[PATCH^1] Add fuzzing coverage support

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > ping > > Number of bugs found with this coverage in kernel already crossed 40: > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/wiki/Found-Bugs > > > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> +syzkaller group >> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 201

[gomp4] Merge trunk r231117 (2015-12-01) into gomp-4_0-branch

Hi! Committed to gomp-4_0-branch in r231186: commit e08db3c495b2447b7b3dacc61e9c297fd736a061 Merge: 32f9dce ce182d9 Author: tschwinge Date: Wed Dec 2 16:16:40 2015 + svn merge -r 231075:231117 svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/

[RFA] [PR tree-optimization/68599] Avoid over-zealous optimization with -funsafe-loop-optimizations

I strongly recommend reading the analysis in pr45122 since pr68599 uses the same testcase and just triggers the same bug in the RTL optimizers instead of the tree optimziers. As noted in 45122, with -funsafe-loop-optimizations, we may exit the loop an iteration too early. The loop in quest

[PATCH 2/2] [graphite] fix invalid bounds on array refs

While enabling graphite in -O3 we found a Fortran testcase that fails because the max of the type domain is -1. We used to add that as a constraint to the elements accessed by the array, leading to a unfeasible constraint: 0 <= i <= -1. Having that constraint, drops the data reference as that say

Re: [gomp-nvptx 2/9] nvptx backend: new "uniform SIMT" codegen variant

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 06:44:11PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > > But you never know if people actually use #pragma omp simd regions or not, > > sometimes they will, sometimes they won't, and if the uniform SIMT > increases > > power consumption, it might not be desirable. > > It's easy to ad

[PATCH 1/2] [graphite] rename flag_loop_optimize_isl to flag_loop_nest_optimize

--- gcc/common.opt | 2 +- gcc/graphite-poly.c | 2 +- gcc/graphite.c | 2 +- gcc/toplev.c| 2 +- 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt index e1617c4..e593631 100644 --- a/gcc/common.opt +++ b/gcc/common.opt @@ -1379,7 +137

Re: [ping] pending patches

> It doesn't look to me like DW_AT_endianity is applicable to array types > or members in DWARF 3/4; instead, it should be applied to the underlying > base type. Yeah, I agreed but Jakub didn't and I trust him more than myself here. :-) https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg00143.html https://

Re: Add fuzzing coverage support

On 12/02/2015 05:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: ping I do not see the original submission in my archives. This one comes too late to make it into gcc-6. I can make some initial comments. This patch adds support for coverage-guided fuzzing: https://codereview.appspot.com/280140043 Please send

Re: [UPC 01/22] front-end changes

On 12/01/15 09:12:44, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > All languages (c, c++, fortran, go, lto, objc, obj-c++) have been > > bootstrapped; no test suite regressions were introduced, > > relative to the GCC trunk. > > That's not all languages though, Ada and Java are missing. Full bootstrap, no regression

Re: Add fuzzing coverage support

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 12/02/2015 05:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> ping > > > I do not see the original submission in my archives. That's strange. I don't see it in gcc-patches archives as well. The original email contained a plain-text patch attachment. Att

Re: [PATCH, i386, AVX-512] Split out mask version for vec_extract_hi_.

Hello, On 30 Nov 13:46, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > Hello, > Patch in the bottom splits masked version of vec_extract_hi_ > to block AVX-1512VL insn generation for KNL and cures ICE on > spec2k6/450.soplex. > > Bootstrapped and regtesed. > > If no objections - I'll commit on Wednesday. > > gcc/ >

[PATCH] PR c/68637: Rebuild array with the updated function pointer type

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:35 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > When we apply function attribute to array of function pointer, we > need to rebuild array with the updated function pointer type. > > gcc/ > > PR c/68637 > * attribs.c (decl_attributes): Rebuid array with the updated > * fun

Re: RFC: Merge the GUPC branch into the GCC 6.0 trunk

On 12/01/15 12:19:48, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 12/01/2015 06:31 AM, Gary Funck wrote: > >At this time, we would like to re-submit the UPC patches for comment > >with the goal of introducing these changes into GCC 6.0. > > This has missed stage 1 by a few weeks, we'd have to make an exception to >

