Hi Bin,
On 4 May 2017 at 17:25, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
On 16 May 2017 at 10:48, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi Kyrill,
>>
>> Sorry for missing this.
>> For the record you are referring to the patch at:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01700.html
>>
>> This is ok and in line with what we do for the f32 intrinsics.
>> My only concern w
Hi Michael,
On 19 May 2017 at 07:12, Michael Collison wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch improves code generations for builtin arithmetic overflow
> operations for the aarch64 backend. As an example for a simple test case such
> as:
>
> Sure for a simple test case such as:
>
> int
> f (int x, int y,
Hi Michael,
On 19 May 2017 at 09:21, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Thanks for doing this. Just a couple of comments about the .md stuff:
>
> Michael Collison writes:
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
>> index 5adc5ed..c6ae670 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/
Hi,
On 23 May 2017 at 18:23, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch finishes the breakup of ipa-inline and function analysis.
> The analysis is now done by separate pass and I will work on cleaning
> up the interfaces now.
>
> Honza
>
> * cgraphunit.c (symbol_table::process_new_functions):
On 19 May 2017 at 14:29, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
> On 11/05/2017 14:54:37, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
>> tls-disable-literal-pool.c should only be run if the toolchain and target
>> support native thread-local storage rather than emulated TLS. This patch also
>> improves the matching of the error mes
On 25 May 2017 at 00:16, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/24/2017 11:08 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>>> @@ -1036,31 +1079,76 @@ warnings_for_convert_and_check (location_t loc,
>>> tree type, tree expr,
>>> /* This detects cases like converting -12
On 30 May 2017 at 09:44, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
> On 29/05/2017 14:23:05, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 19 May 2017 at 14:29, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
>> > On 11/05/2017 14:54:37, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
>> >> tls-disable-literal-pool.c should only be run if the tool
On 30 May 2017 at 23:28, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/29/2017 08:02 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 25 May 2017 at 00:16, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/24/2017 11:08 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On
Hi,
On 23 May 2017 at 17:59, Robin Dapp wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-05-23 Robin Dapp
>
> * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_get_data_access_cost):
> Workaround for SLP handling.
> (vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment):
> Compute costs for doing no peeling at all, c
On 31 May 2017 at 16:27, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> Since this commit (r248678), I've noticed regressions on some arm targets.
>> Executed from: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/tree-ssa.exp
>> gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment
>> of access forced using peeling" 1
>> gcc.dg/tre
to document the new functions :( )
Thanks,
Christophe
2017-06-02 Christophe Lyon
* lib/target-supports.exp
(check_effective_target_arm_neon_ok_nocache): Add flags with
-mfloat-abi=hard. Include arm_neon.h.
(check_
Hi,
On 5 June 2017 at 19:36, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> here are less trivial updates to profile code which I did not bundle into
> initial transition. Those are not bugs in old code, just new code needs
> to track more.
>
> profile-bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, will commit it shortly.
>
Ping?
The patch is at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00078.html
On 14 December 2016 at 16:29, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Ping^2 ?
>
> As a reminder, this patch mimics what aarch64 does wrt to references to weak
> symbols such that they are not resolved by the assemble
Ping?
On 14 December 2016 at 23:09, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 14 December 2016 at 17:55, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 05:03:31PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> After the recent update from Tamar, I noticed
Hi Jonathan,
On 4 January 2017 at 12:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 03/01/17 15:32 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> Here's what I plan to commit to trunk tomorrow.
>
>
> Committed to trunk.
>
>
After this commit (r244051), I do see improvements, but also a few new failures.
The big picture is
On 4 January 2017 at 16:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 04/01/17 16:00 +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> On 4 January 2017 at 12:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/01/17 15:32 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>>
Hi Alexandre,
On 6 January 2017 at 04:27, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 01/05/2017 05:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> Reasonable -- I'll leave it for others to comment on that "standard
>>> practice" part (it'll be the first case of using this IIRC).
>
>> It'
On 6 January 2017 at 11:21, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 09:34:46AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> I makes my aarch64*linux* and arm*linux* builds for fail, because:
>> gcc/fortran/simplify.c:613: error: #pragma GCC diagnostic not allowed
>> inside fun
Hi Jeff,
On 5 January 2017 at 09:34, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 01/04/2017 11:55 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/09/2016 01:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> So I
On 6 January 2017 at 12:39, Richard Biener wrote:
> On January 6, 2017 11:21:44 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
> wrote:
>>On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 09:34:46AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> I makes my aarch64*linux* and arm*linux* builds for fail, because:
>>> gcc
Hi,
On 6 January 2017 at 13:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:41:15PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> This enables doable LTO bootstrap w/o -disable-werror. First change is
>> mentioned
>> in the PR, second is adding -fno-lto to libdecnumber. Honza told me that
>
On 6 January 2017 at 17:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 05:33:03PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 05:12:54PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> > This makes all my builds fail.
