More TLC.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2017-06-13 Richard Biener
* tree-vect-loop.c (vect_model_reduction_cost): Do not fail,
instead get vector type from stmt_info.
(vectorizable_reduction): Adjust. Remove dead code.
Index
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a preparation for a patch fixing PR 80803. Basically, it
> moves all checks for a non-null access->first_link before enqueuing a
> SRA access into add_access_to_work_queue instead of each caller doing
> it.
>
> Moreover, it fixes a thi
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the patch below fixes PR 80803 (and its newer duplicate 81063), it is
> essentially a semi-rewrite of propagate_subaccesses_across_link.
>
> When fixing the previous fallout from lazy setting of grp_write flag,
> I failed to see that it does no
Hi Tamar,
On 12 June 2017 at 15:27, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Committed a less restrictive form in r249125 which now just requires
> arm_v8_vfp_ok
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> 2017-06-12 Tamar Christina
>
> * gcc.target/arm/sdiv_costs_1.c: Require arm_v8_vfp_ok.
>
I think you forgot to add a
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Will Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [PATCH, rs6000] (v2) Fold vector shifts in GIMPLE
>
> Add support for early expansion of vector shifts. Including
> vec_sl (shift left), vec_sr (shift right),
> vec_sra (shift right algebraic), vec_rl (rotate left).
> Part of this in
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 13 June 2017 at 01:22, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure who this is a question to really, but how much value is
>>> there in reviewing the other patches?
>>
>>> Maybe peop
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Koval, Julia wrote:
> I'm so sorry, but I really don't get it. The right result of the test is:
> Floating point exception (core dumped). The wrong result of the test is:
> nan(no exception). If I get an exception(which is right) - the test is failed
> anyway. T
Hi.
For a function that does not handle an expection (and calls
BUILT_IN_UNWIND_RESUME),
we need to emit call to BUILT_IN_ASAN_HANDLE_NO_RETURN. That will clean up stack
which can possibly contain poisoned shadow memory that will not be cleaned-up
in function prologue.
Patch can bootstrap on ppc
Hi.
This is pre-approved patch that displays edge counts in dump files:
...
_85 = _83 + _84;
len_86 = SQRT (_85);
if (_85 u>= 0.0)
goto ; [99.00%] [count: 778568]
else
goto ; [1.00%] [count: 7864]
[0.01%] [count: 7864]:
sqrt (_85);
...
That makes it possible to understand w
Hi Martin,
On 04/06/17 23:24, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/02/2017 09:38 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi Martin,
After r247444, I saw the following two regressions in
arm-linux-gnueabihf environment:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-18.c (test for warnings,
line 119)
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bui
Hi Christophe,
> > gcc/testsuite/
> > 2017-06-12 Tamar Christina
> >
> > * gcc.target/arm/sdiv_costs_1.c: Require arm_v8_vfp_ok.
> >
>
> I think you forgot to add a dg-add-options directive, to add -march=armv8-a
> or similar.
Weird, is it still failing? When I tested it was skipping
On 13 June 2017 at 10:31, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
>> > gcc/testsuite/
>> > 2017-06-12 Tamar Christina
>> >
>> > * gcc.target/arm/sdiv_costs_1.c: Require arm_v8_vfp_ok.
>> >
>>
>> I think you forgot to add a dg-add-options directive, to add -march=armv8-a
>> or similar.
On 12/06/17 11:50, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Currently the FP reassociation width is set to 4 on AArch64. On recent
> GCCs this has become more aggressive in splitting expressions. This means
> many FMAs are split into FMUL and FADD. The reassociation increases register
> pressure, in some benchma
Hi,
Conditions checked for ARM targets in vector-related effective targets
are inconsistent:
* sometimes arm*-*-* is checked
* sometimes Neon is checked
* sometimes arm_neon_ok and sometimes arm_neon is used for neon check
* sometimes check_effective_target_* is used, sometimes is-effective-targ
Hi,
gen-vect-26.c tests the vectorizer but only requires vect_cmdline_needed
effective target. It should also depends on vect_int to make sure a
vector unit is available on the target. This patch fixes that.
ChangeLog entry is as follows:
*** gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog ***
2017-06-05 Thomas Preu
On 12/06/17 22:27, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> In fact I probably don't need the % realized that is was possible to maintain all such options and just
> interpret the last one. So for my purposes that might be the best
> solution, since my canon_arch generated option will simply override any
Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
> Why 1 and not 2? Many processors have 2 fp pipes and forcing this down
> to a sequential stream is not obviously the right thing.