Re: [gomp-nvptx 2/9] nvptx backend: new "uniform SIMT" codegen variant

On 12/02/15 11:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 06:44:11PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: But you never know if people actually use #pragma omp simd regions or not, sometimes they will, sometimes they won't, and if the uniform SIMT increases power consumption, it might not be

Re: [gomp-nvptx 2/9] nvptx backend: new "uniform SIMT" codegen variant

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > It's easy to address: just terminate threads 1-31 if the linked image has > > no SIMD regions, like my pre-simd libgomp was doing. > > Well, can't say the linked image in one shared library call a function > in another linked image in another shared lib

Re: Add fuzzing coverage support

On 12/02/2015 05:55 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides function comments)? (flag_sanitize & (SANITIZE_ADDRESS | SANITIZE_THREAD \ - | SANITIZE_UNDEFINED | SANITIZE_NONDEFAULT))) +

Re: -fstrict-aliasing fixes 5/6: make type system independent of flag_strict_aliasing

> > Rather than adjusting this function please adjust > alias_sets_must_conflict_p. > > Otherwise this looks ok and indeed much nicer. OK, will update it. Will hold this patch until we resolve what we want to do with the debug dumps. I do not seem to be able to reproduce any -fcompare-debug is

Re: -fstrict-aliasing fixes 4/6: do not fiddle with flag_strict_aliasing when expanding debug locations

> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:05:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > this patch removes flag_strict_aliasing kludge in expanding debug > > > > locations and > > > > instead it intro

Re: [gomp-nvptx 2/9] nvptx backend: new "uniform SIMT" codegen variant

On 12/02/15 12:09, Alexander Monakov wrote: I meant the PTX linked (post PTX-JIT link) image, so regardless of support, it's not an issue. E.g. check early in gomp_nvptx_main if .weak __nvptx_has_simd != 0. It would only break if there was dlopen on PTX. Note I found a bug in .weak support.

[PATCH] Fix ICE in nonnull warning on OFFSET_TYPEs (PR c++/68653)

We were hitting the assert in nonnull_arg_p that only wants to see POINTER_TYPE, but it got OFFSET_TYPE instead. Which is--in tree.def--described as "a pointer relative to an object". Thus I think we should allow OFFSET_TYPE here. In the attached testcase I demonstrated that this warning works e

[PTX] #define cleanup

I noticed an enum would be cleaner to define the shuffle kinds. nathan 2015-12-02 Nathan Sidwell * config/nvptx/nvptx.c (enum nvptx_shuffle_kind): New. Absorb SHUFFLE defines. (nvptx_gen_shuffle, nvptx_print_operand, nvptx_expand_shuffle): Adjust. Index: config/nvptx/nvptx.c

Re: [PATCH] Fix declaration of pthread-structs in s-osinte-rtems.ads (ada/68169)

On December 2, 2015 2:14:22 AM EST, Jeff Law wrote: >On 12/01/2015 12:56 PM, Jan Sommer wrote: >> Am Monday 30 November 2015, 16:19:30 schrieb Jeff Law: >>> On 11/30/2015 03:06 PM, Jan Sommer wrote: Could someone with write access please commit the patch? The paperwork with the FSF has

Re: Add fuzzing coverage support

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 12/02/2015 05:55 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides >> function comments)? >> >> (flag_sanitize & (SANITIZE_ADDRESS | SANITIZE_THREAD \ >> -

Re: [PATCH, VECTOR ABI] Add __attribute__((__simd__)) to GCC.

On 12/02/2015 05:46 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote: Hello Jakub, On 13 Nov 13:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote: --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/attr-simd.c Similarly. Ok for trunk with those changes. It turns out that current implementation of GLibC does not contain masked variants of math r

Re: [PATCH, VECTOR ABI] Add __attribute__((__simd__)) to GCC.

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:40:13AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > Why not use "unmasked" and "masked" instead of "notinbranch" and "inbranch"? > If those terms come from OpenMP or are in use by other compilers (llvm, icc, > whatever), then I guess we should stick with them. Otherwise we should > conside

RFC: c-common PATCHes to fully fold warning function arguments

As richi pointed out in another thread, calling fold in warn_tautological_cmp is problematic because fold expects operands of its argument to have already been folded; we really need to call *_fully_fold. The first patch moves c_fully_fold into the C front end, and defines it for C++ as well.