>> > (The *linux* ones are broken after Alexan
Hi,
On 7 January 2017 at 12:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> On January 6, 2017 8:00:21 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
> wrote:
>>On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 05:58:05PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> > Trying now:
>>> >
>>> > 2017-01-06 Jakub Jel
On 9 January 2017 at 12:14, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is a regression present on all active branches for big-endian targets
>> returning small aggregate types in registers under certain circumstances and
>> when optimization is
On 10 January 2017 at 09:58, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I have noticed new failures after this commit (r244249).
>> g++.dg/opt/call3.C fails at execution on armeb targets
>> g++.dg/opt/call2.C fails at execution on aarch64_be
>
> They are new testcases: can you find out whether they pass before the p
On 10 January 2017 at 11:26, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> They pass before the patch (I only checked armeb).
>
> Thanks, I see what's going on, but can you post the configure line of armeb?
>
Sure, it is:
--target=armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-float=hard --with-mode=arm
--with-cpu=cortex-a9 --with
Hi Martin,
On 9 January 2017 at 04:14, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/08/2017 02:04 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> On 01/06/2017 09:45 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/05/2017 08:52 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> So Richi asked for removal of the VR_ANTI_RANGE handling, which would
>>> impl
Ping?
On 3 January 2017 at 16:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Ping?
>
> The patch is at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00078.html
>
>
> On 14 December 2016 at 16:29, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Ping^2 ?
>>
>> As a reminder, this patch mimics
Ping?
James, I'm not sure whether your comment was a request for a new
version of my patch or just FYI?
On 3 January 2017 at 16:47, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Ping?
>
>
> On 14 December 2016 at 23:09, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> On 14 December 2016 at 17:55, James Gre
Hi Martin,
On 10 January 2017 at 15:40, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 01/10/2017 02:56 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> Second part of the patch does sorting of final congruence classes, it's
>>> groups
>>> and items included in the groups ac
On 11 January 2017 at 16:48, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> On 01/12/16 14:27, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 10 November 2016 at 15:10, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>>> On 10 November 2016 at 11:05, Richard Earnshaw
>>> wrote:
>
On 11 January 2017 at 17:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 11 January 2017 at 16:48, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>> On 01/12/16 14:27, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 November 2016 at 15:10, Christophe Lyon
>>> w
Hi Renlin,
On 12 January 2017 at 16:50, Renlin Li wrote:
> Hi Kugan,
>
> some of the targets do include pie, and use the same crtbegin file as shared
> object.
> For example, alpha/elf.h
>
> And there are targets which don't do that,
> For example, sh/elf.h
>
> Most of the elf target seem only c
is "shared" target checking mechanism is not reliable. The patch is to
> change this.
>
Shouldn't your patch imply that several tests move from "fail" to
"unsupported" on armv7-a ? I'm surprised not to see any difference in the
results.
>
>
&
On 13 January 2017 at 13:26, Renlin Li wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
>
> On 13/01/17 11:14, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 13 January 2017 at 11:22, Renlin Li wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Christophe,
>>>
>>> Thanks for testing the patch!
>>>
On 13 January 2017 at 12:16, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> The following is an attempt to change those testcases to be less dependent
>> on previous passes. The original motivation of the testcases seems to be
>> testing SCEV capabilities and in
Hi David,
On 13 January 2017 at 21:04, David Malcolm wrote:
> c-lex.c: lex_string uses cpp_get_token rather than
> cpp_get_token_with_location, and hence the C family of frontends
> record the physical locations of tokens in string concatenations, rather
> than the virtual locations, discarding a
On 16 January 2017 at 10:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
>> On 13 January 2017 at 12:16, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The following is an attempt t
with -Wformat=1 showed no warning.
Is it OK for now, or should I wait until stage1?
Thanks,
Christophe
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2017-01-17 Christophe Lyon
* gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/arm-neon-ref.h (CHECK_POLY):
New.
(CHECK_RESULTS_NAMED_NO_FP16): Call CHECK
On 16 January 2017 at 19:50, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 13:31 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
>> > > Successfully bootstrapped®rtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu;
>> > > adds 34 PASS results to gcc.sum.
