fact
that we can't generally change a - (b - c) to (c - b) + a because
-INF - 0 is ok while 0 - -INF not. Similarly for a - (b + c).
While creating testcases I noticed that MULT_EXPR handling is bogus
as well as with -INF/2 * 2 neither
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 10/19/2015 09:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> * calls.c (prepare_call_address): Don't handle -fno-plt here.
>>
>>
>> Is any other target using -fno-plt? If not, and if that's real
On 27/10/15 11:37, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/19/2015 09:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
* calls.c (prepare_call_address): Don't handle -fno-plt here.
Is any other target using -fno-plt? If not, and if that's really just a
aarch64 is the onl
On 27/10/15 13:24, Tom de Vries wrote:
Thinking it over a bit more, I realized the constraint handling started
to be messy. I've reworked the patch series to simplify that first.
1Simplify constraint handling
2Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
On 27/10/15 13:24, Tom de Vries wrote:
it over a bit more, I realized the constraint handling started
to be messy. I've reworked the patch series to simplify that first.
1Simplify constraint handling
2Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
3A
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 27/10/15 11:37, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Bernd Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2015 09:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
* calls.c (prepare_call_address): Don't handle -fno-plt here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is
On 27/10/15 13:24, Tom de Vries wrote:
Thinking it over a bit more, I realized the constraint handling started
to be messy. I've reworked the patch series to simplify that first.
1Simplify constraint handling
2Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
On 27/10/15 13:24, Tom de Vries wrote:
Thinking it over a bit more, I realized the constraint handling started
to be messy. I've reworked the patch series to simplify that first.
1Simplify constraint handling
2Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
This adds -fchecking as a way to enable internal consistency checks
even in release builds (or disable checking with -fno-checking - up to
a certain extent - with checking enabled).
Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Richard.
2015-10-27 Richard Biener
* common.
On 27/10/2015 11:36, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Alan Hayward
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26/10/2015 13:35, "Richard Biener"
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Alan Hayward
>>>wrote:
There is a potential bug in vectorizable_live_operation.
Co
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch adds a vectorization pattern which detects cases where mask
> conversion is needed and adds it. It is done for all statements which may
> consume mask. Some additional changes were made to support MASK_LOAD with
> patt
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> Richard, Jakub,
>> this updates patch 1 to use the target-insns.def mechanism of detecting
>> conditionally-implemented instructions. Otherwise it's the same as
>> yesterday'
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2015-10-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68104
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_compute_data_ref_alignment): Move
strided access check ...
(vect_compute_data_refs_alignment): ... here.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Alan Hayward wrote:
>
>
> On 27/10/2015 11:36, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Alan Hayward
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/10/2015 13:35, "Richard Biener"
>>>wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Alan Hayward
wrote:
>
On 27/10/15 13:06, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 27/10/15 11:37, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Bernd Schmidt
wrote:
On 10/19/2015 09:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
* calls.c (prepare_call_address): Don't handle -fno-plt here.
I
Hi all,
This patch allows us to handle the *combine_vcvtf2i pattern in rtx costs by
properly identifying it
as a toint coversion. Before this I saw a pattern like:
(set (reg/i:SI 0 r0)
(fix:SI (fix:SF (mult:SF (reg:SF 16 s0 [ a ])
(const_double:SF 3.2e+1 [0x0.8p+6])
bein
On Mon, 2015-10-26 at 22:47 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:28:51PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 02:32 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > Here's my updated version of the FDPIC patch with all requested
> > > changes made and Changelog added. I've included al
On 10/27/15 01:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
LGTM, though could I ask you to try to try to move the
struct oacc_collapse
expand_oacc_collapse_init
expand_oacc_collapse_vars
expand_oacc_for
additions somewhere else
(e.g. in between expand_omp_taskreg and expand_omp_for_init_counts),
ok, I wasn't su
On 10/27/15 06:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Ok for me, but please wait for Richi's ack too.
+ /* An IFN_UNIQUE call must be duplicated as part of its group,
+or not at all. */
+ if (is_gimple_call (g) && gimple_call_inter
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 07:03:40AM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/27/15 06:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >>Ok for me, but please wait for Richi's ack too.
