[PATCH, committed] Make module files reproducible

Using lbasename ensures that the build path does not end up in the module file. Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed to trunk. Will shortly backport to the 6 and 7 branches as well. 2018-02-13 Alastair McKinstry Janne Blomqvist * module.c (dump_module): Use lbasen

Re: [PATCH] Improve pow (C, x) -> exp (log (C) * x) optimization (PR middle-end/84309, take 2)

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 03:26:46PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > If use_exp2 is true and (cfun->curr_properties & PROP_gimple_lvec) == 0, > > don't fold it? Then I guess if we vectorize or slp vectorize the pow > > as vector pow, we'd need to match.pd

Re: [PATCH] Fix get_range_strlen (PR tree-optimization/84339)

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > get_range_strlen fails to tell the caller that array_at_struct_end_p has > been involved in cases like (&ptr->arr[0]), while it handles > (ptr->arr). Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and > i686-linux, ok for trunk? Ok. Ric

Re: [PATCH] Fix ISA masks for wmmintrin.h builtins (PR target/84335)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > While the documentation only mentions AES resp. PCLMUL CPUIDs for these > intrinsics, they use and return V2DImode vectors and V2DImode is > only in VALID_SSE2_REG_MODE and VALID_AVX512VL_128_REG_MODE, so without > -msse2 we can't cr

Fallout: PR84340

Hello. It caused PR84340, I'm suggesting following fix: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84340#c3 Does it make sense? Martin

Re: [RFC][AARCH64] Machine reorg pass for aarch64/Falkor to handle prefetcher tag collision

Hi Kugan, On 12/02/18 23:58, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote: Implements a machine reorg pass for aarch64/Falkor to handle prefetcher tag collision. This is strictly not part of the loop unroller but for Falkor, unrolling can make h/w prefetcher performing badly if there are too much tag collisions

Re: [RFC] Adds a target hook

Hi Kugan, On 12/02/18 23:53, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote: Adds a target hook TARGET_HW_MAX_MEM_READ_STREAMS. Loop unroller, if defined, will try to limit the unrolling factor based on this. Could you elaborate a bit on this, in particular how is this different from the PARAM_SIMULTANEOUS_PRE

[PATCH, GCC/ARM] Multilib mapping for Armv8-R

Hi, Due to there being no multilib mapping for Armv8-R, default multilib targeting -march=armv4t with softfloat floating-point arithmetic is being used. This patch maps it instead to the existing Armv7 multilibs. Note that since there is no single-precision multilib compatible with R profile, -ma

Re: [PATCH, GCC/ARM] Multilib mapping for Armv8-R

Hi Thomas, On 13/02/18 10:24, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: Hi, Due to there being no multilib mapping for Armv8-R, default multilib targeting -march=armv4t with softfloat floating-point arithmetic is being used. This patch maps it instead to the existing Armv7 multilibs. Note that since there is no

Re: Mising Patch #2 from the RISC-V v3 Submission

On Feb 12 2018, Jim Wilson wrote: > I don't know the history here, but I do know that the most common atomic > related bug report we get is for people using pthread, so we were probably > thinking about that when this was written. But handling the two cases > differently does look like a bug. I

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On 13/02/2018 10:32, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > It caused PR84340, I'm suggesting following fix: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84340#c3 I don't think EAF_DIRECT is the issue. You could think of ASAN_MARK as writing a global variable, which it can do because it's not const.

