On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 6/2/21 2:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Here, the dependent template name in the return type of f() resolves to
> > an alias of int& after substitution, and we end up complaining about
> > qualifying this reference type with 'const' from cp_build_qual
Hi Richard,
Thanks for reviewing my patch. I did a search online and you're right -- there
isn't a vector modulo instruction. I'll remove the X * (Y / X) --> Y - (Y % X)
pattern and the existing X - (X / Y) * Y --> X % Y from triggering on vector
types.
I looked into why the following pattern
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 6/2/21 2:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > Here, the dependent template name in the return type of f() resolves to
> > > an alias of int& after substitution, and we end up complaining about
> > > qualifyi
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 5:39 AM Christoph Muellner
wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> PR rtl-optimization/100264
> * ree.c (get_sub_rtx): Ignore SET expressions without register
> destinations and remove assertion, as it is not valid anymore
> with this new behaviour.
>
As mentioned earlier, I abstracted the on-entry cache at the beginning
of stage1. This was to make it easier to port future changes back to
GCC11 so we could provide alternate representations to deal with memory
issues, or what have you.
This patch introduces a sparse representation of the cac
On 6/2/21 4:56 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/2/21 2:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here, the dependent template name in the return type of f() resolves to
an alias of int& after substitution, and we end up complai
The two forms of placement operator new defined in return their
pointer argument and may not be displaced by user-defined functions.
But because they are ordinary (not built-in) functions this property
isn't reflected in their declarations alone, and there's no user-
level attribute to annotate t
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:40:49PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> + if (!gimple_call_builtin_p (stmt, BUILT_IN_NORMAL))
> +{
> + /* See if this is a call to placement new. */
> + if (!fn
> + || !DECL_IS_OPERATOR_NEW_P (fn)
> + || DECL_IS_REPLACEABLE_OPERATO
Added compatible implementation of _mm_minpos_epu16 for powerpc.
Copied, improved, and fixed testcase from i386.
Tested on BE, LE (32 and 64bit).
Paul A. Clarke (2):
rs6000: Add support for _mm_minpos_epu16
rs6000: Add test for _mm_minpos_epu16
gcc/config/rs6000/smmintrin.h |
Add a naive implementation of the subject x86 intrinsic to
ease porting.
2021-06-02 Paul A. Clarke
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/smmintrin.h (_mm_minpos_epu16): New.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/smmintrin.h | 27 +++
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc
Copy the test for _mm_minpos_epu16 from
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse4_1-phminposuw.c, with
a few adjustments:
- Adjust the dejagnu directives for powerpc platform.
- Make the data not be monotonically increasing,
such that some of the returned values are not
always the first value (index
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:19:32AM -0500, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> On P8LE, extra rot64+rot64 load or store instructions are generated
> in float128 to vector __int128 conversion.
>
> This patch teaches pass swaps to also handle such pattens to remove
> extra swap instructions.
Did you check if this
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Vladimir Makarov
> Sent: 31 May 2021 16:52
> To: Przemyslaw Wirkus ; Richard Biener
>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; ja...@redhat.com; ni...@redhat.com;
> Richard Earnshaw ; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> ; Kyrylo Tkachov
>
> Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9]
This patch adds support for 'omp loop' to gfortran including the combined
constructs. It also fixes some splitting issues with clauses in
combined constructs.
It does not attempt to clean up all remaining Fortran issues with
clauses in combined constructs (cf. below + PR).
* * *
Since 'paralle
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 06:07:28PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > Since times immemorial there has been const_int_rtx for all values from
> > -64 to 64, but only constm1_rtx..const2_rtx have been available for
> > convenient use. Change this, so that we can
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 6/2/21 4:56 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 6/2/21 2:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > Here, the dependent template name in the return type
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 04:18:46PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2021/6/2 下午3:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> Yes, the "" in split condition does mean 'true' (always).
