Mike Stump writes:
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> switch (GET_CODE (rtl))
>> {
>> case CONST_INT:
>> - {
>> -HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (rtl);
>> + if (mode != BLKmode)
>
> This changes BLKmode for CONST_INT, but I didn’t see this discussed.
Nuno Diegues writes:
> Hello everyone,
>
> gently pinging to bring this back to life given the last patch I emailed.
The patch is fine for me, but I cannot approve it.
-Andi
I'll try it That was the only error I hit with the go and libgo
tests with Go 1.5.
I assume there will be a different number for the libgo.so for Go 1.5?
On 11/02/2015 02:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Lynn A. Boger
wrote:
I see this error when building g
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:38:33PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 23/09/15 23:06, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >This adds an -freorder-blocks-algorithm=[simple|stc] flag, with "simple"
> >as default. For -O2 and up (except -Os) it is switched to "stc" instead.
> >Targets that never want STC can o
Hi,
On 11/02/2015 09:20 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
__is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit from __and_ and
avoid explicit integral_constant? Otherwise patch looks goo
On 11/02/2015 01:10 PM, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Hi!
This patches fixes FP exception that comes from CilkPlus runtime.
Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64.
Is it ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Igor
Changelog:
libcilkrts
2015-10-30 Igor Zamyatin
PR target/66326
* untime/config/x86/
Ping. Thanks in advance for a review.
On 10/22/2015 08:12 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[Sending to the right list this time]
The documentation of the -Q --help=optimizers options leads some
to expect that when options are reported as enabled imply the
corresponding optimization will take place. (Se
On 31.10.15 22:34, Andreas Tobler wrote:
Hi,
this is the part for gcc trunk. As mentioned in the previous mail (same
subject for gcc5) I forgot to adapt the PIE bits for FreeBSD powerpc64.
The patch below lets me bootstrap a current gcc with itself.
I'll commit this part if there are no object
On 31.10.15 22:28, Andreas Tobler wrote:
Hi,
I forgot to adapt the pie bits for powerpc64 FreeBSD back in May when I
committed the pie support for FreeBSD.
Without the below patch I'm not able to bootstrap a current gcc on
FreeBSD powerpc64.
The patch is against gcc-5, the patch for trunk will
On 11/02/2015 01:08 PM, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Hi!
This patch attempts to enhance error diagnostic in case of CilkPlus and fixes
PR68001.
Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64.
Is it ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Igor
ChangeLog:
c-family
2015-11-02 Igor Zamyatin
k
PR c++/68001
*
On 11/02/2015 08:53 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Steven Bosscher writes:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Is the split_block change really so bad?
IMHO: Yes.
Fair enough :-)
I tend to agree. If the caller needs a more complex control flow and
dominance/post-domi
On 11/02/2015 12:14 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Jeff: I'm working on expression ranges in the C++ FE; is that a
prerequisite for patches 5-10, or can 5-10 go ahead without the C++
work? (assuming the other issues above are acceptable).
Hope this all makes sense and sounds sane
I think 5-10 can
Hello.
- Original Message -
From: "Bernd Schmidt"
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1:50 PM
On 10/26/2015 11:46 PM, Anatoliy Sokolov wrote:
This patch change code 'REGNO (subreg) + subreg_regno_offset (...)'
with subreg_regno (subreg).
Index: gcc/reg-stack.c
===
On 11/02/2015 07:15 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch attempts to restrict combine from transforming ZERO_EXTEND
and SIGN_EXTEND operations into and-bitmask
and weird SUBREG expressions when they appear inside MULT expressions.
This is because a MULT rtx containing these
extend operat
On 10/27/2015 08:49 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
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
On 10/30/2015 09:16 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
This is a rebased version of this patch from back in April:
v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00944.html
which in turn is a rewrite of this one:
v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01087.html
The idea is to more gra
This moves the check for threading through the loop latch to a point
where we check it on every edge in the jump threading path. Thus
catching cases where the loop latch is in the middle of the path.
This was spotted during analysis of Andreas's report that one of the new
tests was failing
On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This was:
>
> ... Sometimes structure decls
> have BLKmode but are assigned an integer-mode rtl (e.g. when passing
> 3-byte structures by value to functions).
> [...]
> loc_descriptor refuses to use CONST_INT for BLKmode decls (which a
On 02/11/15 16:25, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>On 01/11/15 19:03, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> >So, the new patch series is:
> >
> > 1Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
> > 2Handle recursive restrict in function pa
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lynn A. Boger
wrote:
>
> I assume there will be a different number for the libgo.so for Go 1.5?