1 was faster than 2. Like I said, the reassociation is too aggressive and even
splits multiply-add rather than keeping them. Until
Richard Biener writes:
> So I've come back to PR66313 and found a solution to the tailrecursion
> missed optimization when fixing the factoring folding to use an unsigned
> type when we're not sure of overflow.
>
> The folding part is identical to my last try from 2015, the tailrecursion
> part ma
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:24:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 18:49 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > This is the hopefully last incarnation of the patch. The change from
> > the
> > last time[0] is simpy that I've added a new test and the warning has
> > been
> > renamed to
> On 13 June 2017 at 10:31, Tamar Christina
> wrote:
> > Hi Christophe,
> >
> >> > gcc/testsuite/
> >> > 2017-06-12 Tamar Christina
> >> >
> >> > * gcc.target/arm/sdiv_costs_1.c: Require arm_v8_vfp_ok.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I think you forgot to add a dg-add-options directive, to add
> >> -m
Hi All,
This fixes the failing test gcc.target/arm/sdiv_costs_1.c by
requiring arm_arch_v8a_ok.
OK for trunk?
gcc/testsuite/
2017-06-13 Tamar Christina
* gcc.target/arm/sdiv_costs_1.c:
Require arm_arch_v8a_ok and add march option.
Thanks,
Tamardiff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc
On 13/06/17 11:12, Tamar Christina wrote:
Hi All,
This fixes the failing test gcc.target/arm/sdiv_costs_1.c by
requiring arm_arch_v8a_ok.
OK for trunk?
Ok.
Thanks,
Kyrill
gcc/testsuite/
2017-06-13 Tamar Christina
* gcc.target/arm/sdiv_costs_1.c:
Require arm_arch_v8a_o
>
> Please only enable this if you have XORSIGN and XORSIGNF.
>
> On the PowerPC this would involve moving the value from the
> vector/floating point registers to the general purpose registers to do the XOR
> operation and then back to the vector/floating point registers.
>
Fair enough, I thi
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> gen-vect-26.c tests the vectorizer but only requires vect_cmdline_needed
> effective target. It should also depends on vect_int to make sure a
> vector unit is available on the target. This patch fixes that.
>
> ChangeLog entry i
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the feedback, I'll update the patch accordingly.
> What does
>
> > (copysigns @0 (negate @1)): Likewise.
>
> do?
>
Sorry this slipped through my clean-up. The patch doesn't actually contain this
definition anymore.
> Third, new IL that is present throughout the
Hi Richard,
> > First, nowadays please add an internal function instead of builtins.
> > You can even take advantage of Richards work to directly tie those to
> > optabs (he might want to chime in to tell you how). You don't need
> > the fortran FE changes in that case.
>
> Yeah, it should just
Hi James,
Thanks for your review and useful comments.
>> If you could try to keep one reply chain for each patch series
Will keep that in mind for sure :-)
>> Very minor, but what is wrong with:
>> int matches[16][2] = {0};
Done.
>> nummatches is unused.
Removed.
>> This search algorithm is to
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > So I've come back to PR66313 and found a solution to the tailrecursion
> > missed optimization when fixing the factoring folding to use an unsigned
> > type when we're not sure of overflow.
> >
> > The folding part is iden
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> I wonder if we should/could add a LAST attribute to the options
> specification such that the driver discards all but the final instance
> of such an option. This would also solve the -mcpu=native problem since
> the discard rule would kick i
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> this is a simple patch skipping distribution if there is no loop at all.
>
> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
> Thanks,
> bin
>
> 2017-06-07 Bin Cheng
>
> * cfgloop.h (pass_loop_distribution::execute): Skip if
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This simple patch marks distributed loops and skips it in following
> distribution.
>
> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
This is not necessary, FOR_EACH_LOOP first builds a vector of loops to
iterate over
so it will ne
Hi Jakub,
this patch has been posted before, but hasn't really been reviewed yet:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01927.html
This has been deployed on gomp-4_0-branch for a long time, and was re-tested
on current trunk, test results okay.
Is this okay for trunk?
Thanks,
Chung-Lin
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This simple patch marks distributed loops and skips it in following
>> distribution.
>>
>> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
>
> This is not necessary, FOR_EAC
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> During the work I ran into a latent bug for distributing. For the moment we
> sort statements
> in dominance order, but that's not enough because basic blocks may be sorted
> in reverse order
> of execution flow. This results in wrong d
On 06/09/2017 04:08 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2017-05-26 Martin Liska
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/79489
>> * gimplify.c (maybe_add_early_return_predict_stmt): New
>> function.