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 09/02/2018 19:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:01:08PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> which indeed fixes the testcase and seems not to break asan.exp. > >> > >> Huh. Need to double check why that makes se

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On 13/02/2018 00:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 09/02/2018 19:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:01:08PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > which indeed fixes the testcase and seems not to break asan.exp. >>>

Re: [RFC] Tree loop unroller pass

Hi Kugan, > Based on the previous discussions, I tried to implement a tree loop > unroller for partial unrolling. I would like to queue this RFC patches > for next stage1 review. This is a great plan - GCC urgently requires a good unroller! > * Cost-model for selecting the loop uses the same par

Re: Reduce inline limits a bit to compensate changes in inlining metrics

Hi. I see quite SPEC 2006 benchmark changes for -Ofast -march=native: (note that size changes are not presented all) 1) gillan (AMD bulldozer): +--+---+--+--+---+---+---+ | Performance Regressions - Execution Time | Δ | Prev

Re: [PATCH] WebAssembly: Disable subdirectory configuration for unsupported LD

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > * configure.ac (noconfigdirs): Add `ld'. > * configure: Regenerate. I have now committed this change to both repos. Maciej

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:55:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 13/02/2018 00:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 09/02/2018 19:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:01:08PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 13/02/2018 10:32, Martin Liška wrote: > > Hello. > > > > It caused PR84340, I'm suggesting following fix: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84340#c3 > > I don't think EAF_DIRECT is the issue. You could think of AS

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 9/9] [IEPM] Introduce inline entry point markers

On Feb 12, 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > This patch supersedes the previous one. Testing underway... Ok if it > succeeds? I failed to update the patch I posted after making a correct to symbol poisoning, that had caused builds to fail right away, sorry. Thanks, Rainer, for catching the error

C++ PATCH for c++/84338, wrong variadic sizeof

Here sizeof... was improperly being resolved early on an argument pack consisting of a single pack expansion, when the sizeof... is still dependent. This turned out to be because of our handling of partial instantiation of a function parameter pack: I had previously changed extract_fnparm_pack to

C++ PATCH for more variadic capture issues

This patch fixes two issues: 1) We were failing to capture a parameter pack used by a pack expansion which needs to use PACK_EXPANSION_EXTRA_ARGS, because in that case we defer actual substitution until we have all the arguments we need. But by that time we're inside an instantiation of the lambd

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On 13/02/2018 14:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> Certainly, for now I'll revert. > Reversion is not the right thing, the "fn spec" attributes were clearly > incorrect. So, we should change them to something more conservative that > will work. That would only be "all dots", that is no fnspec at all. M

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84333 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with ternary operator in template function")

OK. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > this ICE on valid happens only with checking enabled - that explains why we > didn't notice it so far - but I think points to a minor but substantive > correctness issue. In short, we ICE when build_conditional_expr calls > save_

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > While testing my fix for 83871 (handling attributes on explicit > specializations) I noticed another old regression: while GCC 4.4 > would diagnose declarations of explicit specializations of all > primary templates declared deprecated, GCC 4.

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > I really don't think it's helpful to try to force noreturn > to match between the primary and its specializations. I continue to disagree. Jason

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 13/02/2018 10:32, Martin Liška wrote: > > > Hello. > > > > > > It caused PR84340, I'm suggesting following fix: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=

patch for PR84359

The following patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84359 Committed as rev. 257628. Index: testsuite/ChangeLog === --- testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 257627) +++ testsuite/ChangeLog (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,8

Re: [PATCH v6] aarch64: Add split-stack support

On 07/02/18 18:07, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: 5. The TCB support on GLIBC is meant to be included in version 2.28. ... +/* -fsplit-stack uses a TCB field available on glibc-2.27. GLIBC also + exports symbol, __tcb_private_ss, to signal it has the field available + on TCB bloc. This aims

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On 13/02/2018 14:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> The issue is that the ASAN_CHECK doesn't exist at early DSE time, and >>> thus causes the store to disappear. >> >> If it

Re: Fix VR_ANTI_RANGE handling in intersect_range_with_nonzero_bits (PR 84321)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > VR_ANTI_RANGE is basically a union of two ranges, and although > intersect_range_with_nonzero_bits had code to deal with the upper > one being empty, it didn't handle the lower one being empty. > There were also some off-by-one errors. >

