This patch changes the Go frontend to always use a context that
expects an int type when determining the type of an index value. This
is for https://golang.org/issue/14844. This requires updating one of
the tests in the testsuite to the source version. Bootstrapped and
ran Go testsuite on x86_64
Hi,
I'd like to ping for this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/559882.html
Thanks
Bernd.
On 11/22/20 9:05 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this avoids the need to use -fno-threadsafe-statics on
> arm-none-eabi or working around that problem by supplying
> a dum
This patch to the Go frontend uses the use correct assignment order
for type assertions. For "a, b := v.(T)" we must set a before b.
This is for https://golang.org/issue/13433. Bootstrapped and ran Go
testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline.
Ian
c7f272e05e1cf8c7d7caefe5ee542845c
This Go frontend patch improves the error messages for an expected
curly brace. This is for https://golang.org/issue/17328. This
requires updating some tests to the current sources in the main repo.
Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed
to mainline.
Ian
5ba975e6680
This libgo patch defines SO_RCVTIMEO on 32-bit GNU/Linux. It was not
being defined before because it is defined as a conditional expression
that is too complicated for -fdump-go-spec to handle. This fixes
https://golang.org/issue/42872. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
This patch to the Go frontend and runtime checks both len and cap when
handling the case of append(s, make(T, I)...). The overflow checks
done in growslice always reported an error for the capacity argument,
even if it was the length argument that overflowed. This change lets
the code pass the cu
This libgo patch changes the internal/cpu package to not define
CacheLinePadSize for mips64x. For libgo the definition always comes
from the generated file cpugen.go. This fixes GCC PR 98041.
Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed
to mainline.
Ian
eafb46ce90c23efd22
On 11/17/20 7:09 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/16/20 4:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/20 2:04 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 1:46 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
>>> wrote:
GCC considers PTRDIFF_MAX - 1 to be the size of the largest object
>>
On 11/30/20 8:11 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Fix a testsuite failure:
>
> /tmp/ccL65Mmt.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/ccL65Mmt.s:36: Warning: Symbol n used as immediate operand in PIC mode.
> FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/pr55660 c_lto_pr55660_0.o-c_lto_pr55660_1.o link, -O0 -flto
> -flto-partition=none
On 11/30/20 5:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> As mentioned in the PR, since 4656461585bfd0b9 implicit_section
> was not set to false when set_section was called with the argument
> equal to NULL.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed?
On 11/29/20 3:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/13/20 2:34 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/2/20 7:24 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> The attached patch extends compute_objsize() to handle conditional
>>> expressions represented either as PHIs or MIN_EXPR and MAX_EXPR.
>>>
>>> To simplify the handli
Hi, Jeff,
Sorry for the late reply due to thanksgiving long weekend.
> On Nov 25, 2020, at 1:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/19/20 8:59 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> PR9 - ICE: in df_refs_verify, at df-scan.c:3991 with -O
>> -ffinite-math-only -fzero-call-used
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:36:30PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-cpus.def
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-cpus.def
> @@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
>| OPTION_MASK_CRYPTO \
>| OPTION_MASK_DIRECT_MOV
On 11/30/20 9:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:23:15AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/12/20 11:21 PM, Hongyu Wang wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Thanks for reminding me about this patch. I didn't remove any existing
>>> intrinsics, just remove redundant builtin functions that
On 11/30/20 3:08 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to ping for this patch:
I reviewed it on the 24th:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/560118.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/559882.html
Thanks
Bernd.
On 11/22/20 9:05 AM, Bernd Edli
On 11/27/20 6:08 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 8:52 AM Iain Sandoe wrote:
Jason Merrill wrote:
(NOTE: likewise, ^~~ starting indent is below ‘int’ for a fixed spacing
font)
===
I’m inclined to think that the second is more useful,
but have patches
On 11/27/20 9:31 AM, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Michael Matz writes:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2020, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
> The aim is only to provide a different view of existing RTL instructions.
> Unlike gimple, and unlike (IIRC) the old RT
I broke the build with --disable-analyzer with
g:66dde7bc64b75d4a338266333c9c490b12d49825, due to:
../../src/gcc/analyzer/analyzer-pass.cc: In member function 'virtual unsigned
int {anonymous}::pass_analyzer::execute(function*)':
../../src/gcc/analyzer/analyzer-pass.cc:86:3: error: 'sorry_no_anal
Jonathan, could you send a fresh set of patches (or at least replacements)? I
tried installing the patches on a master branch I checked out this morning, and
I got two rejects:
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_abi.cc
+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_abi.cc
@@ -207,6 +207,7 @@
On 11/30/20 1:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/17/20 7:09 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/16/20 4:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/16/20 2:04 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 1:46 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
GCC considers PTRDIFF_MAX - 1 to be the size of
On 11/30/20 5:16 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 11/13/19 7:29 AM, Strager Neds wrote:
>> -/* Worker for set_section. */
>> +void
>> +symtab_node::set_section_for_node (const symtab_node &other)
>> +{
>> + if (x_section == other.x_section)
>> + return;
>> + if (get_section () && other.get_sect
On 11/27/20 8:26 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 3:11 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
at the end of processing function body we loop over basic blocks and
free all edges while we do not free the rest. I think this is leftover
from time eges
New +flagm (Condition flag manipulation from Armv8.4-A) feature option for
-march command line option.