>> (gimplify_return_expr): Call the function.
>> * predict.c (tree_estimate
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This simple patch refactors partition merge code and dump information.
>
> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> bin
> 2017-06-07 Bin Cheng
>
> * tree-loop-distribution.c (enum f
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This simple patch computes and preserves loop nest vector for whole
> distribution
> life time. The loop nest will be used multiple times in on-demand data
> dependence
> computation.
>
> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This simple patch computes and preserves loop nest vector for whole
>> distribution
>> life time. The loop nest will be used multiple times in on-demand data
>> dependence
>> co
On 06/09/2017 03:35 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> You can directly transform to no_sanitize with integer mask, not sure why
> you'd need an intermediate step with a string?
Hello.
Done in attached patch, I'm sending both incremental and final version
(complete patch).
I also decided to support no_
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch collects and preserves all data references in loop for whole
> distribution life time. It will be used afterwards.
>
> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
+/* Vector of data references in the loop to be distrib
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This simple patch computes and preserves loop nest vector for whole
>> distribution
>> life time. The loop nest will be used multiple times in on-demand data
>> dependence
>> c
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This simple patch computes and preserves loop nest vector for whole
>>> distribution
>>> life time. The loop nest will
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > So I've come back to PR66313 and found a solution to the tailrecursion
>> > missed optimization when fixing the factoring folding to use an unsigned
>> > type when we're not sure of overflow.
>>
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> > So I've come back to PR66313 and found a solution to the tailrecursion
>>> > missed optimization when fixing the factoring folding
On 06/11/17 22:35, Daniel Santos wrote:
> I appear to have forgotten to cc gcc-patches, sorry about that.
>
> There are currently three cases where we issue a warning when disabling
> -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues for a function, but I never added a proper
> warning, so there's no mechanism for disabli
Thank you for your help. I fixed the test similar to existing sigaction tests.
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.c: Fix rounding expand for new pattern.
* config/i386/subst.md: Fix pattern (parallel -> unspec).
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/i386/pr73350-2.c: New test.
Thanks,
Julia
>
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > So I've come back to PR66313 and found a solution to the tailrecursion
> >> > missed optimization when fixing the factoring folding to use a
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> > Richard Biener writes:
> >> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >>> Richard Biener writes:
> >>> > So I've come back to PR66313 and found a solution to the tailrecursion
> >>> >
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >> > So I've come back to PR66313 and found a solution to the tailrecursion
>> >>
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> >> > So I've come back to PR
Hi,
I would like to ping the following patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg01374.html
Rebased version is attached.
Thanks,
-Maxim
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-06-13 Maxim Ostapenko
* asan.c: Include gimple-fold.h.
(get_last_alloca_addr): New function.
(handle_builtin_stackresto
On 13 June 2017 at 12:13, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 13/06/17 11:12, Tamar Christina wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This fixes the failing test gcc.target/arm/sdiv_costs_1.c by
>> requiring arm_arch_v8a_ok.
>>
>>
>> OK for trunk?
>>
>
> Ok.
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>> 2017-06-13 Tam
Hello.
After some discussions with Richi, I would like to propose patch that will
come up with a canonical name of attribute names. That means
__attribute__((__abi_tag__))
will be given 'abi_tag' as IDENTIFIER_NAME of the attribute. The change can
improve
attribute name lookup and we can delete
This patch series makes further updates to remove SPE from the rs6000
port. The only thing that should be left now is the documentation.
Tested on powerpc64-linux {-m32,-m64}; I'll test on some more systems and
commit later today.
Segher
gcc/config/rs6000/eabispe.h| 26 --
gc
This removes the vector modes that were only used by SPE. It also
rearranges things so it is easier to see what is there, and for what.
2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
* config/rs6000/rs6000-modes.def: Remove all 8-byte vector modes
except V2SF and V2SI. Rearrange the vector m
2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (SPE_CONST_OFFSET_OK): Delete.
(rs6000_legitimate_offset_address_p): Return false for anything in
V2SImode or V2SFmode.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
d
2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
* config/rs6000/t-spe: Delete file.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/t-spe | 72 -
1 file changed, 72 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 gcc/config/rs6000/t-spe
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/t-spe b/gcc/config/rs6000/t
2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
* config/rs6000/eabispe.h: Delete file.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/eabispe.h | 26 --
1 file changed, 26 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 gcc/config/rs6000/eabispe.h
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/eabispe.h b/gcc/config/rs6000/eabispe.