Re: [PR67335] drop dummy zero from reverse VTA ops, fix infinite recursion

On 11/26/2015 04:45 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: VTA's cselib expression hashing compares expressions with the same hash before adding them to the hash table. When there is a collision involving a self-referencing expression, we could get infinite recursion, in spite of the cycle breakers already

DW_AT_endianity (was Re: [ping] pending patches)

On 12/02/2015 11:44 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: It doesn't look to me like DW_AT_endianity is applicable to array types or members in DWARF 3/4; instead, it should be applied to the underlying base type. Yeah, I agreed but Jakub didn't and I trust him more than myself here. :-) https://gcc.gnu.

Re: [PATCH] -Wshift-overflow: Warn for shifting sign bit out of a negative number

On 11/26/2015 04:52 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: maybe_warn_shift_overflow is checking for patterns such as (1 << 31) and not warning for them. However, if the shifted value is negative, a shift by a non-zero amount will always shift *out* of the sign bit rather than into it. Thus it should be warne

Re: RFC: c-common PATCHes to fully fold warning function arguments

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jason Merrill wrote: > As richi pointed out in another thread, calling fold in warn_tautological_cmp > is problematic because fold expects operands of its argument to have already > been folded; we really need to call *_fully_fold. > > The first patch moves c_fully_fold into t

Re: [PATCH] Handle BUILT_IN_GOACC_PARALLEL in ipa-pta

Hi! On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:25:42 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > Handle BUILT_IN_GOACC_PARALLEL in ipa-pta > * c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta-2.c: New test. > * c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta-3.c: New test. > * c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta.c: New tes

Re: [PATCH] Fix oacc kernels default mapping for scalars

Hi! Copying Nathan for your information, in case you had not yet seen that gcc/gimplify.c:oacc_default_clause change: On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:29:21 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > The OpenACC 2.0a standard says this about the default mapping for > variables used in a kernels region: > ... > An arra

Re: RFC: c-common PATCHes to fully fold warning function arguments

On 12/02/2015 12:50 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jason Merrill wrote: As richi pointed out in another thread, calling fold in warn_tautological_cmp is problematic because fold expects operands of its argument to have already been folded; we really need to call *_fully_fold. The

Re: Patch RFA: Improve building gotools with a cross compiler

Ping to build maintainers. Thanks. Ian On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > PR 66147 points out that it doesn't work to build the gotools with a > cross-compiler. This patch improves matters. I added a new host > export to the top level Makefile. Build maintainers, doe

Re: Fix 61441 [ 1/5] Add REAL_VALUE_ISSIGNALING_NAN

On 11/26/2015 01:27 AM, Saraswati, Sujoy (OSTL) wrote: Hi, This series of patches fixes PR61441. The fix is broken into 5 patches. The first one adds REAL_VALUE_ISSIGNALING_NAN. 2015-11-26 Sujoy Saraswati PR tree-optimization/61441 * real.c (real_issignaling_nan): N

Re: RFC: c-common PATCHes to fully fold warning function arguments

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jason Merrill wrote: > > The new file needs copyright and license notices. > > So it does, thanks. > > > > The second patch defines fold_for_warn to call c_fully_fold and uses it in > > > places in the warn_* functions that want to know if the operand has a > > > constant > >

Re: Solaris vtv port breaks x32 build

On 02.12.2015 13:29, Rainer Orth wrote: Exactly: moving AM_ENABLE_MULTILIB up as Matthias suggested sets cross_compiling=maybe for non-default multilibs early, which should achieve the desired behaviour. All other libraries that invoke both macros already do so in this order. now committed. 2

[PATCH] Fix shrink-wrap bug with anticipating into loops (PR67778, PR68634)

After shrink-wrapping has found the "tightest fit" for where to place the prologue, it tries move it earlier (so that frame saves are run earlier) -- but without copying any more basic blocks. Unfortunately a candidate block we select can be inside a loop, and we will still allow it (because the l

