case.
> * gcc.target/arm/builtin_uaddll.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.target/arm/builtin_ssubl.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.target/arm/builtin_ssubll.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.target/arm/builtin_usubl.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.target/arm/builtin_usubll.c: New testcase
Christophe Lyon
* config/arm/arm.md (arm_movqi_insn): Swap predicable_short_it
attribute for alternatives 3 and 4.
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.md b/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
index 04714a1..219b664 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
@@ -6518,7 +6518,7 @@
strb
On 26 August 2016 at 19:22, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 26 August 2016 at 21:53, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Prathamesh,
>>
>>> The attached version passes bootstrap+test on
>>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, ppc64le-linux-gnu,
>>> and with c,c++,fortran on armv8l-linux-gnueabihf.
>>> Cross-tested on
On 29 August 2016 at 22:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:42:28PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> Another missing ABI tag, sigh.
>>
>> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
>
>> commit 1337a943a2d3926537b63d6e1f0d7f46ef10a06d
>> Author: Jason Merrill
>> Date: Fri Aug
On 18 August 2016 at 11:15, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This fixes a bug in the vector load functions in which they load the
> vector in the wrong order for big endian systems. This patch flips the
> order conditionally in the vec_concats.
>
> No testcase given because plenty of existing
On 30 August 2016 at 18:45, Tamar Christina wrote:
>
>
> On 30/08/16 17:11, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 18 August 2016 at 11:15, Tamar Christina
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This fixes a bug in the vector load functions in w
On 5 September 2016 at 19:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> While it would be perhaps nice to pass explicit location_t in the target
> option handling code, there are hundreds of error/warning/sorry calls
> in lots of backends, and lots of those routines are used not just
> for the process_option
On 6 September 2016 at 12:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 12:07:47PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 5 September 2016 at 19:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > While it would be perhaps nice to pass explicit location_t in the tar
On 6 September 2016 at 15:45, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 03:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> sizeof (gcov_type) talks about the host gcov type, you want instead the
>> target gcov type. So
>> TYPE_SIZE (gcov_type_node) == 32 vs. 64 (or TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (gcov_type_node)
>> == 4 vs. 8).
>> As
On 7 September 2016 at 11:34, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 09/07/2016 09:45 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 6 September 2016 at 15:45, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 09/06/2016 03:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>> sizeof (gcov_type) talks about the host gcov type, you wan
Hi Wilco,
On 7 September 2016 at 14:43, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> On 06/09/16 14:14, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Improve aarch64_legitimize_address - avoid splitting the offset if it is
>> supported. When we do split, take the mode size into account. BLKmode
>> falls into the unaligned cas
armv8-a
and --with-cpu=cortex-a57 --with-mode=thumb, showing only improvements:
http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/239850-depr-it-4/report-build-info.html
Bootstrapped OK on armv8l HW.
Is this OK?
Thanks,
Christophe
2016-09-05 Christophe Lyon
On 25 May 2016 at 05:29, Kumar, Venkataramanan
wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 8:45 PM
>> To: Kumar, Venkataramanan
>> Cc: Richard Biener ; gc
On 5 May 2016 at 12:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 04/05/16 17:19 +0100, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>
>> On 20/04/16 18:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19/04/16 19:07 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This was reported as a bug in the Filesystem library, but it's
actually a pro
On 26 May 2016 at 13:58, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 12:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 04/05/16 17:19 +0100, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/04/16 18:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19/04/16 19:07 +0100, Jonath
On 18 May 2016 at 12:55, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following patch moves LIM before PRE to allow it to cleanup CSE
> (and copyprop) opportunities LIM exposes. It also moves the DCE done
> in loop before the loop pipeline as otherwise it is no longer executed
> uncoditionally at this point (si
On 13 May 2016 at 15:41, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Matthew Wahab
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The ARM target supports the half-precision floating point type __fp16
>> but does not allow its use as a function return or parameter type. This
>> patch removes that re
On 1 June 2016 at 18:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 01.06.2016 18:29, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 05/13/2016 07:09 PM, Dhole wrote:
>>> +pfile->source_date_epoch = pfile->cb.get_source_date_epoch(pfile);
>>
>> Space before paren. Ok with that change.