2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
* config/rs6000/t-linux: Don't handle SPE.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/t-linux | 4
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/t-linux b/gcc/config/rs6000/t-linux
index 4cb63bd..acfde1f 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/t-linux
+++ b/gcc/c
2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
* config/rs6000/t-rtems: Don't handle SPE.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/t-rtems | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/t-rtems b/gcc/config/rs6000/t-rtems
index 723c6a3..8290f5c 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/
2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
* config/rs6000/rs6000-opts.h (enum rs6000_vector): Delete VECTOR_SPE.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_debug_vector_unit): Delete VECTOR_SPE.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-opts.h | 1 -
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c | 1 -
2 files changed, 2 del
2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
* config/rs6000/rs6000.h (FIXED_SCRATCH): Delete.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h | 7 ---
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
index edfa546..e8305aa 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000
2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c: Update all comments that mentioned SPE.
(rs6000_expand_builtin): Remove RS6000_BTC_EVSEL.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.h (RS6000_BTC_EVSEL): Delete.
* config/rs6000/vxworks.h (VXCPU_FOR_8548): Delete. Adjust form
Hello,
During highly parallel builds on fast hosts, we have experienced
sporadic bootstrap failures on libquadmath like
In file included from ../../../src/libquadmath/printf/printf_fp.c:39:0:
../../../src/libquadmath/printf/quadmath-printf.h:24:20: fatal error:
.../build/./gcc/include-fixed/
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:11:41PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> @@ -531,11 +533,166 @@ get_mem_ref_of_assignment (const gassign *assignment,
>return true;
> }
>
> +/* Return address of last allocated dynamic alloca. */
> +
> +static tree
> +get_last_alloca_addr ()
> +{
> + if (last_allo
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> This removes the vector modes that were only used by SPE. It also
> rearranges things so it is easier to see what is there, and for what.
>
>
> 2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-modes.def: Remove all 8-
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> 2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (SPE_CONST_OFFSET_OK): Delete.
> (rs6000_legitimate_offset_address_p): Return false for anything in
> V2SImode or V2SFmode.
Okay.
Thanks, David
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After some discussions with Richi, I would like to propose patch that will
> come up with a canonical name of attribute names. That means
> __attribute__((__abi_tag__))
> will be given 'abi_tag' as IDENTIFIER_NAME of the attribute.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> 2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * config/rs6000/t-spe: Delete file.
Okay.
Thanks, David
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> 2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * config/rs6000/eabispe.h: Delete file.
Okay.
Thanks, David
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> 2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * config/rs6000/t-linux: Don't handle SPE.
Okay.
Thanks, David
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> 2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * config/rs6000/t-rtems: Don't handle SPE.
Okay.
Thanks, David
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> 2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.h (FIXED_SCRATCH): Delete.
Okay.
Thanks, david
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> 2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-opts.h (enum rs6000_vector): Delete VECTOR_SPE.
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_debug_vector_unit): Delete
> VECTOR_SPE.
Okay.
Thanks, David
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> 2017-06-13 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c: Update all comments that mentioned SPE.
> (rs6000_expand_builtin): Remove RS6000_BTC_EVSEL.
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.h (RS6000_BTC_EVSEL): Delete.
>
On 9 June 2017 at 14:53, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> In order to support more complex specifications for cpus and architectures
> we need to move away from using enumerations to represent the set of
> permitted options. This basic change just moves the option parsing
> infrastructure over to that
In a Go traceback, if there is no function name, that traceback entry
is generally uninformative. In earlier versions we did not show such
frames. This patch restores that behavior. These frames can be seen
with GOTRACEBACK=system. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Comm
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:03:18AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, David Malcolm wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > "Warn about unsafe multiple statement macros that appear to be guarded
> > by a clause such as if, else, while, or for, in which only the first
> > statement is actuall
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 03:35 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> You can directly transform to no_sanitize with integer mask, not sure why
>> you'd need an intermediate step with a string?
>
> Hello.
>
> Done in attached patch, I'm sending both incremental an
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:24:59AM +, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Thanks for your review and useful comments.