Right -- which means it will be split whenever it matches. This *can*
be intended, but in define_insn_and_split it is almost always a
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 06:32:13PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > So what Richard suggests would be to disallow split conditions
> > that do not start with "&& ", it's probably easy to do that as well
> > and look for build fails. That should catch all cases to look
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 05:13:15PM -0500, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> Add a naive implementation of the subject x86 intrinsic to
> ease porting.
> +/* Return horizontal packed word minimum and its index in bits [15:0]
> + and bits [18:16] respectively. */
> +extern __inline __m128i __attribute
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> maybe this would fit better in VRP, but it is easier (and not completely
> useless) to put it in match.pd.
>
> Since the transformation is restricted to GIMPLE, I think I don't need to
> check that @0 is SSA_NAME. I didn't test if
Hi,
On 2021/6/3 06:20, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:19:32AM -0500, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>> On P8LE, extra rot64+rot64 load or store instructions are generated
>> in float128 to vector __int128 conversion.
>>
>> This patch teaches pass swaps to also handle such pattens to re
Hi,
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570854.html
Thanks.
On 20/5/2021 下午 5:49, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
Hi,
The patch removes mode promotion for pseudos on rs6000 target.
The attachments are the patch diff and change log file.
Bootstrapped and t
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 05:13:16PM -0500, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> + for (i = 0; i < NUM; i++)
> +src.s[i] = i * i - 68 * i + 1200;
Could you do tests with some identical elements as well? Because that
is where I think it fails on BE currently.
Segher
Hi Richard,
on 2021/6/3 上午1:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches" writes:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As PR100794 shows, in the current implementation PRE bypasses
>> some optimization to avoid introducing loop carried dependence
>> which stops loop vectorizer to vectorize the loop. At -O2
Update move expanders to convert the CONST_WIDE_INT operand to vector
broadcast from a byte with AVX2. Add ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx to
return a scratch SSE register which won't increase stack alignment
requirement and blocks transformation by the combine pass.
A small benchmark:
https://gitlab.c
On 6/2/21 7:05 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/2/21 4:56 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/2/21 2:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here, the dependent template name in the retur
This certainly causes a bootstrap miscompare, and might also be
responsible for PR/100820. The operands to subf were reversed
in the logical-add/sub fusion patterns, and I screwed up my
bootstrap test which is how it ended up getting committed.
If bootstrap and regtest passes, ok for trunk (and ev
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:05:00PM -0500, Aaron Sawdey wrote:
> This certainly causes a bootstrap miscompare, and might also be
> responsible for PR/100820. The operands to subf were reversed
> in the logical-add/sub fusion patterns, and I screwed up my
> bootstrap test which is how it ended u
Hi Richi/Richard/Jeff/Segher,
Thanks for the comments!
on 2021/6/3 上午7:52, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 06:32:13PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> So what Richard suggests would be to disallow split conditions
>>> that do not start with "&& ",
From: Andrew Pinski
This improves match_simplify_replace in phi-opt to handle the
case where there is one cheap (non-call) preparation statement in the
middle basic block similar to xor_replacement and others.
This allows to remove xor_replacement which it does too.
OK? Bootstrapped and tested
Hi Nilsson,
on 2021/6/2 下午8:45, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> From: Kewen Lin
>> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:04:54 +0200
>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * config/cris/cris.md (*addi_reload): Fix empty split condition.
>> ---
>> gcc/config/cris/cris.md | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 del
On 2021/6/3 08:46, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2021/6/3 06:20, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:19:32AM -0500, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>> On P8LE, extra rot64+rot64 load or store instructions are generated
>>> in float128 to vector __int128 conversion.
>>>
Use "used" flag for CALL_INSN to indicate it's a fake call. If it's a
fake call, it won't have its own function stack.
gcc/ChangeLog
PR target/82735
* df-scan.c (df_get_call_refs): When call_insn is a fake call,
it won't use stack pointer reg.
* final.c (leaf_funct
When __builtin_ia32_vzeroupper is called explicitly, the corresponding
vzeroupper pattern does not carry any CLOBBERS or SETs before LRA,
which leads to incorrect optimization in pass_reload. In order to
solve this problem, this patch refine instructions as call_insns in
which the call has a specia
101 - 134 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