> >
> >+ /* An IFN_UNIQUE call must be duplicated as part of its group,
>
Hello Joseph,
On 23 Oct 14:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>
> > > You need to update this patch to take account of Marek's fix for bug
> > > 67964
> > > (it was because I was suspicious of the "continue;" in this patch
> > > accepting invalid syntax that I f
[ cc gcc-patches ]
On 23/10/15 18:40, Eric Botcazou wrote:
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
@@ -5887,7 +5887,10 @@ intra_create_variable_infos (struct function *fn)
if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
&& TYPE_RESTRICT (TREE_TYPE (t)))
-
On 10/27/15 01:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
to break out the else part into a separate function. That's fine -- it'll
copy the whole CFG of interest.
The question is if some UNIQUE call could be ever considered as part of the
chea
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:06:58PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Boostrapped. Regtesting is in progress. Is it ok for trunk if pass?
>
> gcc/
> * cp/parser.h (cp_parser): Add simd_attr_present.
> * cp/parser.c (cp_parser_late_return_type_opt): Handle
> simd_attr_present,
> r
When factoring a*b + a*c to (b + c)*a we have to guard against the
case of a == 0 as after the factoring b + c might overflow in that
case. Fixed by doing the addition in an unsigned type if required.
Bootstrap / regtest pending on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Richard.
2015-10-27 Richard Biener
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following patch adjusts negate_expr_p to account for the fact
> that we can't generally change a - (b - c) to (c - b) + a because
> -INF - 0 is ok while 0 - -INF not. Similarly for a - (b + c).
> While creating testcases I noticed that MULT_EXPR
This fixes another fallout of the PR65962 fix, gcc.dg/vect/vect-62.c
failing for targets that use constant pool entries for the array
initializer.
On x86_64 we fail to vectorize the 2nd loop in the testcase because
PRE makes the latch block non-empty (and adds a loop carried dependency).
The pat
>
> OK, then it's fairly x86-64 specific optimization, because we can't do "call
> *mem" in
> aarch64 and some other targets.
It is a fairly x86_64 specific optimization and doesn't apply to AArch64.
The question really is what impact does removing the generic code handling have
on aarch64 -
Hi all,
This patch fixes the gcc.dg/ifcvt-2.c test for x86_64 where we were failing to
if-convert.
This was because in my patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=228194
which tried to emit a SET to move the source of insn_a or insn_b (that came
from the test block)
into
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, then it's fairly x86-64 specific optimization, because we can't do "call
>> *mem" in
>> aarch64 and some other targets.
>
> It is a fairly x86_64 specific optimization and doesn't apply to AArch64.
>
> The question really is
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 10/26/2015 02:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2015 04:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 11:59 AM, R
Hi!
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:44:58 +0100, I wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:36:46 +0100, I wrote:
> > In r217146, I applied the following to gomp-4_0-branch:
> >
> > [OpenACC cache directive maintenance in C/C++]
> I also tried to make this work for Fortran, but didn't manage to (in
> a reasonable
On 27/10/15 14:50, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
OK, then it's fairly x86-64 specific optimization, because we can't do "call
*mem" in
aarch64 and some other targets.
It is a fairly x86_64 specific optimization and doesn't apply to AArch64.
The
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:19:49PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:44:58 +0100, I wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:36:46 +0100, I wrote:
> > > In r217146, I applied the following to gomp-4_0-branch:
> > >
> > > [OpenACC cache directive maintenance in C/C++]
>
> > I also tr
On 10/27/2015 03:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 10/26/2015 02:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/21/2015 04:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:24 PM,
On 24/10/15 08:16, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On October 23, 2015 2:24:26 PM GMT+02:00, Matthew Wahab
wrote:
The ARMv8.1 architecture extension adds two Adv.SIMD instructions,.
This
patch adds support in Dejagnu for ARMv8.1 Adv.SIMD specifiers and
checks.
The new test options are
- { dg-
Hi Marc,
On 30/08/15 08:57, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
just trying to shrink fold-const.c a bit more.
initializer_zerop is close to what I was looking for with zerop, but I
wasn't sure if it would be safe (it accepts some CONSTRUCTOR and
STRING_CST). At some point I tried using sign_bit_p, but
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 27/10/15 14:50, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> wrote:
OK, then it's fairly x86-64 specific optimization, because we can't do
"call *mem" in
aarch64 and some other targets
(was "Re: more accurate omp in fortran"
Ping.
