On Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > @@ -1272,7 +1275,7 @@ maybe_optimize_arith_overflow (gimple_stmt_iterator
> > > *gsi,
> > > contributes nothing to the program, and can be deleted. */
> > >
> > > static bool
> > > -eliminate_unn
Hi!
After the recent r12-7240 simplify_immed_subreg changes, we bail on more
simplify_subreg calls than before, e.g. apparently for decimal modes
in the NaN representations we almost never preserve anything except the
canonical {q,s}NaNs.
simplify_gen_subreg will punt in such cases because a SUBR
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs on x86_64 when asked to use the pre-GCC 8
ABI where zero sized arguments weren't ignored.
In GCC 7 the emit_push_insn calls in store_one_arg were unconditional,
it is true that they didn't actually push anything because it had zero
size, but because arg->locate.alig
Hi!
The following patch uses the functions normal CPP_DEREF parsing uses,
i.e. convert_lvalue_to_rvalue and build_indirect_ref, instead of
blindly calling build_simple_mem_ref, so that if the variable does not
have correct type, we properly diagnose it instead of ICEing on it.
Bootstrapped/regtes
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 3:42 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
OK.
> ---
> htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html | 7 +++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html
> index fbd1b8ba..8e6d4ec8 100644
> --- a/htdocs/gcc-11/changes.html
> ++
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:32 AM liuhongt via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> > I find this quite unreadable, it looks like if @2 and @3 are treated
> > differently. I think keeping the old 3 lines and just adding
> > && (TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@0)) >= TYPE_PRECISION (type)
> > || (TYPE
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:52 AM Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:25 AM Hongtao Liu via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:26 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Reading YMM registers with all zero bits needs VZEROUPPER on Sandy B
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> After the recent r12-7240 simplify_immed_subreg changes, we bail on more
> simplify_subreg calls than before, e.g. apparently for decimal modes
> in the NaN representations we almost never preserve anything except the
> canonical {q,s}NaNs.
> s
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As reported on PR104498, the issue here is that when compare_base_symbol_refs
> swaps x and y but doesn't take that into account when computing the distance.
> This patch makes sure that if x and y are swapped, we correct the distance
> c
CD-DCE does not consider CLOBBERs as necessary in the attempt
to not prevent DCE of SSA defs it uses. A side-effect of that
is that it also removes all its control dependences if they are
not made necessary by other means. When we later try to preserve
as many CLOBBERs as possible we have to make
Ping. Is this OK to commit now?
I am not sure who can approve this.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 01:35:34AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Rust symbols can have a .suffix because of compiler transformations.
> These can be ignored in the demangled name. Which is what this patch
> implements. By stopping
> +/* Returns whether the control parents of BB are preserved. */
> +
> +static bool
> +control_parents_preserved_p (basic_block bb)
> +{
> + /* If we marked the control parents from BB they are preserved. */
> + if (bitmap_bit_p (visited_control_parents, bb->index))
> +return true;
> +
> +
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > +/* Returns whether the control parents of BB are preserved. */
> > +
> > +static bool
> > +control_parents_preserved_p (basic_block bb)
> > +{
> > + /* If we marked the control parents from BB they are preserved. */
> > + if (bitmap_bit_p (visited_c
> I've committed this patch to fix these problems. Bootstrapped and ran
> Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and x86_64-solaris.
Fine by me, thanks for the quick turnaround!
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi!
On 2022-02-11T08:02:20+0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:20 PM Thomas Schwinge
> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-10T16:36:51+, Michael Matz via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:21 PM Thomas
Hi!
On 2019-10-18T14:28:18+0200, I wrote:
> On 2019-10-06T15:32:34-0700, Julian Brown wrote:
>> This patch adds a function to pretty-print OpenACC clause names from
>> OMP_CLAUSE_MAP_KINDs, for error output.
>
> Indeed talking about (OpenMP) 'map' clauses in an OpenACC context is not
> quite idea
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 5:00 AM Hongtao Liu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:46 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 7:02 PM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:46 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no SSE <->
The x86 backend piggy-backs on mode-switching for insertion of
vzeroupper. A recent improvement there was implemented in a way
to walk possibly the whole basic-block for all DF reg def definitions
in its mode_needed hook which is called for each instruction in
a basic-block during mode-switching l
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 08:51:31AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:25 AM Hongtao Liu via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:26 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Reading YMM registers with all zero bits needs VZEROUPPER on Sandy Bride,
> >
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:49:48AM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:52 AM Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:25 AM Hongtao Liu via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:26 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patche
Here when instantiating the noexcept-spec we fail to resolve the
implicit object parameter for the call A::f() ultimately because
maybe_instantiate_noexcept sets current_class_ptr/ref to the dependent
'this' (of type B) rather than the specialized 'this' (of type B).
This ends up causing maybe_dumm
PING for this cfgexpand.cc + expr.cc change by Roger.
This is a pre-requisite for Roger's nvptx patch to avoid an ICE during
bootstrap:
* https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590250.html
"[PATCH] nvptx: Back-end portion of a fix for PR target/104489."
(see patch for additi
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:23 PM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 2022-02-11T08:02:20+0100, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:20 PM Thomas Schwinge
> > wrote:
> >> On 2022-02-10T16:36:51+, Michael Matz via Gcc-patches
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Richar
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:43 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Christophe Lyon writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:42 AM Richard Sandiford <
> richard.sandif...@arm.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches writes:
> >> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:01 PM Richard Sandiford via Gc
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted
by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/sv.po
(This file, 'cpplib-12.1-b202202
cpplib-12.1-b20220213.sv.po.gz
Description: Binary data
The Translation Project robot, in the
name of your translation coordinator.
