On 25 October 2016 at 04:16, kugan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that in ipcp_bits_lattice::meet_with we have:
>
> else if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code) == tcc_unary)
>
> else if (code == NOP_EXPR)
>
>
> Since TREE_CODE_CLASS for NOP_EXPR is tcc_unary, if (code == NOP_EXPR) is
> unreachab
On 25 October 2016 at 13:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> After approval from Bernd Schmidt, I committed the patch to remove
>> optab functions for
>> sdivmod_optab and udivmod_optab in optabs.def,
On 25 October 2016 at 16:17, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 25 October 2016 at 13:43, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>
Pinging patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg01545.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
On 25 October 2016 at 18:47, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 25 October 2016 at 16:17, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 25 October 2016 at 13:43, Ri
On 24 October 2016 at 21:09, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 16 October 2016 at 11:31, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch adds test-cases for divmod transform.
>> OK to commit ?
> ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg01241.html
Hi Richa
On 26 October 2016 at 18:51, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 16/10/16 07:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> This patch overrides expand_divmod_libfunc hook for ARM port.
>> I separated the SImode tests into separate file from DImode tests
>> because
On 27 October 2016 at 18:58, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 24 October 2016 at 21:09, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> > On 16 October 2016 at 11:31, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>&
Hi,
This patch uses replaces TREE_CODE(x) == VAR_DECL by VAR_P(x) in arm.c.
Bootstrap+tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
OK to commit ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-10-28 Prathamesh Kulkarni
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_const_not_ok_for_debug_p): Use VAR_P.
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc
On 26 October 2016 at 16:17, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 25 October 2016 at 18:47, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 25 October 2016 at 16:17, Ric
On 1 November 2016 at 23:41, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 10:05:22AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> ... simplify some conditions and add i?86-*-* target where missing.
>>>
>>> 2016-11-01 Uros Bizjak
>>>
>>> * lib/target
Pinging patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg01545.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
On 2 November 2016 at 18:29, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Then I'll approve the whole patch.
Thanks!
Trying the patch on kernel build (allmodconfig) reveals the following
couple of warnings:
http://pastebin.com/Sv2HFDUv
I think warning for str_error_r() is correct, however I am not sure if
warning for
On 2 November 2016 at 23:07, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On 2 November 2016 at 18:29, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> Then I'll approve the whole patch.
>> Thanks!
>> Trying the patch on kernel buil
PLE,
it gets transformed to bit_and_expr
so to match for both GENERIC and GIMPLE, I had to guard the for-stmt:
#if GENERIC
(for op (truth_andif truth_orif)
#elif GIMPLE
(for op (bit_and bit_ior)
#endif
Is that OK ?
Bootstrap+test running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-11
On 3 November 2016 at 18:36, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> libfunc, as in "__{,u}divmod{di,ti}4 library function" is already
>>> implemented in libgcc. But the enablement of this function inside the
>>> compiler has to be performed by each target.
>
On 3 November 2016 at 16:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>> The attached patch tries to fix PR35691, by adding the following two
>> transforms to match.pd:
>> (x == 0 && y == 0) -> (x | typeof
ping * 2 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02008.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
On 7 June 2016 at 13:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02008.html
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 18:19, Prathamesh Kulkarni
ping * 2 ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
On 28 June 2016 at 14:49, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>
> On 23 June 2016 at 22:51, Prathamesh
Hi Richard,
For the following test-case:
int f(int x, int y)
{
int ret;
if (x == y)
ret = x ^ y;
else
ret = 1;
return ret;
}
I was wondering if x ^ y should be folded to 0 since
it's guarded by condition x == y ?
optimized dump shows:
f (int x, int y)
{
int iftmp.0_1;
On 15 July 2016 at 05:46, kugan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This patch extends ipa-cp/ipa-prop infrastructure to handle propagation of
> VR.
Hi Kugan,
Just a small nit - perhaps you should modify
ipa_print_node_jump_functions_for_edge () to pretty-print
value ranges associated with the jump function.
Th
ping * 3 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
On 5 July 2016 at 10:53, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> ping * 2 ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>
> On 28 June 2016 at 14:49, Prathamesh
ping * 3 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02008.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
On 29 June 2016 at 22:09, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> ping * 2 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02008.html
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 13:56, Prathamesh
On 8 July 2016 at 12:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Richard,
>> > For the following test-case:
>> >
>> > int f(int x, int y)
>> > {
On 20 July 2016 at 16:35, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 8 July 2016 at 12:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 20 July 2016 at 23:07, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 20 July 2016 at 16:35, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 July 2016 at 12:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Richard Biener wr
Committed as obvious (r238588).