Cesar
On 10/22/2015 08:21 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> Currently, for certain omp and oacc errors the fortran will inaccurately
> report exactly where in the omp/acc construct the error has occurred. E.g.
>
>!$acc parallel copy (i) copy (i) co
On 10/27/2015 04:17 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This adds -fchecking as a way to enable internal consistency checks
> even in release builds (or disable checking with -fno-checking - up to
> a certain extent - with checking enabled).
I remember that Jakub proposed to use __builtin_expect with
f
On 27/10/15 14:50, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> OK, then it's fairly x86-64 specific optimization, because we can't do
>>> "call *mem" in
>>> aarch64 and some other targets.
>>
>> It is a fairly x86_64 specific optimization and doesn
On 10/26/2015 11:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:51:42AM -0500, James Norris wrote:
>> @@ -12942,6 +12961,7 @@ c_finish_omp_clauses (tree clauses, bool is_omp,
>> bool declare_simd)
>> case OMP_CLAUSE_GANG:
>> case OMP_CLAUSE_WORKER:
>> case OMP_CLAUSE_VECTO
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Marc,
On 30/08/15 08:57, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
just trying to shrink fold-const.c a bit more.
initializer_zerop is close to what I was looking for with zerop, but I
wasn't sure if it would be safe (it accepts some CONSTRUCTOR and
STRING_CST).
On 27/10/15 15:57, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Marc,
On 30/08/15 08:57, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
just trying to shrink fold-const.c a bit more.
initializer_zerop is close to what I was looking for with zerop, but I
wasn't sure if it would be safe (it a
On 27/10/15 11:18, James Greenhalgh wrote:
;; ---
@@ -932,6 +934,8 @@
UNSPEC_SQSHRN UNSPEC_UQSHRN
UNSPEC_SQRSHRN UNSPEC_UQRSHRN])
+(define_int_iterator SQRDMLAH [U
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:11:07PM +, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> On 27/10/15 11:18, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
> >> ;; ---
> >>@@ -932,6 +934,8 @@
> >> UNSPEC_SQSHRN UNSPEC_UQSHRN
> >>
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
So here the types are shorts and unsigned shorts. On aarch64 these are
HImode values and there's no direct arithmetic operations on them, so
they have to be extended to SImode and truncated back.
Ah ok, that makes sense. I expect it is in the case wh
I've committed the attached patch after testing on
x86_64-*-freebsd. A regression was introduced by
my fix for PR fortran/67805, which failed to check
for a valid array ref. Note, Mikael approved the
patch in the PR audit trail.
2015-10-27 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68108
*
Hi!
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:26:54 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:19:49PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:44:58 +0100, I wrote:
> > > On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:36:46 +0100, I wrote:
> > > > In r217146, I applied the following to gomp-4_0-branch:
> > >
Ping.
BR,
Andre
On 13/10/15 18:01, Andre Vieira wrote:
This patch ports the aeabi_idiv routine from Linaro Cortex-Strings
(https://git.linaro.org/toolchain/cortex-strings.git), which was
contributed by ARM under Free BSD license.
The new aeabi_idiv routine is used to replace the one in
libgcc/
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> When factoring a*b + a*c to (b + c)*a we have to guard against the
> case of a == 0 as after the factoring b + c might overflow in that
> case. Fixed by doing the addition in an unsigned type if required.
The same applies to a == -1 (consider b and c
On 26/10/15 15:04, Richard Biener wrote:
apart from the fact that you'll post a new version you need to adjust GROUP_GAP.
You also seem to somewhat "confuse" "first I stmts" and "a group of
size I", those
are not the same when the group has haps. I'd say "a group of size i" makes the
most sense
On 10/27/2015 09:42 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 27/10/15 14:50, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
OK, then it's fairly x86-64 specific optimization, because we can't do "call
*mem" in
aarch64 and some other targets.
It is a fairly x86_64
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 04:49:08AM -1000, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 05:33 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >+if (fold_p)
> >+ expr = fold_build1_loc (loc, NOP_EXPR, totype, expr);
> >+else
> >+ expr = build1_loc (loc, NOP_EXPR, totype, expr);
>
> Rather than
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