Fix TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT construction for arrays of qualified typedefs (PR c/68162)

PR c/68162 reports a spurious warning about incompatible types involving arrays of const double, constructed in one place using a typedef for const double and in another place literally using const double. The problem is that the array of the typedef was incorrectly constructed without a TYPE_MAIN

[PATCH] [graphite] fix PR68550: do not handle ISL loop peeled statements

In case ISL did some loop peeling, like this: S_8(0); for (int c1 = 1; c1 <= 5; c1 += 1) { S_8(c1); } S_8(6); we should not copy loop-phi nodes in S_8(0) or in S_8(6). * graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c (copy_loop_phi_nodes): Add dump. (copy_bb_and_scalar_dependences): Do

Re: [UPC 02/22] tree-related changes

On 12/01/15 12:26:32, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Gary Funck wrote: > > -struct GTY(()) tree_type_common { > > +struct GTY((user)) tree_type_common { > >struct tree_common common; > >tree size; > >tree size_unit; > > @@ -1441,10 +1458,10 @@ struct GTY(()) tree_type_comm

Re: Fix 61441 [5/5] Disable various transformations for signaling NaN operands

On 11/26/2015 01:38 AM, Saraswati, Sujoy (OSTL) wrote: Hi, This patch avoids various transformations with signaling NaN operands when flag_signaling_nans is on, to avoid folding which would lose exceptions. A test case for this change is also added as part of this patch. Regards, Sujoy 20

[PATCH] Improve expansion of double word popcount or parity (PR target/68647)

Hi! expand_unop already handles specially several bitop builtins (strangely e.g. only clz and not ctz which can be handled pretty much the same, except comparing the other subreg), but does not handle popcount/parity this way. popcount of double word value can be computed as popcount (hi) + popco

Re: [PATCH] Allocate constant size dynamic stack space in the prologue

On 11/27/2015 07:09 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote: New patch with the following changes: * Fixed comment about dynamic var area placement. * The area is now placed further away from the stack pointer than the non-dynamic stack variables (tested only with STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD). This is a possible

Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE in nonnull warning on OFFSET_TYPEs (PR c++/68653)

On 12/02/2015 10:27 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: We were hitting the assert in nonnull_arg_p that only wants to see POINTER_TYPE, but it got OFFSET_TYPE instead. Which is--in tree.def--described as "a pointer relative to an object". Thus I think we should allow OFFSET_TYPE here. In the attached te

Re: Fix 61441 [5/5] Disable various transformations for signaling NaN operands

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jeff Law wrote: > Why let NEGATE_EXPR and ABS_EXPR pass through here? I realize that these can > often be implemented with bit-twiddling, so they're usually considered > special. BUt in this case aren't we just dealing with constants and wouldn't > we want to still express th

Re: Fix 61441 [5/5] Disable various transformations for signaling NaN operands

On 12/02/2015 12:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jeff Law wrote: Why let NEGATE_EXPR and ABS_EXPR pass through here? I realize that these can often be implemented with bit-twiddling, so they're usually considered special. BUt in this case aren't we just dealing with constants a

[PATCH] Fix -E preprocessing of pragmas (PR preprocessor/57580)

Hi! As the testcases show, we can happily emit e.g. { #pragma omp single in the -E preprocessed output, which is not valid C/C++, the preprocessing directives have to be at the beginning of line or there can be optional whitespace before them. But for -fpreprocessed input there is even a strong

Re: Patch RFA: Improve building gotools with a cross compiler

On 11/25/2015 03:22 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: PR 66147 points out that it doesn't work to build the gotools with a cross-compiler. This patch improves matters. I added a new host export to the top level Makefile. Build maintainers, does this change seem OK? Ian ./ChangeLog: 2015-11-25 Ia

Re: [OpenACC 0/7] host_data construct

On 12/02/2015 07:58 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > diff --git gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray.f95 > gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray.f95 > index 130ffc3..d2f10d5 100644 > --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray.f95 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray.f95 > @@ -1,7 +1,9

Re: [PATCH] Fix shrink-wrap bug with anticipating into loops (PR67778, PR68634)

