Hi,
As the first part of PR70799 fix I'd like to add constants support for
DI-STV pass (which is also related to PR70763). This patch adds CONST_INT
support as insn operands and extends cost model accordingly.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu{-m32}. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As the first part of PR70799 fix I'd like to add constants support for
> DI-STV pass (which is also related to PR70763). This patch adds CONST_INT
> support as insn operands and extends cost model accordingly.
>
> Bootstrapped and re
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Currently tree if-conversion only supports PHIs with no more than two
>> arguments unless the loop is marked with "simd pragma". This patch makes
>> such PHIs supported uncondi
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Currently tree if-conversion only supports PHIs with no more than two
>>> arguments unless the loop is marked with "simd
Hi,
This fixes a latent bug I introduced. Variable "cbase" shouldn't be modified
since it will be used afterwards. Bootstrap and test on x86_64. I think it's
an obvious change, is it OK?
Thanks,
bin
2016-04-28 Bin Cheng
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (get_computation_cost_at): Don't cl
The problem here is that some code paths are not prepared to handle a
non-dependent PAREN_EXPR, which my fix for PR c++/70106 introduced. In
particular lvalue_kind() returns clk_none for a PAREN_EXPR which makes
build_x_unary_op() emit a bogus error for an expression like &(A::b).
(If the PAREN_EX
Hi,
This patch fixes a latent bug in IVOPT. Variable "depends_on" should be
checked before recording invariant expression, otherwise we end up with
constant (even ZERO) invariant expressions. Apparently this results in wrong
register pressure.
Bootstrap and test on x86_64. Is it OK?
Thanks,
I suspected that much. It would be good to have a libcilkrts/README.gcc
describing the rules which changes can go into the gcc tree directly, which
need to go upstream first, and how. libo and libsanitizer already have this.
Hi Rainer,
It is mentioned under the "CONTRIBUTIONS" sections
On 28/04/16 09:26 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 April 2016 at 05:14, Chris Gregory wrote:
This doesn't break any of the code.
I made sure that this didn't affect any string literals or character literals.
Cheers,
Chris Gregory!
Thanks, I'll double check it and apply it (there's no nee
On 29/04/16 15:20, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
Please find the updated patch.
Ok to commit?
OK.
Hi,
On 29/04/2016 15:58, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/28/2016 08:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
else if (ANON_AGGR_TYPE_P (type))
{
- tree fields;
-
- for (fields = TYPE_FIELDS (type); fields; fields = DECL_CHAIN
(fields))
+ for (tree fields = TYPE_FIELDS (type); fields;
+
Some PR target/70155 tests check for nonexistence of the *movdi_internal
pattern. Since PIC leads to the *movdi_internal pattern, skip those
tests if PIC is used.
Tested on x86-64. OK for trunk?
H.J.
---
* gcc.target/i386/pr70155-1.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/i386/pr70155-2.c: Lik
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/28/2016 06:08 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The glitch in that plan is there is no easy linkage between the use of
>>> b_5
>>> in bb4 and the ASSERT_EXPR in bb3. That's something Aldy, Andrew and
>>> myself
>>> are looking at in
> Some PR target/70155 tests check for nonexistence of the *movdi_internal
> pattern. Since PIC leads to the *movdi_internal pattern, skip those
> tests if PIC is used.
>
> Tested on x86-64. OK for trunk?
I cannot approve the patch, but I confirm that the tests fail on darwin.
TIA,
Dominique
On 04/29/2016 02:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following makes sure to create DECL_EXPRs for VLA types built for
> temporary arrays to properly allow the gimplifier to unshare expression
> in its type fields when required.
>
> This avoids turing those fields into garbage. With a patch to
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Some PR target/70155 tests check for nonexistence of the *movdi_internal
> pattern. Since PIC leads to the *movdi_internal pattern, skip those
> tests if PIC is used.
>
> Tested on x86-64. OK for trunk?
IMO, it would be better to add condition t
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Some PR target/70155 tests check for nonexistence of the *movdi_internal
>> pattern. Since PIC leads to the *movdi_internal pattern, skip those
>> tests if PIC is used.
>>
>> Tested on x86-6
This patch by Chris Manghane removes the old escape analysis code that
never quite worked. He has written a series of patches that implement
working escape analysis. I will be working through reviewing those.
This patch bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Committed to mainli
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
Another option is to move the enum declaration from flag-types.h to
coretypes.h. I think I like that best.
This works.
2016-05-02 Marc Glisse
gcc/
* flag-types.h (enum warn_strict_overflow_code): Move ...
* coretypes.h: ... here.