>>
>>> * c-common.h (c_omp_region_ty
On 2 June 2016 at 15:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:01:07PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 1 June 2016 at 18:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> > On 01.06.2016 18:29, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> >> On 05/13/2016 07:09 PM, Dhole wrote:
>> &
On 2 June 2016 at 15:01, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 1 June 2016 at 18:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 01.06.2016 18:29, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 05/13/2016 07:09 PM, Dhole wrote:
>>>> +pfile->source_date_epoch = pfile->cb.get_source_date_epoch(pf
On 2 June 2016 at 17:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:49:59PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> I'm also seeing that the new gcc.dg/cpp/source_date_epoch-1.c fails because
>> the output pattern finishes with '\n' instead of the usual '(\
Hi Jakub,
On 3 June 2016 at 19:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:21:37PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> > --- gcc/tree-vect-slp.c.jj 2016-01-08 21:45:57.0 +0100
>> > +++ gcc/tree-vect-slp.c 2016-01-11 12:07:19.633366712 +0100
>> > @@ -2999,12 +2999,9 @@ vect_get_
On 7 June 2016 at 11:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:23:01AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> >> > --- gcc/t
On 26 May 2016 at 11:53, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In this PR we want to optimise:
> int foo (int i)
> {
> return (i == 0) ? N : __builtin_clz (i);
> }
>
> on targets where CLZ is defined at zero to the constant 'N'.
> This is determined at the RTL level through the CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_A
On 7 June 2016 at 19:05, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> These new tests cause failures due to running on non-ARMv8 hardware - the
> target check should be arm_v8_neon_hw. Also they don't run on AArch64
> hardware as arm_v8_neon_ok/arm_v8_neon_hw isn't true.
This really makes sense.
I use QEMU
On 8 June 2016 at 09:37, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 7 June 2016 at 19:05, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> These new tests cause failures due to running on non-ARMv8 hardware - the
>> target check should be arm_v8_neon_hw. Also they don't run on
On 8 June 2016 at 10:47, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 8 June 2016 at 09:37, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 7 June 2016 at 19:05, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> These new tests cause failures due to running on non-ARMv8 hardware - the
>>
On 7 June 2016 at 11:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:23:01AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71259.c.jj 2016-06-03
>> > 17:05:37.693475438 +0200
>> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71259.c 2016-
on when asked to use arm926 and GCC is configured with
the default cpu. Maybe that's because check_vect does not have the expected
behaviour ? (I have checked yet which instruction causes that because it
will take a bit of time to reproduce manually the needed environment)
For G++, the tes
On 8 June 2016 at 18:40, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 07/06/16 20:34, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 26 May 2016 at 11:53, Kyrill Tkachov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In this PR we want to optimise:
>>> int foo (int i)
&
On 8 June 2016 at 16:50, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 04:44:00PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> I've tried the attached patch (which does only dg-options ->
>> dg-additional-options).
>> For GCC, it's better, except that on arm-none-eabi
On 9 June 2016 at 14:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:18:44PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 8 June 2016 at 16:50, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 04:44:00PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> >> I've tried the attache
On 9 June 2016 at 17:21, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A number of tests were added to check for FP16 arguments and return
> values being passed in registers. These require mfloat-abi=hard to be
> selected but in some test configurations they were run with
> -mfloat-abi=soft or -mfloat-abi=sof
On 10 June 2016 at 10:38, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 09/06/16 13:14, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 8 June 2016 at 18:40, Kyrill Tkachov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/06/16 20:34, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 26
On 10 June 2016 at 15:56, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> On 10/06/16 09:32, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 9 June 2016 at 17:21, Matthew Wahab wrote:
>>>
>>> A number of tests were added to check for FP16 arguments and return
>>> values being passed in regi
On 10 June 2016 at 11:28, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Ping.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00249.html
>
I tested this patch in my usual matrix, and it's OK for me.
Christophe
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
>
> On 03/06/16 09:30, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The test gcc.target/a
On 13 June 2016 at 21:06, Evandro Menezes wrote:
> On 06/13/16 05:15, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your patience on this patch series.
>
>
> Just checked the series in.
>
Hi Evandro,
If I'm not mistaken, it looks like you forgot to update the ChangeLog
files in your commits.
Christoph
On 9 June 2016 at 14:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:40:43PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> > Bet it depends if this happens before the signal(SIGILL, sig_ill_handler);
>> > call or after it. If before, then I guess you'd better rewrite the
>&
-17 Christophe Lyon
* lib/target-supports.exp
(check_effective_target_arm_neon_fp16_ok_nocache): Call
arm_neon_ok and merge flags. Fix temporary test name.