>> > >
>> > These 2 tests fail on arm:
>> >
>> > gcc.dg/format/p
Hi Jeff,
On 17 January 2017 at 00:44, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> ACATS already had a test covering the Ada issue, Eric also added a test to
> the gnat.dg testsuite. So that's well covered.
>
> The test for the bootstrap comparison failure was (as expected) trivial to
> construct (ssa-dse-29.c). The
Hi Vladimir,
On 17 January 2017 at 17:14, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The following patch fixes
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
>
> The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86-64.
>
> Committed as rev. 244535.
>
>
The new testcase fails to compile on arm*-linux
Hi,
On 18 January 2017 at 22:45, Louis Krupp wrote:
> Fixed in revision 244601.
>
I've noticed a new failure on arm/aarch64:
compiler driver --help=fortran option(s): "^ +-.*[^:.]$" absent from
output: " -ftest-forall-temp Force creation of temporary to
test infrequently-executed fo
Hi Jiong,
On 19 January 2017 at 15:46, Jiong Wang wrote:
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 19/01/17 14:18, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c b/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c
>>> index
>>> 8085a42ace15d53f4cb0c6681717012d906a6d47..cf640135275deb76b820f8209fa51ea
tly-executed forall code
> +Force creation of temporary to test infrequently-executed forall code.
>
Thanks for catching the typo, I didn't notice it.
I confirm the test now pass on my side.
Thanks for the prompt fix.
Christophe
> Louis
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 04:52:54 -0800 Christ
On 20 January 2017 at 10:44, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 20/01/17 08:41, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jiong,
>>
>> On 19 January 2017 at 15:46, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review.
>>>
>>> On 19/01/17 14:18, Rich
On 20 January 2017 at 11:18, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 20/01/17 10:11, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> /tmp/8132498_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:
>>>> In function 'execute_cfa_program'
On 20 January 2017 at 12:54, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 20/01/17 10:30, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> error: 'DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE' undeclared (first use in this
>>>>>> function)
>&g
On 13 January 2017 at 18:21, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/13/2017 08:08 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Nice example provided in the PR causes ICE as we have an artificial symbol
>> created in tree-profile.c once being removed by remove unreachable nodes
>> (-O0)
>> and once not (-O1). Well,
Hi Nick,
On 23 January 2017 at 10:04, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Nick Clifton wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> [I have been asked to look at this PR in the hopes that it can be
>> fixed soon and so no longer act as a blocker for the gcc 7 branch].
>>
>> It seems to me that Richa
On 20 January 2017 at 20:24, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi Bernd,
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:33:59PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> So, when looking for situations where we have only one condition, we can
>> try to undo the conversion of a plain REG into a condition, on the
>> grounds that th
On 24 January 2017 at 17:02, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 24/01/17 15:21, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:40:46PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/24/2017 09:38 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On 24 January 2017 at 17:55, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/24/2017 05:50 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>>
>> Actually trying it out with an explicit -mcpu=cortex-a5 (so -O2 -S
>> -mfpu=fp-armv8 -mcpu=cortex-a57 -mfloat-abi=hard) I get
>> the test failing before and after the patch. The code generate
On 24 January 2017 at 18:15, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/24/2017 06:03 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Ha... the regression occurred between r 244818 and r 244816,
>> and I read r 244816 ChangeLog too quickly and did not notice
>> it was modifying ifcvt.c in
On 25 January 2017 at 10:18, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 25/01/17 08:53, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 24 January 2017 at 18:15, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/24/2017 06:03 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ha... the regress
riant that
would imply not generating vsel anymore).
I've noticed there are other tests adding arm_v8_vfp and not making
sure to select an appriopriate cpu. As a follow-up patch?
And I checked that my patch makes the tests pass again even
when configuring --with-cpu=cortex-a5.
On 26 January 2017 at 00:31, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/22/2017 04:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> The attached patch adds the concept of likely and unlikely results
>> of formatted functions to improve the quality of diagnostics (reduce
>> false positives and negatives) while at the same time allow
Hi
On 21 March 2017 at 09:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79908 shows a case where
>> pass_stdarg ICEs attempting to gimplify a COMPLEX_EXPR with side
>> effects as an lvalue. This occur
On 21 March 2017 at 16:54, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>>
>> Since this was committed (r246319), I've noticed that
>> GCC cross-compiler fails to build glibc for target aarch64-linux-gnu.
>>
>> I'
Hi,
On 25 March 2017 at 19:49, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 03/25/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> This looks fine to me. OK for trunk.