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: While testing my fix for 83871 (handling attributes on explicit specializations) I noticed another old regression: while GCC 4.4 would diagnose declarations of explicit specializations of all prima

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84333 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with ternary operator in template function")

Hi Jason, On 13/02/2018 15:35, Jason Merrill wrote: OK. Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't think I sent a complete solution for these issues. In fact we would still ICE on: template int foo() {   return sizeof(T) > 1 ? : 1; } because type_contains_placeholder_p doesn't know how to handle a TEMP

Re: Fix VR_ANTI_RANGE handling in intersect_range_with_nonzero_bits (PR 84321)

On 02/13/2018 08:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> VR_ANTI_RANGE is basically a union of two ranges, and although >> intersect_range_with_nonzero_bits had code to deal with the upper >> one being empty, it didn't handle the lower one bein

[PATCH] RX TARGET_RTX_COSTS function

Hello, DJ has posted a patch a few years ago which implements TARGET_RTX_COSTS for RX: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg8.html Nick has accepted the patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00012.html But it was never made it into the trunk. The patch required some

C++ PATCH for c++/84080, ICE with return type deduction and specialization

In this testcase, we were deducing T to be auto, which is nonsensical. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit e8579febf0ce4e02b6b9c447c0f3adec56c66abc Author: Jason Merrill Date: Tue Feb 13 10:09:38 2018 -0500 PR c++/84080 - ICE with return type deduction and special

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84333 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with ternary operator in template function")

.. I should honestly add that now I don't really believe - as stated by Volker - that the issue, in any substantive way, is a recent, post 6.1.0, regression: for the GNU extension build_conditional_expr was definitely copying arg2 = arg1 before that release and using save_expr on arg1 and the c

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

Hi, On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: > >> Removing noreturn from the whitelist means having to prevent > >> the attribute from causing conflicts with the attributes on > >> the blacklist. E.g., in this: > >> > >> template [[malloc]] void* allocate (int); > >> > >> template <> [[nore

Re: [PATCH] RX TARGET_RTX_COSTS function

Hi, On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:54 +, Sebastian Perta wrote: >  > The patch required some changes (the prototype, second param more > exactly, has changed) in order to compile in the trunk. Could you please send the patch as an attachment?  The formatting looks a bit off (tabs spaces etc). > So

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84333 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with ternary operator in template function")

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 13/02/2018 15:35, Jason Merrill wrote: > Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't think I sent a complete solution for these > issues. In fact we would still ICE on: > > template int foo() > { > return sizeof(T) > 1 ? : 1; > } > > because type_co

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 9/9] [IEPM] Introduce inline entry point markers

On 02/13/2018 06:43 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Feb 12, 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> This patch supersedes the previous one. Testing underway... Ok if it >> succeeds? > > I failed to update the patch I posted after making a correct to symbol > poisoning, that had caused builds to fail

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: While testing my fix for 83871 (handling attributes on explicit specializations) I noticed another old regression: while GCC 4.4 would diagnose declarat

[RX] Fix PR 83831 -- Unused bclr, bnot, bset insns

Hi, The attached patch fixes the deficits mentioned in PR 83831 which is about unused bclr, bnot and bset instructions. For some simple cases, the combine pass can successfully fuse a load- modify-store insn sequence into an insn that operates on a memory directly.  However, in some cases where i

Re: [PATCH v6] aarch64: Add split-stack support

Hi Adhemerval, A few comments on the assembly code: +# This function is called with non-standard calling convention: on entry +# x10 is the requested stack pointer, x11 is previous stack pointer (if +# functions has stacked arguments which needs to be restored), and x12 is +# the caller link reg

Re: [PATCH][i386][3/3] PR target/84164: Make *cmpqi_ext_ patterns accept more zero_extract modes

On 02/09/2018 07:50 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Uros, > > On 08/02/18 22:54, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Kyrill  Tkachov >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This patch fixes some fallout in the i386 testsuite that occurs after >>> the >>> simplification in patch [1/3] [1].