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 06:21:47PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > --- a/gcc/shrink-wrap.c > +++ b/gcc/shrink-wrap.c > @@ -752,7 +752,11 @@ try_shrink_wrapping (edge *entry_edge, bitmap_head > *bb_with, > >/* If we can move PRO back without having to duplicate more blocks, do so. >

Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] PR68212: Improve Accounting of Block Frequencies During Loop Unrolling

On 11/25/2015 09:18 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: I'm reading up on this stuff, but I'm probably still not the best person to review the actual frequency manipulation parts in this. There are a few things I can comment on, however. The first question would be, have you looked at the rebuild_frequenci

Re: [PATCH] Improve expansion of double word popcount or parity (PR target/68647)

On 12/02/2015 12:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! expand_unop already handles specially several bitop builtins (strangely e.g. only clz and not ctz which can be handled pretty much the same, except comparing the other subreg), but does not handle popcount/parity this way. popcount of double word

Re: [OpenACC 0/7] host_data construct

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:16:10AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > > This host_data patch exposed a bug in the fortran front end where it was > allowing arrays to be used as reduction variables. If replace you > replace codimension with dimension, you'd see a similar ICE. The > attached patch, w

Re: [OpenACC 0/7] host_data construct

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:16:10AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > > --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray_2.f90 > > +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray_2.f90 > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ > > ! > > ! PR fortran/63861 > > ! { dg-xfail-if "" { *-*-* } } > > +! {

Re: [PATCH] Fix large code model with the ELFv2 ABI

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Hello, > > this patch fixes support for the large code model with the ELFv2 ABI. > > The global entry point prologue currently assumes that the TOC associated > with a function is less than 2GB away from the function entry point. This > is a

Re: [PATCH] Fix c++/67337 (segfault in mangle.c)

OK, thanks. Jason

Re: Add fuzzing coverage support

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:55:29PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides > function comments)? > > > > We seem to have no established process for deciding whether we want a new > > feature. I am not sure how to approach such a question, and

[PATCH] Add testcase for c/68513

So Richi fixed this PR via changes for genmatch.c: . I'd like to add this testcase which shows the original problem, and on top of that, I've added a bunch of other functions that try to exercises other patterns with save_exprs, both from m

Re: [PATCH] Add testcase for c/68513

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:53:11PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > So Richi fixed this PR via changes for genmatch.c: > . > > I'd like to add this testcase which shows the original problem, and on top of > that, I've added a bunch of other fu

Re: [OpenACC 0/7] host_data construct

On 12/02/2015 11:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:16:10AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: >>> --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray_2.f90 >>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray_2.f90 >>> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ >>> ! >>> ! PR fortran/63861 >>> ! { dg-xfail-if "

Re: [PATCH 1/2] destroy values as well as keys when removing them from hash maps

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:35:13AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Trevor Saunders wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 07:43:35PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> > tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org writes: > >> > > -template > >> > > +template > >> >

Re: -fstrict-aliasing fixes 4/6: do not fiddle with flag_strict_aliasing when expanding debug locations

Hi, I discussed the situation with Jakub on IRC today. It seems we still want to have alias sets in the dumps, but Jakub agrees with introduction new global var to control this instead of tampering with flag_strict_aliasing. This patch does that and also fixes expand_call_stmt which forget to set

Re: -fstrict-aliasing fixes 4/6: do not fiddle with flag_strict_aliasing when expanding debug locations

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:16:10PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > * cfgexpand.c: Include alias.h Missing full stop at the end. > (expand_call_stmt, expand_debug_expr): Set no_new_alias_sets; > do not fiddle with flag_strict_aliasing Likewise. > * varasm.c: Include alias.h

Re: [PATCH] PR target/48904 x86_64-knetbsd-gnu missing defs

Trevor, On 1 May 2015 at 01:23, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:58:09PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> On April 30, 2015 5:53:02 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote: >> >On 04/30/2015 01:58 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On 30 April 2015 at 07:0

[GOOGLE] Remove overly-aggressive LIPO assert

Remove an assert that was overly-strict and already partially redundant with an immediately prior assert. In this case we had a hidden visibility function clone that was created after the LIPO link due to indirect call promotion. It is a cgraph_is_aux_decl_external node. Fixes failures and passes