Please note that FLAGM stays an Armv8.4-A feature but now can be
assigned to other architectures or CPUs.
OK for master?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/aarch64/aarch64-option-extensions.def
On Mon, 2020-11-30 at 16:19 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> I broke the build with --disable-analyzer with
> g:66dde7bc64b75d4a338266333c9c490b12d49825, due to:
>
> ../../src/gcc/analyzer/analyzer-pass.cc: In member function 'virtual
> unsigned int {anonymous}::pass_analyzer::execute(function*)':
>
On 11/30/20 3:39 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-11-30 at 16:19 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>> I broke the build with --disable-analyzer with
>> g:66dde7bc64b75d4a338266333c9c490b12d49825, due to:
>>
>> ../../src/gcc/analyzer/analyzer-pass.cc: In member function 'virtual
>> unsigned int
On 11/13/20 2:45 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Bug 94527 is request from the kernel developers for an attribute
> to indicate that a user-defined function deallocates an object
> allocated by an earlier call to an allocation function. Their
> goal is to detect misuses of such functi
On Nov 30, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Does gcc provide an iterator to traverse all the local variables that
are declared in the current routine?
If not, what’s the best way to traverse the local variables?
>>>
>>> Depends on what for. The
Hi!
Thank you for all this.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 09:50:01PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> This adds support for the new __ieee128 long double format on
> powerpc64le targets.
> * testsuite/27_numerics/complex/abi_tag.cc: Add u9___ieee128 to
> regex matching expected
Hello,
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> So, then let's start with one of
> >> the prime examples of SSA deconstruction problems, the lost swap, and how
> >> it comes to be: we start with a swap:
> >>
> >> x = ..., y = ...
> >> if (cond)
> >> tmp=x, x=y, y=tmp
> >>
> >> (1) into
On 11/30/20 1:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/29/20 3:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/13/20 2:34 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/2/20 7:24 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch extends compute_objsize() to handle conditional
expressions represented either as PHIs or MIN_EXPR and MAX_EXPR.
To
> OK. Presumably once this is applied Richi is going to look at the
> higher level issues in the vectorizer which inhibit creating the HI/QI
> vector popcounts?
>
Yes, this is the prerequisite to look at the vectorization issue. I'll
ask Hongtao to
help check-in this patch. Thanks for the approv
Thank you for the review Jeff.
I don't need to look at the opcode to know the result. The pattern will be
matched only in these 4 cases:
X <= MAX(X, Y) -> true
X > MAX(X, Y) -> false
X >= MIN(X, Y) -> true
X < MIN(X, Y) -> false
So, the result will be true for GE_EXPR and LE_EXPR and false othe
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:46 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:11:10PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > +;; PR96906 - optimize vpsubusw compared to 0 into vpcmpleuw or vpcmpnltuw.
> > +(define_split
> > + [(set (match_operand: 0 "register_operand")
> > +(unspec:
> > +
Hi:
There're many pairs of define_insn/define_expand that are very similar
to each other except mode iterator and condition. For these patterns
VI12_AVX512VL are used under condition TARGET_AVX512BW, and
VI48_AVX512VL are used under condition TARGET_AVX512F.
This patch is about to introduce a new
On 11/30/20 7:00 PM, Eugene Rozenfeld wrote:
> Thank you for the review Jeff.
>
> I don't need to look at the opcode to know the result. The pattern will be
> matched only in these 4 cases:
>
> X <= MAX(X, Y) -> true
> X > MAX(X, Y) -> false
> X >= MIN(X, Y) -> true
> X < MIN(X, Y) -> false
>
>
Let me know if I need to reference a specific paper or any other
Standard reference here. Maybe P1690R1 I used here ?
I tried to allow the same partition trick you can have on ordered
containers (see Partition in tests) even if here elements are not
ordered so I aren't sure there can be any us
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config.gcc (riscv*-*-*): Drop some commited accidentally code.
---
gcc/config.gcc | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
index c348596b1ac..4808b698f3a 100644
--- a/gcc/config.gcc
+++ b/gcc/config.gcc
@@ -4615,7 +4615,6 @@ case
101 - 137 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