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On 02/13/2018 04:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 13/02/2018 14:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: The issue is that the ASAN_CHECK doesn't exist at early DSE time, and thus causes

Re: [RX] Fix PR 83831 -- Unused bclr, bnot, bset insns

Hi Oleg, > OK for trunk? > gcc/ChangeLog: > > PR target/83831 > * config/rx/rx-protos.h (rx_reg_dead_or_unused_after_insn, > rx_copy_reg_dead_or_unused_notes, rx_fuse_in_memory_bitop): New > declarations. > (set_of_reg): New struct. > (rx_find_set_of_reg, rx_f

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 13/02/18 03:10, Martin Sebor wrote: PS Is there any reason why diagnostic-core.h and diagnostic.c does not/should not include tree.h and other GCC headers? The short reason is that we want to keep the core diagnostics as independent of the rest of the compiler as possible so that using it d

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

On 02/13/2018 08:59 AM, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: Removing noreturn from the whitelist means having to prevent the attribute from causing conflicts with the attributes on the blacklist. E.g., in this: template [[malloc]] void* allocate (int); temp

[PATCH] FIx endless match.pd recursion on cst1 + cst2 + cst3 (PR tree-optimization/84334)

Hi! On the following testcase, we recurse infinitely, because we have float re-association enabled, but also rounding-math, so we try to optimize (cst1 + cst2) + cst3 as (cst2 + cst3) + cst1 but (cst2 + cst3) doesn't simplify and we try again and optimize it as (cst3 + cst1) + cst2 and then (cst1

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 02/13/2018 10:07 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 13/02/18 03:10, Martin Sebor wrote: PS Is there any reason why diagnostic-core.h and diagnostic.c does not/should not include tree.h and other GCC headers? The short reason is that we want to keep the core diagnostics as independent of the

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

On 02/13/2018 07:47 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I really don't think it's helpful to try to force noreturn to match between the primary and its specializations. I continue to disagree. Can you explain what use case you are concerned about th

Re: [PATCH] Fix a brown paper bag bug in my recent match.pd change (PR middle-end/84309)

On February 13, 2018 6:54:36 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >When changing my recent match.pd fix to defer the -> exp2 (log2 (C) * >x) >optimization until later, I've swapped the two patterns and changed >the first one to use exps and logs, but forgot to change the second one >to use e

Re: [PATCH] FIx endless match.pd recursion on cst1 + cst2 + cst3 (PR tree-optimization/84334)

On February 13, 2018 6:51:29 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >On the following testcase, we recurse infinitely, because >we have float re-association enabled, but also rounding-math, so >we try to optimize (cst1 + cst2) + cst3 as (cst2 + cst3) + cst1 >but (cst2 + cst3) doesn't simplify

Re: Reduce inline limits a bit to compensate changes in inlining metrics

> Hi. > > I see quite SPEC 2006 benchmark changes for -Ofast -march=native: > (note that size changes are not presented all) Thanks! It is interesting that I do not see similar observations on Czerny which also runs spec2006. In partiuclar both AMD machines agrees on soplex milc and bwaves. They

[PATCH][committed] Fix trivial rl78 failure

I don't think this is sufficient to bring the rl78 back to a working state, but it's a necessary step. ARGS is unused in rl78_handle_func_attribute, but wasn't marked appropriately. Fixed in the obvious way. Committed to the trunk. Jeff commit 5c38c127433adad901f70bac0b9cff258ae831cd Author: l

[Patch, Fortran, F08] PR 84313: reject procedure pointers in COMMON blocks

Hi all, as the subject line says, the attached patch rejects procedure pointers in COMMON blocks (which is forbidden in F08). Since it's apparently legal in F03, I'm still accepting it with -std=f2003 and add that flag to a test case where this 'feature' is used. In another one, I'm adding the err