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [graphite] fix invalid bounds on array refs

On December 2, 2015 5:34:54 PM GMT+01:00, Sebastian Pop wrote: >While enabling graphite in -O3 we found a Fortran testcase that fails >because the max of the type domain is -1. We used to add that as a >constraint >to the elements accessed by the array, leading to a unfeasible >constraint: >0 <=

[PATCH] [graphite] do not insert code outside the generated region

on the testcase we used to generate code in the function entry bb_0, and that choked the cfg verifier. * graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c (copy_bb_and_scalar_dependences): Check that insertion point is still in the region. * gfortran.dg/graphite/id-26.f03: New. --- gcc/graphi

RE: [PATCH 2/2] [graphite] fix invalid bounds on array refs

Do you recommend that we add a gcc_assert that min is always lower than max? The change in Graphite code can be reverted then: >+ /* Fortran has some arrays where high bound is -1 and low is 0. */ >+ if (integer_onep (fold_build2 (LT_EXPR, boolean_type_node, high, >low))) >+return false;

Re: [Fortran, Patch] (RFC, Coarray) Implement TS18508's EVENTS

Committed as revision 231208. Alessandro, Tobias, is this a candidate for a commit to the 5-branch when it is re-opened? -- steve On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:16:05PM +0100, Alessandro Fanfarillo wrote: > *PING* > > 2015-11-26 17:51 GMT+01:00 Steve Kargl : > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:24:49PM

[gomp4] Re: [OpenACC 0/7] host_data construct

Hi! On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:58:45 +0100, I wrote: > Cesar and Jim copied, for help with Fortran and generally testsuite > things. > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:30:34 +, Julian Brown > wrote: > > [patch] > > First, thanks! Aside from a number of formatting/re-ordering changes, the front end cha

C++/testsuite PATCH to allow running testsuite in C++1z mode

Even if we aren't going to routinely run the testsuite in C++1z mode, I would like it to be straightforward to do so. This patch adds a --stds= option to runtest for the C++ testsuite, and new check-c++1z and check-c++-all targets to the gcc directory. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to

[PATCH] [graphite] handle missing isl_ast_expr

>From ISL's documentation, isl_ast_op_zdiv_r is equal to zero iff the remainder on integer division is zero. Code generate a modulo operation for that. * graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c (binary_op_to_tree): Handle isl_ast_op_zdiv_r. (gcc_expression_from_isl_expr_op): Same.

Re: [PATCH] Fix declaration of pthread-structs in s-osinte-rtems.ads (ada/68169)

Am Wednesday 02 December 2015, 08:13:20 schrieb Joel Sherrill: > > On December 2, 2015 2:14:22 AM EST, Jeff Law wrote: > >On 12/01/2015 12:56 PM, Jan Sommer wrote: > >> Am Monday 30 November 2015, 16:19:30 schrieb Jeff Law: > >>> On 11/30/2015 03:06 PM, Jan Sommer wrote: > Could someone with

Re: [PATCH] Fix shrink-wrap bug with anticipating into loops (PR67778, PR68634)

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:19:05PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 06:21:47PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > --- a/gcc/shrink-wrap.c > > +++ b/gcc/shrink-wrap.c > > @@ -752,7 +752,11 @@ try_shrink_wrapping (edge *entry_edge, bitmap_head > > *bb_with, > > > >/* If

Re: [PATCH] Fix -E preprocessing of pragmas (PR preprocessor/57580)

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > As the testcases show, we can happily emit e.g. > { #pragma omp single > in the -E preprocessed output, which is not valid C/C++, > the preprocessing directives have to be at the beginning of line > or there can be optional whitespace before th

Re: [PATCH][PR tree-optimization/67816] Fix jump threading when DOM removes conditionals in jump threading path

On 12/02/2015 08:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote: be possible to make it do that much like I extended SCCVN to do this (when doing the DOM walk see if any incoming edge is marked executable and if not, mark all outgoing edges as not executable, if the block is executable at the time we process the l