>>
>> Thanks for the patch.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
> Thanks for review Paul.
>
> A gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_26.f03
>
Hi Richard,
On 30 March 2017 at 09:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 03/29/2017 04:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> > After quite some pondering over this and other related bugs I propose
>> > the following for GCC 7 which tames down PRE a bit (back to
On 5 April 2017 at 13:41, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
>> On 2017.04.03 at 15:20 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> I'm re-testing the following variant.
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>> 2017-04-03 Richard Biener
>>>
>>> PR middle-end/80281
>>>
Hi Vladimir,
On 10 April 2017 at 17:05, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> This is the second try to fix
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478
>
> The first try patch triggered a latent bug and broke one Fortran testcase
> on x86-64.
>
> The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x8
On 11 April 2017 at 17:42, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>
> On 04/11/2017 03:30 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> On 10 April 2017 at 17:05, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>>
>>>This is the second try to fix
>>>
>>&
On 11 April 2017 at 21:43, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>
> On 04/11/2017 03:30 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> On 10 April 2017 at 17:05, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>>
>>>This is the second try to fix
>>>
>>&
Hi,
It looks like we forgot to backport the fix for PR68390 to gcc-5-branch.
The patch applies cleanly, and fwiw we've had it in the linaro-5
branch for a while.
OK to apply to gcc-5-branch?
Thanks,
Christophe
2017-04-12 Christophe Lyon
Backport from mainline
+2015-
On 13 April 2017 at 09:55, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It looks like we forgot to backport the fix for PR68390 to gcc-5-branch.
>> The patch applies cleanly, and fwiw we've had it in
Hi,
On 23 April 2017 at 10:51, Janus Weil wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>>> the patch in the attachment fixes a memory leak by auto-deallocating
>>> the allocatable components of an allocatable intent(out) argument.
>>>
>>> Regtests cleanly on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk?
>>
>> OK for trunk.
>
> thank
Hi,
On 29 April 2017 at 19:56, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Apr 28 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>> +void test_width_and_precision_out_of_range (char *d)
>> +{
>> +#if __LONG_MAX__ == 2147483647
>> +# define MAX_P1_STR "2147483648"
>> +#elif __LONG_MAX__ == 9223372036854775807
>> +# define MAX_
Hi Bin,
On 3 May 2017 at 12:12, 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 Bin,
On 24 April 2017 at 12:26, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch refactors how invariant variable/expressions are handled. Now
>> they are
>> recorded in the same kind data structure and handled similarly, which makes
>> code
On 3 May 2017 at 16:54, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/03/2017 08:22 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 29 April 2017 at 19:56, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 28 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>>>
Hi,
On 12 October 2016 at 11:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 12 October 2016 at 11:14, Kyrill Tkachov
> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/16 09:59, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kyrill,
>>>
>>> On 7 October 2016 at 17:00, Kyrill Tkachov
>>
On 13 September 2017 at 18:33, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
>
> On 13/09/17 16:23, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12 October 2016 at 11:22, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12 October 2016 at 11:14, Kyrill
Hi,
On 11 September 2017 at 10:45, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've received a complaint that GCC for AArch64 would generate
>> vectorized code relying on unaligned memory accesses even when
.
2017-06-26 Christophe Lyon
* doc/sourcebuild.texi (ARM-specific attributes): Document new
arm_neon_ok_no_float_abi effective target.
gcc/testsuite/
Backport from trunk r249639.
2017-06-26 Christophe Lyon
* lib/target-supports.exp
On 21 September 2017 at 16:48, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Commit r244796 changed vect_hw_misalign for arm to check against
> arm_vect_no_misalign. However vect_hw_misalign is supposed to check if
> a target supports misalign access, while arm_vect_no_misalign checks that
> a target only
On 23 September 2017 at 16:12, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 21 September 2017 at 16:48, Tamar Christina
> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Commit r244796 changed vect_hw_misalign for arm to check against
>> arm_vect_no_misalign. However vect_hw_misalign is supposed to
On 25 September 2017 at 11:36, Tamar Christina wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
>> Sent: 23 September 2017 18:52
>> To: Tamar Christina
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd; Ramana Ra
On 25 September 2017 at 20:19, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> The attached patch would apply after reverting yours.
>> I've applied it against r253072 (just before your patch) and the
>> results are visible at
ping?
On 20 September 2017 at 15:17, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11 September 2017 at 10:45, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've received a complaint that GCC f
ex-m3 , arm10tdmi).
OK?