Thanks for the reminder. I committed this patch to bump the version number.
Ian
Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE
===
On 11/01/2015 07:58 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
Hi all!
This patch was intended to be the last one in this series (but I'll send one
more cleanup patch today). It removes ENABLE_CHECKING macros in the C++ front
end (and also touches a small piece of common C family code in OpenMP).
I could conve
On 11/01/2015 01:19 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
This patch cleans up remaining bits related to ENABLE_CHECKING. After applying
this patch (on top of part 9) we will no longer have any references to
ENABLE_CHECKING in the source code.
Bootstrapped and regtested (on top of part 9) on x86_64-pc-linu
On 11/02/2015 12:35 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
diff --git a/gdb/ada-lang.c b/gdb/ada-lang.c
index fff4862..2559a36 100644
--- a/gdb/ada-lang.c
+++ b/gdb/ada-lang.c
@@ -11359,9 +11359,11 @@ ada_evaluate_subexp (struct type *expect_type, struct
expression *exp,
return value_zero (ada
On Oct 14, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Oct 9, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ok. Note that I think emit_block_
On 10/26/2015 09:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ while (TREE_CODE (oper) == NOP_EXPR)
+oper = TREE_OPERAND (oper, 0);
This is STRIP_NOPS.
+ to placement new is not checked since it's unknownwhat it might
Missing space.
+ else if (TREE_CODE (oper) == ADDR_EXPR) {
The brace should
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:02:07PM +0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 10/30/2015 01:47 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Bernd Schmidt
> >> wrote:
>
>
> it's not target independent code. Are
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 01:20:45PM +0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:48 PM, wrote:
> > From: Trevor Saunders
> >
> > Similar to ROUND_TYPE_ALIGN it seems to make sense to copy the
> > information in the target macros to libobjc as an incremental step. Its
> > worth noting
On 11/02/2015 06:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Oct 14, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Oct 12, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Oct 9, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
Ok. Not
On 10/29/2015 01:18 PM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
This is in response to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-10/msg00097.html, where
Richi points out that CONSTRUCTOR elements are not necessarily ordered.
I wasn't sure of a good naming convention for the new get_ctor_element_at_index,
other suggestions w
I merged trunk revision 229686 to the gccgo branch.
Ian
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 03:52:13PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 09:16 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >This is a rebased version of this patch from back in April:
> > v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00944.html
> >which in turn is a rewrite of this one:
> > v1: https://gcc
On Nov 3, 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 06:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> It looks ok to me but lacks a comment in mark_addressable_1 why we
>>> do this queueing when currently expanding to RTL.
>>
+/* Mark X as addressable or queue it
On 10/26/2015 10:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ if (TREE_CONSTANT (maybe_constant_value (outer_nelts)))
+ {
+ if (tree_int_cst_lt (max_outer_nelts_tree, outer_nelts))
maybe_constant_value may return a constant, but that doesn't mean that
outer_nelts was already constant; if it
On 2 November 2015 at 23:07, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Great, thanks a lot. Thinking more about this detail, I wonder if we should
> therefore apply the below too? Anything I'm missing?
Tested again on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk?
2015-11-03 Ville Voutilainen
Make the default constructors of
Hi,
Thanks for the review and suggestions.
>> Please do not drop A - B -> A + (-B) from fold-const as match.pd
>> doesn't implement all of fold-const.c negate_expr_p support.
Done.
>> which is more expensive. This means that we miss a
>> (bit_and (bit_not @0) INTEGER_CST@1)
Should we have thi
On 10/14/2015 09:14 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Here's the latest version of the tools for a sub directory in contrib.
I've handled all the feedback, except I have not fully commented the
python code in the tools, nor followed any particular coding
convention... Documentation has been handled, an
On 10/30/2015 05:05 AM, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
From: Trevor Saunders
Hi,
$subject as far as I am aware these are the same on all supported targets.
Trev
libgcc/ChangeLog:
2015-10-30 Trevor Saunders
* config/visium/lib2funcs.c (__set_trampoline_parity): Use
__CH
Hello!
> I have committed a patch to libgo to update it to the Go 1.5 release.
>
> As usual for libgo updates, the actual patch is too large to attach to
> this e-mail message. I've attached the changes to the gccgo-specific
> files.
>
> Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
101 - 138 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