Re: [PATCH] Fix oacc kernels default mapping for scalars

On 02/12/15 19:03, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! Copying Nathan for your information, in case you had not yet seen that gcc/gimplify.c:oacc_default_clause change: On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:29:21 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >The OpenACC 2.0a standard says this about the default mapping for >variables

Re: [PATCH] Handle BUILT_IN_GOACC_PARALLEL in ipa-pta

On 02/12/15 18:58, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:25:42 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >Handle BUILT_IN_GOACC_PARALLEL in ipa-pta >* c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta-2.c: New test. >* c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta-3.c: New test. >* c-c++-common/goac

Re: [UPC 15/22] RTL changes

On 12/02/15 13:10:44, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Gary Funck wrote: > > UPC pointers-to-shared have an internal representation which is > > defined as a 'struct' with three fields. Special logic is > > needed in promote_mode() to handle this case. > > Errr - but how

Re: [1/2] OpenACC routine support

On 12/01/2015 06:49 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > On 12/01/2015 06:40 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >> I noticed while working on other test cases: >> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:02:01 -0800, Cesar Philippidis >> wrote: >>> --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c >>> +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c >> >>> @@ -1318,13 +1318,2

Re: [PATCH] [graphite] handle missing isl_ast_expr

Hi, This break the build for me, with isl 0.14. ... src/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c: In member function ‘tree_node* translate_isl_ast_to_gimple::binary_op_to_tree(tree, isl_ast_expr*, ivs_params&)’: src/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:591:10: error: ‘isl_ast_op_zdiv_r’ was not declared

Re: Add fuzzing coverage support

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:55:29PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides >> function comments)? >> >> >> > We seem to have no established process for deciding whether we want a new >> >

Re: [PATCH] Handle BUILT_IN_GOACC_PARALLEL in ipa-pta

On 03/12/15 00:31, Tom de Vries wrote: On 02/12/15 18:58, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:25:42 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >Handle BUILT_IN_GOACC_PARALLEL in ipa-pta >* c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta-2.c: New test. >* c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta

Re: [PATCH] Allocate constant size dynamic stack space in the prologue

On 12/02/2015 08:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 11/27/2015 07:09 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote: New patch with the following changes: * Fixed comment about dynamic var area placement. * The area is now placed further away from the stack pointer than the non-dynamic stack variables (tested only with S

Re: [PATCH] Handle BUILT_IN_GOACC_PARALLEL in ipa-pta

On 03/12/15 01:10, Tom de Vries wrote: I've managed to reproduce it. The difference between pass and fail is whether the compiler is configured with or without accelerator. I'll look into it. In the configuration with accelerator, the flag node->force_output is on for foo._omp.fn. This cau

Fix ipa-pure-const wrt thunks

Hi, the testcase expose a bug in nothrow propagation. We forget to set the flag that call from thunk may throw. I probably should flip the default of the flag to prevent similar bugs next stage1. Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux. Comitted. Honza PR ipa/68184 * g++.dg/tortur

Fix visibility handling in ipa-pure-const

Hi, while analyzing the previous bug I noticed that nothrow propagation handles visibility wrong wrt aliases. This patch fixes it and also makes the code a bit more effective. Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, comitted. Honza * ipa-pure-const.c (ignore_edge): Rename to ... (i

Fix pure/const propagation with interposable functions

Hi, this patch implements symmetric fix to ipa-pure-const. In this case it just slightly improves code quality for the case of recursive calls involving interposable functions. Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, comitted. * ipa-pure-const.c (ignore_edge_for_pure_const): New function.

Re: [PATCH AArch64]Handle REG+REG+CONST and REG+NON_REG+CONST in legitimize address

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 01/12/15 03:19, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw >> wrote: >>> On 24/11/15 09:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> The aarch64's problem is we don't define add

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

Paul, I'm stumped. Something is broken on i386-*-freebsd. :-( Running /mnt/kargl/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08 -O (internal compiler error) FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O0

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:02:33PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > Paul, > > I'm stumped. Something is broken on i386-*-freebsd. :-( > > Running /mnt/kargl/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08 -O (internal compiler error) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:26:30PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:02:33PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > > Paul, > > > > I'm stumped. Something is broken on i386-*-freebsd. :-( > > > > Running /mnt/kargl/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodul

<    1   2