(check_effective_target_arm_neonv2_ok_nocache): Call arm_neon_ok
and merge flags.
diff --git a/
On 16 June 2016 at 14:56, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> tree_estimate_loop_size contains one extra else that prevents it from
> determining
> that the induction variable comparsion is going to be eliminated in both the
> peeled
> copies as well as the last copy. This patch fixes it
> (it really re
On 10 June 2016 at 14:29, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My autotester picked up some issues with the vcvt{ds}_n_* intrinsics
> added in r237200.
>
Hi,
What tests does your autotester perform? I haven't noticed these
problems when running the GCC testsuite on the usual aarch64
targets. I'm i
On 17 June 2016 at 16:44, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 04:25:31PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 10 June 2016 at 14:29, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > My autotester picked up some issues with the vcvt{ds}_n_*
On 18 June 2016 at 10:59, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Bin Cheng writes:
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..7e5ad49
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c
>> @@ -0,
On 4 June 2016 at 23:24, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02216.html
>
>
> On 05/27/2016 11:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> The patch below adjusts the C alignof pedantic warning to avoid
>> diagnosing the GCC extension (__alignof__) and only diagnose
>> _
On 20 June 2016 at 17:46, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Since this patch was committed, I am now seeing failures on:
>> gcc.dg/gnu99-const-expr-1.c
>> gcc.dg/gnu99-static-1.c
>>
>> (targets arm, aarch64, I don't think that it should matter?)
>>
>> Can you have a look?
>
>
> Sorry about that. I missed t
effective target to always return false to
make sure I covered all the missing guards.
However, I'm not sure when check_effective_target_arm_neon_fp16_ok can
fail? This effective target test was added by Alan Lawrence a few
months ago.
OK?
Christophe
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-06-21
On 15 June 2016 at 10:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 9 June 2016 at 14:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:40:43PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> > Bet it depends if this happens before the signal(SIGILL, sig_ill_handler);
>>> > call or a
On 21 June 2016 at 15:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:10:33PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> > Here is a new patch version, which removes the hardcoded dg-do run
>> > directives,
>> > so that tests use compile or
char buffer pointer mismatch.
Sorry, I had to compress the patch, otherwise it's too large and rejected
by the list server.
OK?
Christophe
[ARM] neon-testgen.ml, neon.ml and generated files removal.
gcc/
2016-06-17 Christophe Lyon
* config/arm/neon-testgen.
On 23 June 2016 at 21:56, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> 2016-06-23 Uros Bizjak
>
> * g++.dg/vect/pr33834_2.cc: Use dg-additional-options instead of
> dg-options and remove default vector testsuite compile flags.
> * g++.dg/vect/pr33860a.cc: Ditto.
> * g++.dg/vect/pr45470-a.cc:
2016-06-24 17:50 GMT+02:00 Uros Bizjak :
> Hello!
>
> - Remove harmful "dg-do run" directives (run vs. compile is handled
> automatically by the vect.exp infrastructure)
I thought Jakub disagreed on that :-)
> - Add check_vect for runtime tests
> - Remove default vector testsuite compile flags
>
ping?
On 21 June 2016 at 10:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed that some guards were missing on some of the AdvSIMD
> tests involving fp16 code.
>
> The attached patch fixes, although I didn't notice any difference in
> validation
ping?
On 22 June 2016 at 17:52, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a new attempt at removing neon-testgen.ml and generated files.
>
> Compared to my previous version several months ago:
> - I have recently added testcases to make sure we do not lose coverage
> as
On 27 June 2016 at 11:58, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> On 10/06/16 15:30, Matthew Wahab wrote:
>> On 10/06/16 15:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> On 10 June 2016 at 15:56, Matthew Wahab
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/16 09:32, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
On 28 June 2016 at 16:23, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is just first small step towards this PR.
> It brings the ADDR_EXPR of DECL_P bases roughly on the same level as
> SSA_NAMEs pointers - so get_stridx_plus_constant works for them, and
> more importantly, before this patch there was a ve
g shows no noticeable difference.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Christophe
2017-10-13 Christophe Lyon
PR target/67591
* config/arm/arm.md (*sub_shiftsi): Add predicable_short_it
attribute.
(*cmp_ite0): Add enabled_for_depr_it attribute.
(*cmp_ite1): Likewise.
diff -
On 14 October 2017 at 12:16, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> Revised patch, incorporates fixes from Alexander's review comments.
>>>
>>> I removed some implementation details from Alexander's des
from my point of view, but this should avoid some headaches.