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: While testing my fix for 83871 (handling attributes on explicit specializations) I noticed another old regr

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/13/2018 07:47 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> I really don't think it's helpful to try to force noreturn >>> to match between the primary and its specializations. >> >> I conti

[committed][PATCH] Fix another minor rl78 build failure

This is enough to get it to build cc1. Installed on the trunk. Jeff * config/rl/rl78.c (rl78_attribute_table): Fix terminator and entry for "vector". diff --git a/gcc/config/rl78/rl78.c b/gcc/config/rl78/rl78.c index 5158e83c364..8346c9c31e0 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rl78/rl78.c

Re: [PATCH] Fix handling of variable length fields in structures (PR c/82210)

On 02/08/2018 11:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > When placing a variable length field into a structure, we need to update > rli->offset_align for the next field. We do: > rli->offset_align = MIN (rli->offset_align, desired_align); > which updates it according to the start of that VLA field,

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:08:24PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > PR sanitizer/84307 > * gcc.dg/asan/pr84307.c: New test. BTW, your testcase shows a more severe problem, that we actually don't handle compound literals correctly. C99 says that: "If the compound literal occurs outside th

Re: [PATCH] avoid warning for members declared both aligned and packed (PR 84108)

Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00125.html On 02/02/2018 11:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: The design of the attribute exclusion framework includes support for different exclusions applying to different kinds of declarations (functions, types, and variables or fields), but the su

Re: [Patch, Fortran, F08] PR 84313: reject procedure pointers in COMMON blocks

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:24:35PM +0100, Janus Weil wrote: > > As my last submission, this fixes fallout from > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/AIHRQ2kJv3c. > As the last one, it is a very simple fix for an accepts-invalid > problem (which is not a regression)

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >> On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > While testing my fix

Re: [PATCH] FIx endless match.pd recursion on cst1 + cst2 + cst3 (PR tree-optimization/84334)

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Richard Biener wrote: On February 13, 2018 6:51:29 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! On the following testcase, we recurse infinitely, because we have float re-association enabled, but also rounding-math, so we try to optimize (cst1 + cst2) + cst3 as (cst2 + cst3) +

New French PO file for 'gcc' (version 8.1-b20180128)

Hello, gentle maintainer. This is a message from the Translation Project robot. A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted by the French team of translators. The file is available at: http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/fr.po (This file, 'gcc-8.1-b20180128.fr.po', h

Re: [Patch, Fortran, F08] PR 84313: reject procedure pointers in COMMON blocks

On February 13, 2018 8:14:33 PM GMT+01:00, Steve Kargl wrote: >On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:24:35PM +0100, Janus Weil wrote: >> >> As my last submission, this fixes fallout from >> >https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/AIHRQ2kJv3c. >> As the last one, it is a very s

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 12:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Wh

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/13/2018 12:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > On 02/13/2018 07

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 13 Feb 2018 5:58 pm, "Martin Sebor" wrote: I wanted to make the _n() functions like warning_n() more robust by letting them accept a tree argument (as well as offset_int and wide_int) in addition to HOST_WIDE_INT but I can't do it if they can't work with these types. There must be a tree-di

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: > Bug 84207 - Hard coded plural in gimple-fold.c points out one > of a number of warning_at() calls where warning_n() should have > been used. The attached patch both replaces the calls and also > changes the signatures of the warning_n(), error_n(), and >

[PATCH] jit: fix link on OS X and Solaris (PR jit/64089 and PR jit/84288)

libgccjit fails to link on OS X and Solaris due to jit/Make-lang.in, due to the assumption there that the linker is GNU ld. Specifically, jit/Make-lang.in hardcodes the use of two options: --version-script and -soname. * on Darwin, --version-script doesn't seem to exist in the linker, and it us

Go patch committed: Don't export function descriptors for unexported names

The patch changes the Go frontend to not export function descriptors for unexported names. They aren't needed, and could potentially cause unlikely symbol name collisions. Also, the runtime package's reference to main could cause the runtime package to define main.main..f, which could also be def