>
> >> If you could try to keep one reply chain for each patch series
> Will keep that in mind for sure :-)
>
> >> Very minor, but what is wrong with:
> >> int matche
ping
Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 05/05/17 13:42, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 04/05/17 18:38, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>> > Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> >
> - 5, /* Max cond insns. */
> + 2,
ping
Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/aarch-common.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/aarch-common.c
> @@ -254,12 +254,7 @@ arm_no_early_alu_shift_dep (rtx producer, rtx consumer)
> return 0;
>
> if ((early_op = arm_find_shift_sub_rtx (op)))
> - {
> - if (REG_P (
ping
Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> (define_insn "*movdi_vfp"
> - [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "nonimmediate_di_operand"
> "=r,r,r,r,q,q,m,w,r,w,w, Uv")
> + [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "nonimmediate_di_operand"
> "=r,r,r,r,q,q,m,w,!r,w,w, Uv")
> Why have you introduced a no-reloads block
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 31 October 2016 18:29
To: GCC Patches
Cc: nd
Subject: [RFC][PATCH][AArch64] Cleanup frame pointer usage
This patch cleans up all code related to the frame pointer. On AArch64 we
emit a frame chain even in cases where the frame pointer is not required.
So make
On 06/13/2017 03:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 06/09/2017 03:35 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> You can directly transform to no_sanitize with integer mask, not sure why
>>> you'd need an intermediate step with a string?
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>>
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 03 November 2016 12:20
To: GCC Patches
Cc: nd
Subject: [PATCH][ARM] Fix ldrd offsets
Fix ldrd offsets of Thumb-2 - for TARGET_LDRD the range is +-1020,
without -255..4091. This reduces the number of addressing instructions
when using DI mode operations
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 10 November 2016 17:19
To: GCC Patches
Cc: nd
Subject: [PATCH][ARM] Improve max_insns_skipped logic
Improve the logic when setting max_insns_skipped. Limit the maximum size of IT
to MAX_INSN_PER_IT_BLOCK as otherwise multiple IT instructions are needed,
incr
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 18:00
To: GCC Patches
Cc: nd; Kyrylo Tkachov; Richard Earnshaw
Subject: [PATCH][ARM] Remove Thumb-2 iordi_not patterns
After Bernd's DImode patch [1] almost all DImode operations are expanded
early (except for -mfpu=neon). This means the Thumb
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 19:23
To: GCC Patches
Cc: nd; Kyrill Tkachov; Richard Earnshaw
Subject: [PATCH][ARM] Remove DImode expansions for 1-bit shifts
A left shift of 1 can always be done using an add, so slightly adjust rtx
cost for DImode left shift by 1 so that add
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So the questio
This patch by Than McIntosh fixes a bug in the Go frontend: in
Gogo::write_globals in a couple of places the wrong Bfunction was
being used for the containing (not target) function when creating
calls for init functions. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainl
I've merged GCC trunk revision 249156 to the gccgo branch.
Ian
On 12/06/17 15:34, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 12/06/17 12:49, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 10 June 2017 at 01:27, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>> wrote:
>>> On 09/06/17 23:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 9 June 2017 at 14:53, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Marek Polacek wrote:
> * c-parser.c (c_parser_if_body): Set the location of the
> body of the conditional after parsing all the labels. Call
> warn_for_multistatement_macros.
> (c_parser_else_body): Likewise.
> (c_parser_switch_statement): Likewi
On 13/06/17 14:23, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 9 June 2017 at 14:53, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>> In order to support more complex specifications for cpus and architectures
>> we need to move away from using enumerations to represent the set of
>> permitted options. This basic change just moves
Hi Jozef,
> Ok for trunk and gcc-7-branch?
Approved - please apply (to both).
Cheers
Nick
On 12/06/17 23:28 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 06/05/2017 03:27 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Pedro, this is OK for trunk now we're in stage 1. Please go ahead and
commit it - thanks.
Thanks Jonathan. I've pushed it in now.
It's probably safe for gcc-7-branch too, but let's leave it on trunk
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 06:48:18PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> this patch has been posted before, but hasn't really been reviewed yet:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01927.html
>
> This has been deployed on gomp-4_0-branch for a long time, and was re-tested
> on cur
On 13 June 2017 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> On 12/06/17 15:34, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 12/06/17 12:49, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> On 10 June 2017 at 01:27, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>>> wrote:
On 09/06/17 23:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
This patch is pretty huge, are there any opportunities to further split
it to aid review?
I have some comments in line.
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> index
> a069427f576f6bd7336bbe4497249773bd33d138..2ab2d96e40e80a79b5648046ca2d6e202d3939a2
> 10064
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