Thanks,
Christophe
2017-09-28 Christophe Lyon
* gcc.target/arm/aapcs/align4.c: Require arm_neon_hw effective target.
* gcc.target/arm/aapcs/align_rec4.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/arm/aapcs/neon-vect1.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/arm/aapcs/neon-
Hi,
On 29 September 2017 at 15:29, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm going to install the following patch on trunk in the next few hours.
> This revision doesn't offer per-callsite opt-out anymore as suggested by
> Richi on the Cauldron (made possible by fixing all known issues on trunk)
On 29 September 2017 at 21:39, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 21:14 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > This patch (r253295) breaks the gcc build for aarch64-linux-gnu:
>> > I was just about to report the same thing.
>> I thi
On 3 October 2017 at 18:34, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> r253236 broke AArch64 bootstrap. Earlier revision r253071 changed scheduling
> behaviour on AArch64 as autopref scheduling no longer checks the base.
>
> This patch fixes the bootstrap failure and cleans up autopref scheduling.
> The code is grea
27;s patch was not backported to these branches, so it's not
appropriate to backport my patch there.
OK?
Thanks,
Christophe
2017-09-20 Christophe Lyon
PR target/71727
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c
(aarch64_builtin_support_vector_misalignment): Alwa
Hi Jeff,
On 7 September 2017 at 00:18, Jeff Law wrote:
> Another old patch getting resurrected...
>
>
This patch (r253305) introduces a new FAIL on arm-none-eabi (as
opposed arm-linux-gnueabi*):
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dse-26.c scan-tree-dump-times dse1
"Deleted dead store" 2
I'm not fam
Hi Jonathan,
On 3 October 2017 at 16:31, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 02/10/17 15:13 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> +#ifndef _GLIBCXX_CHARCONV
>> +#define _GLIBCXX_CHARCONV 1
>> +
>> +#pragma GCC system_header
>> +
>> +#if __cplusplus >= 201402L
>> +
>> +#include
>> +#include
>> +#include
Hi Richard,
On 18 September 2017 at 15:57, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> The vectoriser aligned vectors to TYPE_ALIGN unconditionally, although
>>> there was also a hard-coded assumption that this was equal
On 5 October 2017 at 22:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 05/10/17 22:00 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> On 3 October 2017 at 16:31, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/10/17 15:13 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>&g
On 5 October 2017 at 22:28, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>> I'm still working on analysis, but it appears to me that Alexander's patch
>> (current state of trunk) fails qsort check due to not being symmetric for
>> load/store analysis (write == 0 or write ==
On 6 October 2017 at 09:45, Tamar Christina wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rainer Orth [mailto:r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de]
>> Sent: 05 October 2017 20:16
>> To: Tamar Christina
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd; James Greenhalgh; Richard Earnshaw;
>> Marcus Shawcroft
>> Subj
On 5 October 2017 at 21:40, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
>
> On 7 September 2017 at 00:18, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Another old patch getting resurrected...
>>
>>
>
> This patch (r253305) introduces a new FAIL on arm-none-eabi (as
> opposed arm-linux-gnu
Hi Nathan,
On 10 October 2017 at 20:54, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> This patch fixes PR 82506, where we fail to properly stringize a raw string
> literal, which can contain a raw LF character.
>
> When we're not just preprocessing, there isn't a problem. The string
> literal gets correctly escaped
On 27 January 2017 at 03:49, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I committed the patch below to clean up the "mess."
>
> Thanks
> Martin
>
> Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c
> ===
> --- gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c(revision 244957)
> +++ gcc/gimple-
Hi Vladimir,
On 26 January 2017 at 18:09, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The following patch fixes
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79131
>
> The patch also adapts IP IRA in LRA because without it GCC IP RA tests
> become broken (it was just a luck that the tests worked before the patc
On 31 January 2017 at 10:05, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On 30/01/17 20:59, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> On 26 January 2017 at 18:09, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>>
>>> The following patch fixes
>>>
>&g
RB operand, so like so:
>
> li 9,7
> lwbrx 10,4,9
> lwbrx 9,5,9
>
> On some processors, it matters performance wise.
>
> Peter
>
The updated test does not link when using newlib, missing random().
The small attached patch fixes this by calling ran
Hello,
Is it too late for this patch?
On 11 January 2017 at 11:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Ping?
>
> James, I'm not sure whether your comment was a request for a new
> version of my patch or just FYI?
>
>
> On 3 January 2017 at 16:47, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>
1401 - 1500 of 3170 matches
Mail list logo