Thanks,
Prathamesh
Index: tree-ssa-strlen.c
===
--- tree-ssa-strlen.c (revision 238587)
+++ tree-ssa-strlen.c (working copy)
@@ -2383,7 +2383,7 @@
};
/* Callback for walk_dominator_tree. Attemp
Hi Richard,
The attached patch tries to fix PR70920.
It adds your pattern from comment 1 in the PR
(with additional gating on INTEGRAL_TYPE_P to avoid regressing finalize_18.f90)
and second pattern, which is reverse of the first transform.
I needed to update ssa-dom-branch-1.c because with patch ap
Hi,
The attached patch tries to fix PR71078.
I am not sure if I have got the converts right.
I put (convert? @0) and (convert1? (abs @1))
to match for cases when operands's types may
be different from outermost type like in pr71078-3.c
test-case (included in patch).
Bootstrap+test in progress on x8
On 25 July 2016 at 14:32, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>> The attached patch tries to fix PR70920.
>> It adds your pattern from comment 1 in the PR
>> (with additional gating on INTEGRAL_TYPE_P to avoid
Hi,
The following test-cases broke due to the warning.
I think however the warning is right for all the cases:
a) g++.dg/tree-ssa/invalid-dom.C:
I believe the call from main() to E::bar() is dead call ?
b) libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/float.c:
Call from main() to floating() is dead call.
c) libf
Hi,
The attached patch emits warnings for functions found to be pure or
const by the ipa-pure-const
pass. It does not warn for functions with unused return values that
have been declared
as pure or const by the user since this is already handled in C and C++ FE's.
I have split it into parts to indi
The following is an interesting case which broke stor-layout.c.
The patch warned for the following call to be dead from
bit_field_mode_iterator::next_mode() to get_mode_alignment ():
/* Stop if the mode requires too much alignment. */
if (GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (m_mode) > m_align
Many warnings for dead-calls are emitted with patch on call to
operator new in libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc, which I am not sure are correct
or false positives, for instance:
/home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gcc-svn/trunk/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:170:22:
warning: Call from void* {anonymous}::pool::all
On 26 July 2016 at 17:28, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 25 July 2016 at 14:32, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Richard,
>> >> The a
On 26 July 2016 at 17:06, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> The following test-cases broke due to the warning.
>> I think however the warning is right for all the cases:
>>
>> a) g++.dg/tree-ssa/invalid-dom.C:
On 26 July 2016 at 17:07, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> The following is an interesting case which broke stor-layout.c.
>> The patch warned for the following call to be dead from
>> bit_field_mode_iterator::next_mode
On 26 July 2016 at 19:21, ayush goel wrote:
> On 26 July 2016 at 3:38:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> (lopeziba...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On 25 July 2016 at 18:18, ayush goel wrote:
>> > On top of the previously filed patch for importing gnulib (the link
>> > isn’t available on the archive yet, however
On 26 July 2016 at 17:41, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> The attached patch tries to fix PR71078.
>> I am not sure if I have got the converts right.
>> I put (convert? @0) and (convert1? (abs @1))
>> to match
On 28 July 2016 at 15:58, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mo, Jul 25 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70920-4.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..dedb895
>> --- /dev/null
On 8 June 2016 at 19:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Jim Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > Joseph - do you know sth about why there's not a full set of divmod
>> > libfuncs in libgcc?
>>
>> Because udivmoddi4 isn't a libfunc, it is a h
On 27 July 2016 at 18:56, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On 23 May 2016 at 14:28, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch overrides expand_divmod_libfunc for ARM port and adds te
Hi,
The following patch adds test-cases for divmod transform.
I separated the SImode tests into separate file from DImode tests
because certain arm configs (cortex-15) have hardware div insn for
SImode but not for DImode,
and for that config we want SImode tests to be disabled but not DImode tests.
On 28 July 2016 at 20:14, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
>> appear UNSUPPORTED.
>> That's because this config appears to define
>> __ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__ however idiv appears not to be present.