*** index.html 27 Apr 2016 13:06:08 - 1.1005
--- index.html 29 Apr 2016 17:44:45 -
*** mission statement.
*** 47,52
--- 47,56
News
+ http://www.acm.org/awards/2015-technical-awards";>2015
ACM Software System Award
+ [2016-04-29]
+
+
GCC 6.1 rele
On Apr 29, 2016, at 5:41 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/config/darwin.h b/gcc/config/darwin.h
> --- a/gcc/config/darwin.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/darwin.h
> @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ extern GTY(()) int darwin_ms_struct;
> %{L*} %(link_libgcc) %o
> %{fprofile-arcs|fprofile-generate*|coverage:-
On Apr 29, 2016, at 5:41 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/config/darwin.h b/gcc/config/darwin.h
> --- a/gcc/config/darwin.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/darwin.h
> @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ extern GTY(()) int darwin_ms_struct;
>%{L*} %(link_libgcc) %o
> %{fprofile-arcs|fprofile-generate*|coverage:-l
OK, thanks.
Jason
On 04/19/2016 11:50 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
1. This patch introduces a "regression" in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-thread-11.c
in that we no longer perform FSM threading during vrp2 but instead we
detect two new jump threading opportunities during vrp1. Not sure if
the new code is better but it is sho
On 04/26/2016 07:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
* builtins.c (fold_builtin_FILE): New function.
(fold_builtin_FUNCTION, fold_builtin_LINE): New functions.
(fold_builtin_0): Call them.
Can we now remove the handling for these built-ins from gimplify_call_expr?
+// Verify th
OK.
Jason
Dominik Vogt writes:
> The attached patch cleans up some (mostly unnecessary) dg-do
> directives in the gcc.dg and gcc.target test cases.
This part
* gcc.dg/spec-options.c: Switch order of the two "dg-do run" so that
the test ist actually "run" on sh*-*-*. Order _does_ matter.
On 04/28/2016 11:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
3) for the C++ FE I used a macro so that I don't have to change all the
cxx_incomplete_type_error calls now,
How about an inline overload, instead?
It seems sad to discard the location information; could we pass it into
cxx_incomplete_type_diag
Here is the updated patch.
I eliminated the blank lines in the ChangeLog files.
I eliminated ALTIVEC_COMPLEX, and folded the result into
ALTIVEC_ARG_MAX_RETURN. Note, due to being able to return homogeneous
aggregates, Elf v2 did not need the change, but Elf v1 needs it to return
complex values i
On 04/28/2016 10:30 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:28:15AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
This is a resend of a patch kit I sent in stage 3; the original post
was here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01933.html
I've rebased the patches against yesterday's t
The attached patch removes excess stack space allocation with
alloca in some situations. Plese check the commit message in the
patch for details.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* explow.c (round_push): Use know adjustment.
(allocate_dynamic_st
P.S.: Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390, s390x and
x86_64.
--
I'm not sure whether something has to be done about the else
branch in round_push too:
else
{
/* If crtl->preferred_stack_boundary might still grow, use
virtual_preferred_stack_boundary_rtx instead.
* Claudiu Zissulescu [2016-04-29 09:03:53
+]:
> I see the next tests failing:
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/arc/movb-1.c scan-assembler movb[ \t]+r[0-5]+, *r[0-5]+,
> *r[0-5]+, *19, *21, *8
> FAIL: gcc.target/arc/movb-2.c scan-assembler movb[ \t]+r[0-5]+, *r[0-5]+,
> *r[0-5]+, *23, *23, *9
> FAIL:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:03:40PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Dominik Vogt writes:
>
> > The attached patch cleans up some (mostly unnecessary) dg-do
> > directives in the gcc.dg and gcc.target test cases.
>
> This part
>
> * gcc.dg/spec-options.c: Switch order of the two "dg-do run" so
> Hello.
>
> For every created function_summary, we validate (with flag_checking) that
> all cgraph_nodes have summary_uid > 0. It produces a compile hog.
> It's sufficient to validate that for nodes that really utilize a function
> summary.
>
> Patch can bootstrap®test on ppc64le-linux-gnu.
>
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 23:11 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 19:45 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 10:27 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> >
> > > The removal of SH5 support from GCC has been announced here
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-08/msg00101.html
> > >
> >
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:32:53PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/29/2016 03:02 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >As an aside, this change seems to be the source of a new code
> >generation bug affecting the PPC kernel.
>
> Please file a PR.
-frename-registers merely exposed a pre-existing kernel
On 04/29/2016 02:58 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Having a listed libcilkrts maintainer would probably help, too ;-)
That's high on my list to make happen :-) Until then Ilya Verbin and I
will work together the Cilk runtime.
jeff
On Sat, 2016-04-30 at 10:58 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 23:11 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 19:45 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 10:27 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > >
> > > > The removal of SH5 support from GCC has been announced here
> >
Hi,
this was already posted in february, but has not yet been reviewed, so I thought
it is time now to post it again...
As a follow-up for Jakub's c/69669 fix, I'd like to have the enum mode also
honored
in C++ code, because the mode attribute now finally really works in C, but it is
completely
101 - 140 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