OK?
Thanks,
Christophe
2017-10-16 Christophe Lyon
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c: Move dg-add-options after
dg-options.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr78305.c: Move dg-do as first directive.
* gcc.misc-tests
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>> > Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk?
>>
>> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things:
>
> Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll
no impact on
gcc.dg/pr21643.c and gcc.dg/tree-ssa/phi-opt-11.c (PR81184).
Should I restrict my patch to the only tests where it has an impact
(gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-3[3456].c) ?
Thanks,
Christophe
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-10-23 Christophe Lyon
* config/arm/arm.opt (-mbranch-cost): New optio
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for
On 30/10/2017 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07
On 30/10/2017 16:54, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
On 30/10/17 18:46, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote
Hi Wilco
On 7 November 2017 at 13:28, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Sudi Das wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I have made the changes to the patch.
>> Also can someone please apply it for me. I do not have commit access.
>>
>> 2017-10-10 Sudakshina Das
>>
>>PR middle-end/80131
>>* match.pd: Simpl
On 4 July 2017 at 10:50, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 3 July 2017 at 17:30, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/03/2017 09:00 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This is a follow-up to
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01791.html
>&
Hi,
On 6 July 2017 at 06:50, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/04/2017 02:50 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 3 July 2017 at 17:30, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2017 09:00 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This is a follow-up to
>>
Hi Bin,
On 30 June 2017 at 12:43, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On
On 10 July 2017 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 6 July 2017 at 06:50, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/04/2017 02:50 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> On 3 July 2017 at 17:30, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2017 09:00 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>&
On 11 July 2017 at 14:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 11/07/17 12:53 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 21/04/17 15:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 April 2017 at 20:44, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
We got a bug report from a customer pointing out that calling
promise::se
On 11 July 2017 at 16:09, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 10 July 2017 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 6 July 2017 at 06:50, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2017 02:50 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>> On 3 July 2017 at 17:30, Jeff Law
On 12 July 2017 at 12:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12/07/17 09:46 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 11 July 2017 at 14:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/07/17 12:53 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> O
Hi Nathan,
On 12 July 2017 at 19:34, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Now that all the cdtors have special names, we can detect them by looking at
> the name, rather than a collection of other things.
>
> For the DECL_[CD]TOR_P cases we're now comparing identifiers, removing a
> STRIP_TEMPLATE
>
> For th
Hi Jeff,
On 11 July 2017 at 23:19, Jeff Law wrote:
> This patch series is designed to mitigate the problems exposed by the
> stack-clash exploits. As I've noted before, the way to address this
> class of problems is via a good stack probing strategy.
>
> This has taken much longer than expected
On 17 July 2017 at 12:06, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> On 30 June 2017 at 12:43, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at
ere is
not such 'and wX,wX,15'.
BTW, I'm not sure about the same hook for arm... it seems to me it has
a similar problem.
OK?
Thanks,
Christophe
2017-07-18 Christophe Lyon
PR target/71727
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c
(aarch64_builtin_support_
ping ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01063.html
Christophe
On 18 July 2017 at 14:50, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've received a complaint that GCC for AArch64 would generate
> vectorized code relying on unaligned memory accesses even when using
>
Hi Jeff,
On 29 August 2017 at 07:07, Jeff Law wrote:
> This is a two part patchkit to improve DOM's ability to derive constant
> equivalences that arise as a result of traversing a particular edge in
> the CFG.
>
> Until now we only allowed a single NAME = NAME|CONST equivalence to be
> associat
On 29 August 2017 at 17:28, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/29/2017 03:13 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> commit a370df2c52074abbb044d1921a0c7df235758050
>>> Author: law
>>> Date: Tue Aug 29 05:03:36 2017 +
ping^2 ?
On 21 August 2017 at 15:04, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> ping ?
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01063.html
>
> Christophe
>
>
> On 18 July 2017 at 14:50, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've received a complaint that GCC f
Hi Tamar,
On 1 September 2017 at 15:24, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This patch enables the execution runs for Dot product and also
> adds the feature tests.
>
> The ARMv8.2-a Dot Product instructions only support 8-bit
> element vectorization.
>
> Dot product is available from ARMv8.2-a
On 30 August 2017 at 17:11, Jon Beniston wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> I think the issue is that with TARGET_VECTOR_MODE_SUPPORTED_P false
>> for V1SI you'll get a SImode vector type and the
>>
>> if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (type_in)
>> || VECTOR_MODE_P (TYPE_MODE (type_in)))
>>
>>check fails. T
Hi Jonathan
On 5 June 2017 at 11:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> C++17 requires these to be noexcept, and there's no reason not to do
> it for earlier standard modes too.