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> PR target/79754
> * gcc.target/i386/pr79754.c: New test.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32}.
>
> Pushed to master.
And 11 branch apparently, but it should be:
/* { dg-do compile { target dfp } } */
instead of just:
/* { d
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:45 AM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Ping. Is this OK to commit now?
> I am not sure who can approve this.
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 01:35:34AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Rust symbols can have a .suffix because of compiler transformations.
> > These can be ignored in the
The patch solves the following PR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104447
The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86-64.
commit db69f666a728ce800a840115829f6b64bc3174d2
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
Date: Thu Feb 17 11:31:50 2022 -0500
[PR104447] LRA: Do not sp
This patch exposes two -m* option values which are already
internally available. I think it makes sense to expose them
explicitly to the user (see below), but there are also arguments
against. Thoughts?
PTX version (-mptx=)
[patch adds -mptx=6.0 as option]
* Currently supported internally are 3
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 09:05:05PM -0600, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> Properly prefix (with "__") all local variables in shipped headers for x86
> compatibility intrinsics implementations. This avoids possible problems with
> usages like:
> ```
> #define result X
> #include
> ```
>
> 2021-02-16 Pa
This libgo patch, from Svante Signell, adds a hurd build tag for
setReadMsgCloseOnExec. This fixes GCC PRs 103573 and 104290.
Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (which
doesn't test much). Committed to mainline.
Ian
8ec374f329b72e640bffe3abf8c082f9a287adb3
diff --git a/gcc/g
Don't do int cmoves for IEEE comparisons, PR target/104256.
Protect int cmove from raising an assertion if it is trying to do an int
conditional move where the test involves floating point comparisons that
can't easily be reversed due to NaNs.
The code used to generate the condition, and possibly
> Please send patches as plain text, not as base64.
It seems like Thunderbird does not support this anymore since later
versions, grml. Probably need to look for another mail client.
> Why that first test? XEXP (op, 0) is required to not be nil.
>
> The patch is okay without that (if it passes
name_lookup::search_unqualified uses a statically allocated vector
in order to avoid repeated reallocation, under the assumption that
the function can't be called recursively. With modules however,
this assumption turns out to be false, and search_unqualified can
be called recursively as demonstra
Ping.
On 1/28/22 12:03 PM, Pat Haugen via Gcc-patches wrote:
Mark Power10 fusion option undocumented and remove sub-options.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on powerpc64le(Power10).
Ok for master?
-Pat
2022-01-28 Pat Haugen
gcc/
* config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (mpower10-fusion): Ma
We were getting the deprecated warning twice for the same call because we
called mark_used first in finish_qualified_id_expr and then again in
build_over_call. Let's not call it the first time; C++17 clarified that a
function is used only when it is selected from an overload set, which
happens lat
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 12:03:09PM -0600, Pat Haugen wrote:
> Mark Power10 fusion option undocumented and remove sub-options.
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (mpower10-fusion): Mark Undocumented.
> (mpower10-fusion-ld-cmpi, mpower10-fusion-2logical,
> mpower10-fusion-log
Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk. The StdErrorCodePrinter that
crashes GDB is on gcc-11 too so this should be backported there.
-- >8 --
This attempts to implement a partial workaround for the GDB bug
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28856 which causes GDB
to crash when printin
While looking at PR90451 I noticed that this function was failing to find the
attributes if called with a variant of the struct. And we were doing a
redundant lookup_attribute.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk as obvious.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree.cc (warn_deprecated_use): Look
The PR10968 fix cleared DECL_COMDAT to force output of explicit
instantiations. Then the PR59469 fix added a call to mark_needed, after
which we no longer need to clear DECL_COMDAT, and leaving it set allows us
to inline explicit instantiations without worrying about symbol
interposition.
I suppo
On 2/17/22 09:26, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here when instantiating the noexcept-spec we fail to resolve the
implicit object parameter for the call A::f() ultimately because
maybe_instantiate_noexcept sets current_class_ptr/ref to the dependent
'this' (of type B) rather than the specialized 'this' (of
Hi!
First, you need to adjust after Robin's patch, and retest.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 01:56:04PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> Don't do int cmoves for IEEE comparisons, PR target/104256.
> Unfortunately there are some conditions like UNLE that can't easily be
> reversed
> due to NaNs.
What
Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
-- >8--
The SGI STL and pre-1998 drafts of the C++ standard had a default
argument for vector::insert(iterator, const bool&) which was
remove by N1051. The default argument is still present in libstdc++ for
some reason. There are no tests verifying it as
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 00:59, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 2/16/22 02:16, Zhao Wei Liew wrote:
> > On Wed Feb 16, 2022 at 4:06 AM +08, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>> Ah, I see. I found it a bit odd that gcc-commit-mklog auto-generated a
> >>> subject with "c:",
> >>> but I just went with it as I didn't
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:47 PM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> The x86 backend piggy-backs on mode-switching for insertion of
> vzeroupper. A recent improvement there was implemented in a way
> to walk possibly the whole basic-block for all DF reg def definitions
> in its mode_needed h
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 08:32, Zhao Wei Liew wrote:
>
> > >>> +/* Test non-empty class */
> > >>> +void f2(B b1, B b2)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> + if (b1 = 0); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
> > >>> + if (b1 = 0.); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
> > >>> + if (b1 = b2); /* { dg-warn
On Linux/x86_64,
1b71bc7c8b18bd1b22debfde155f175fd1654942 is the first bad commit
commit 1b71bc7c8b18bd1b22debfde155f175fd1654942
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Feb 15 19:17:03 2022 -0500
tree: tweak warn_deprecated_use
caused
FAIL: gcc.dg/deprecated.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc
48 matches
Mail list logo
