Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)

+(for cmp (gt ge lt le) + outp (convert convert negate negate) + outn (negate negate convert convert) + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */ + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */ + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */ +

Re: [BUILDROBOT] error: format ‘%d’ expects argument of type ‘int’, but argument 3 has type ‘long int’ (was: [PATCH] [ARC] Recognise add_n and sub_n in combine again)

Hi Graham, On Mon, 2017-06-12 11:40:39 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > On Fri, 2017-05-12 20:14:23 +0100, Graham Markall > wrote: > > Since the combine pass canonicalises shift-add insns using plus and > > ashift (as opposed to plus and mult which it previously used to do), it > > no longer c

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR34640 - ICE when assigning item of a derived-component to a pointer

Hi Paul, I want to sound out if this is acceptable as the way to fix these problems before going to the trouble of doing the final clean up; especially of trans.c (gfc_build_array_ref) and trans-array.c(build_array_ref). The method you use looks OK to me, and the time till completion of the Gr

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR34640 - ICE when assigning item of a derived-component to a pointer

Dear All, Dominique pointed out that the changes to libgfortran.h were missing from the patch. This came about because I wrongly named kernels-alias-4.f95 in the diff so it was missing too. Please find attached the complete patch. Thomas, thanks for the early feedback. Paul On 24 June 2017 at 1

Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > +(for cmp (gt ge lt le) > + outp (convert convert negate negate) > + outn (negate negate convert convert) > + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */ > + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */ >

[PING][PATCH][PR sanitizer/77631] Support separate debug info in libbacktrace

Hello everyone, this is a ping for patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01209.html

[RFC][PR 67336][PING^2] Verify pointers during stack unwind

Hi all, Libgcc unwinder currently does not do any verification of pointers which it chases on stack. In practice this not so rarely causes segfaults when unwinding on corrupted stacks (e.g. when when trying to print diagnostic on fatal error) [1]. Ironically this usually happens in error reporting

Re: [RFC][PR 67336][PING^2] Verify pointers during stack unwind

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote: > Hi all, > > Libgcc unwinder currently does not do any verification of pointers > which it chases on stack. In practice this not so rarely causes > segfaults when unwinding on corrupted stacks (e.g. when when trying to > print diagnostic on > f

[C++ Patch] PR 65775 ("Late-specified return type bypasses return type checks (qualified, function, array)")

Hi, in grokdeclarator the checks on the return type do nothing useful in case of late-specified return type because they happen too early, before splice_late_return_type is called. A straightforward way to solve the problem involves separating the checks themselves to a new check_function_ret

Merge from GCC trunk to gccgo branch

I merged GCC trunk revision 249632 to the gccgo branch. Ian

Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: >> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le) >> + outp (convert convert negate negate) >> + outn (negate negate convert convert) >> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */ >> +

Re: [RFC][AARCH64]Add 'r' integer register operand modifier. Document the common asm modifier for aarch64 target.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Renlin Li wrote: > Hi all, > > In this patch, a new integer register operand modifier 'r' is added. This > will use the > proper register name according to the mode of corresponding operand. > > 'w' register for scalar integer mode smaller than DImode > 'x' register

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 65775 ("Late-specified return type bypasses return type checks (qualified, function, array)")

... in fact, simply moving the checks forward, past the splice_late_return_type call, appears to work fine. I'm finishing testing the below. Thanks! Paolo. / /cp 2017-06-25 Paolo Carlini PR c++/65775 * decl.c (grokdeclarator): Move checks on function ret

[PATCH, libgfortran] proposed fix for SPEC CPU2017 621.wrf_s failures

As mentioned in bug 81195, I see openmp related failures due to a lack of locking of the newunit_stack and newunit_tos variables. The code locks when pushing onto the stack, but does not lock when popping from the stack. This can cause multiple threads to pop the same structure, which then eventu

Re: [GCC][PATCH][mid-end] Optimize x * copysign (1.0, y) [Patch (1/2)]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Tamar Christina > wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> this patch implements a optimization rewriting >> >> x * copysign (1.0, y) and >> x * copysign (-1.0, y) > > > This reminds me: > copysign(-1.0, y) can be just optim

Re: [PATCH, libgfortran] proposed fix for SPEC CPU2017 621.wrf_s failures

On 06/25/2017 05:50 PM, Jim Wilson wrote: > As mentioned in bug 81195, I see openmp related failures due to a lack > of locking of the newunit_stack and newunit_tos variables. The code > locks when pushing onto the stack, but does not lock when popping from > the stack. This can cause multiple th