>
> * include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h (__shared_ptr::owner_before)
> (__weak_ptr::owner_before, _Sp_owner_less::op
Hi Jeff,
On 3 September 2017 at 16:44, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/13/2016 05:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2016 08:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 01/11/2016 03:3
Hi Bernd,
On 4 September 2017 at 16:52, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
> On 29/04/17 18:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> Ping...
>>
>> I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
>> the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
>> It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, ior
Hi,
On 5 September 2017 at 13:40, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> introduced a couple of regressions on x86 (-m32, 32bit) testsuite:
>>>
>>> New failures:
>>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr71245-1.c scan-asse
On 5 September 2017 at 19:53, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
> On 05/09/17 18:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> On 09/05/17 17:02, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>>
>>> Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
Combine creates an invalid insn out of these two insns:
>>>
>>> Yes it looks like a latent bug. We need to use
>>>
On 5 September 2017 at 20:20, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 5 September 2017 at 19:53, Kyrill Tkachov
> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/09/17 18:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/05/17 17:02, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bernd Edlinger wr
ping^3 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01063.html
On 31 August 2017 at 11:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> ping^2 ?
>
>
> On 21 August 2017 at 15:04, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> ping ?
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01063.html
>>
Hi Jason
On 10 September 2017 at 11:09, Jason Merrill wrote:
> A few months back I queued this patch to bring back for GCC 8.
> Unfortunately I don't remember the context that it came up in, but it
> affects for instance cases of self-assignment, which can't have a
> constant value if there is no
On 12 September 2017 at 16:21, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Hi Jason
>>
>> On 10 September 2017 at 11:09, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> A few months back I queued this patch to bring back for GCC 8.
>>>
Hi Richard,
On 3 May 2017 at 10:19, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following extends the very simplistic cost modeling I added somewhen
> late in the release process to, for all unknown misaligned refs, also
> apply this model for loops containing stores.
>
> The model basically says it's useless
On 27 April 2017 at 17:32, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/26/2017 05:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>
>> The following removes the third state we had apart from signed integer
>> overflow wrapping and being undefined. It makes signed integer overflow
>> undefined, consistently at all optimization leve
Hi,
On 4 May 2017 at 11:07, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following picks the changes suggested as followup for PR80533
> that do not cause the warning regression on accessing a [0] array.
>
> Additionally the patch removes the unnecessary allow_compref of the
> function.
>
> The question whethe
Hi,
On 5 May 2017 at 15:19, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> On 04/05/17 11:40, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
>> On 03/05/2017 11:30:13, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 20/04/17 10:54, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
[ARM] PR71607: Fix ICE when loading constant
gcc/ChangeLog:
Hi,
On 8 May 2017 at 18:58, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 05/05/2017 01:31 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Hello world,
>>
>> the attached patch reduces the stack usage by the blocked
>> version of matmul for cases where we don't need the full buffer.
>> This should improve stack usage.
>>
>> Regression-
Hi,
On 4 May 2017 at 11:05, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 09:50:42AM +0100, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > Otherwise ok. Please respin and test with an armhf thumb32 bootstrap
>> > and regression test run.
>> >
>> > regards
>> > Ramana
>>
>> I've respun this patch
Hi Bin,
On 10 May 2017 at 16:31, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
> wrote:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>>
>> On 03/05/17 11:02, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>>>
Hi Richard,
On 10 May 2017 at 16:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> So this is a patch that makes skipping unreachable code when
> doing elimination possible. Previously interesting interactions
> with tail-merging made this impossible, now I seem to have
> figured a way around this.
>
> Bootstrappe
Hi Nathan
On 11 May 2017 at 19:40, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> This patch reduces the variants of pushdecl by use of default arguments.
> gone are the _maybe_friend variants.
>
Since this commit (r247918), GCC builds fail at least for aarch64/arm.
I've noticed this error message:
libtool: compile:
On 11 May 2017 at 20:49, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 05/11/2017 02:45 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
>>
>> `/tmp/3713244_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/builds/gcc-fsf-gccsrc/obj-aarch64-none-linux-gnu/gcc1/libcc1'
>>
>> I suspect it will be an obvious fix?
>
>
> oh
1301 - 1400 of 3170 matches
Mail list logo