Re: [Patch, Fortran, F08] PR 84313: reject procedure pointers in COMMON blocks

2018-02-13 20:55 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener : > On February 13, 2018 8:14:33 PM GMT+01:00, Steve Kargl > wrote: >>On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:24:35PM +0100, Janus Weil wrote: >>> >>> As my last submission, this fixes fallout from >>> >>https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.lang.for

Re: [PATCH] jit: fix link on OS X and Solaris (PR jit/64089 and PR jit/84288)

Hi David, > libgccjit fails to link on OS X and Solaris due to jit/Make-lang.in, > due to the assumption there that the linker is GNU ld. Specifically, > jit/Make-lang.in hardcodes the use of two options: --version-script > and -soname. > > * on Darwin, --version-script doesn't seem to exist in t

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix -Weffc++ warning on return in assignment op in templates (PR c++/84364)

OK.

[C++ PATCH] Fix -Weffc++ warning on return in assignment op in templates (PR c++/84364)

Hi! Before r253599 check_return_expr would: if (WILDCARD_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (current_function_decl))) || (retval != NULL_TREE && type_dependent_expression_p (retval))) return retval; when processing_template_decl, and thus not issue the warning, bu

[PATCH] Fix a brown paper bag bug in my recent match.pd change (PR middle-end/84309)

Hi! When changing my recent match.pd fix to defer the -> exp2 (log2 (C) * x) optimization until later, I've swapped the two patterns and changed the first one to use exps and logs, but forgot to change the second one to use exp2s and log2s. For the testcase in the patch it actually didn't make a

Re: Merge from trunk to gccgo branch

I merged trunk revision 257637 to the gccgo branch. Ian

[PATCH, rs6000, committed] Fix PR84365: gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-7-le.c fails on power9

The following patch was approved offline by Segher to fix PR84365. The problem is when compiling with -mcpu=power9, we don't generate the LE unfriendly lxvd2x and instead emit an LE friendly lxv insn. Peter PR target/84365 * gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-7-le.c: Also match lxv when c

[PATCH, rs6000] Begin deprecation of -maltivec=be

PR 78303 was recently marked RESOLVED, WONTFIX. The resolution was to deprecate the troublesome command-line option. This patch begins the process of deprecation by issuing a warning message when this command-line option is specified. The patch has bootstrapped and tested without regressions on

Re: [PATCH] combine: Update links correctly for new I2 (PR84169)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:12:20PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:59:05PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > If there is a LOG_LINK between two insns, this means those two insns > > can be combined, as far as dataflow is concerned. There never should > > be a LOG_LINK b

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 01:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 12:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On

Re: [RFC] Adds a target hook

Hi Kyrill, Thanks for the review. On 13 February 2018 at 20:58, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Kugan, > > On 12/02/18 23:53, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote: >> >> Adds a target hook TARGET_HW_MAX_MEM_READ_STREAMS. Loop unroller, if >> defined, will try to limit the unrolling factor based on this. >>

[PATCH, rs6000, committed] Fix PR80370: Invalid option used in test case gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-3-p9-runnable.c

This patch removes an undocumented option that has since been deprecated and removed and was causing this test case to FAIL. The obvious patch below was approved by Segher offline. Committed. Peter PR target/84370 * gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-3-p9-runnable.c: Remove deprecated

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84279, powerpc64le ICE on cvc4

Hi! On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 09:34:30PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > PR84279 is a similar problem to PR83399, in that we generate an altivec > load/store through an explicit call to the altivec_{l,st}vx_v4si_2op > pattern and then due to spilling, we end up calling recog() and we match > an earlie

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 02/13/2018 01:59 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 13 Feb 2018 5:58 pm, "Martin Sebor" mailto:mse...@gmail.com>> wrote: I wanted to make the _n() functions like warning_n() more robust by letting them accept a tree argument (as well as offset_int and wide_int) in addition to HO

Re: [RFC][AARCH64] Machine reorg pass for aarch64/Falkor to handle prefetcher tag collision

Hi Kyrill, On 13 February 2018 at 20:47, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Kugan, > > On 12/02/18 23:58, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote: >> >> Implements a machine reorg pass for aarch64/Falkor to handle >> prefetcher tag collision. This is strictly not part of the loop >> unroller but for Falkor, unroll

Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index

On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we >> should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has >> testcases to boot! His patch from last week also

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:37 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/13/2018 01:59 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > > > > > > On 13 Feb 2018 5:58 pm, "Martin Sebor" > > wrote: > > > > > > I wanted to make the _n() functions like warning_n() more > > robust by letting

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84279, powerpc64le ICE on cvc4

On 2/13/18 4:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> This patch passed bootstrap and retesting on powerpc64le-linux with >> no regressions. Ok for mainline? > > Okay, thanks! Does this need backports? Committed with your suggested change below. Thanks! It'd be easy to backport and should be fairl

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] PR84220 fix altivec_vec_sld and vec_sldw intrinsic definitions

On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 17:48 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:14:59AM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote: > > Our VEC_SLD definitions were mistakenly allowing the third argument to be > > of an invalid type, triggering an ICE (on invalid code) later in the build > > pr

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 02/13/2018 04:05 PM, David Malcolm wrote: On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:37 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 01:59 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 13 Feb 2018 5:58 pm, "Martin Sebor" mailto:mse...@gmail.com>> wrote: I wanted to make the _n() functions like warning_n() more ro

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Begin deprecation of -maltivec=be

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:11:36PM -0600, Kelvin Nilsen wrote: > PR 78303 was recently marked RESOLVED, WONTFIX. The resolution was to > deprecate the troublesome command-line option. > > This patch begins the process of deprecation by issuing a warning > message when this command-line option is

[PATCH, rs6000, committed] Fix PR84372: test case gcc.target/powerpc/lvsl-lvsr.c fails on power9

Same problem as PR84365 and same fix. Committed as obvious. Peter PR target/84372 * gcc.target/powerpc/lvsl-lvsr.c: Also match lxv when compiling with -mcpu=power9. Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/lvsl-lvsr.c =

[PATCH, rs6000] (v2) PR84220 remove RS6000_BTI_NOT_OPAQUE refs from builtins table

Hi, This is (v2), which is notably more comprehensive than (v1). Some of our builtin definitions were allowing invalid parameters, and a subsequent ICE (on invalid code) were the result. This is due to the use of RS6000_BTI_NOT_OPAQUE (which allowed vector arguments), where a RS6000_BTI_INTSI ap

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84279, powerpc64le ICE on cvc4

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:07:26PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 2/13/18 4:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> This patch passed bootstrap and retesting on powerpc64le-linux with > >> no regressions. Ok for mainline? > > > > Okay, thanks! Does this need backports? > > Committed with your s

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84279, powerpc64le ICE on cvc4

On 2/13/18 5:51 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:07:26PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: >> It's up to you whether you want the backport because you don't trust >> me being able to create a failing test case. :-) > > We can backport without having a failing testcase. Let's d

Re: [PATCH] FIx endless match.pd recursion on cst1 + cst2 + cst3 (PR tree-optimization/84334)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:28:25PM -0400, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On February 13, 2018 6:51:29 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek > > wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > On the following testcase, we recurse infinitely, because > > > we have float re-association

PING^2: [PATCH] i386: Add TARGET_INDIRECT_BRANCH_REGISTER

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 2:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> For >>> >>> --- >>> struct C { >>> virtual ~C(); >>> virtual void f(); >>> }; >>> >>> void >>> f (C *p) >>> { >>> p->f(); >>> p->f();

  1   2   >