>>
>> For instance __aeabi_div is called to perform
>> division for the following test-case:
>> int f(int
On 28 July 2016 at 20:39, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 28/07/16 14:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> Um I had configured with --with-tune=cortex-a9. Is that incorrect for
>> armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf ?
>
> Why on earth would you want to generate code for ARMv8 and
On 28 July 2016 at 19:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 28 July 2016 at 15:58, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> > On Mo, Jul 25 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsui
On 29 July 2016 at 12:42, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 28 July 2016 at 19:18, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 28 July 2016 at 15:58, Andreas
On 29 July 2016 at 05:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 28 July 2016 at 20:14, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>>
>>> appear UNSUPPORTED.
>>> That's because this config appears to define
>>> __ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__ however idiv appears not to be present
On 30 July 2016 at 03:40, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> >> GCC can run on other systems besides OSX and GNU/Linux, how can you
>> >> test that your change does not break anything on those systems?
>> >>
>>
On 31 July 2016 at 22:01, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>> > + warning_at (gimple_location (g), OPT_Wunused_value,
>> > + "Call from %s to %s has no effect",
>> > + e->cal
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com
2016-08-01 Prathamesh Kulkarni
* match.pd (x/abs(x) -> copysign(1.0, x)): Don't transform for
long double.
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71078-1.c: Remove f3.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71078-2.c: Likewise.
diff --git a
following assert in execute_todo():
if (flag_checking
&& cfun
&& need_ssa_update_p (cfun))
gcc_assert (flags & TODO_update_ssa_any);
Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-08-01 Prathamesh Kulkarni
Hi,
The attached patch fixes ada bootstrap failure.
Bootstrap+tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with --enable-languages=all,ada
Cross-tested on aarch64*-*-*, arm*-*-* with --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran.
OK to commit ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-11-24 Jakub Jelinek
Prathamesh
On 24 November 2016 at 18:08, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 24 November 2016 at 17:48, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 24 November 2016 at 14:07,
it's definition from
c-common.h and moved
it to tree.h.
Is that OK ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-11-25 Prathamesh Kulkarni
* tree-core.h (TI_UNSIGNED_PTRDIFF_TYPE): New enum value.
* tree.h (unsigned_ptrdiff_type_node): New macro.
c-family/
* c-common.h (CTI_UNSIG
On 25 November 2016 at 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 24 November 2016 at 18:08, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 24 November 2016 at 17:48,
On 25 November 2016 at 13:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 25 November 2016 at 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 24 November 2016 at 18:08,
On 25 November 2016 at 13:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:28:06PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> > --- a/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
>> > +++ b/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c
>> > @@ -1271,8 +1271,3
On 25 November 2016 at 14:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 25 November 2016 at 13:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 0
On 28 November 2016 at 10:55, kugan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 24/11/16 19:48, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:38:18PM +1100, kugan wrote:
Hi,
I was relying on ipa_get_callee_param_type t
-*-*.
LTO bootstrap on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu in progress.
Is it OK to commit if it succeeds ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-12-01 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR ipa/78599
* ipa-cp.c (propagate_bits_accross_jump_function): Check if parm_type
is integral or pointer type.
diff --gi
On 25 November 2016 at 21:17, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/25/2016 01:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> For the tail-call, issue should we artificially create a lhs and use that
>>> as return value (perhaps by a separate pass before tailcall) ?
>>>
>>> __builtin_memcpy (a1, a2, a3);
>>> return a1;
>>>
On 1 December 2016 at 17:40, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 25 November 2016 at 21:17, Jeff Law wrote:
>> > On 11/25/2016 01:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> >>> For the tail-call, issue sho
On 1 December 2016 at 18:26, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 1 December 2016 at 17:40, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 25 November 2016 at 21:17, Jeff
On 1 December 2016 at 18:38, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 1 December 2016 at 18:26, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1 December 2016 at 17:40, Ri
Hi Richard,
I tested your fix for the patch with ubsan stage-1 built gcc, and it
fixes the error.
Is it OK to commit if bootstrap+test passes on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-12-01 Richard Biener
Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR middle-end/78629
On 2 December 2016 at 03:57, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 06:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> Well after removing DECL_BY_REFERENCE, verify_gimple still fails but
>>> differently:
>>>
>>> tail-padding1.C:13:1: error: RESULT_DECL should be read only when
>>> DECL_BY_REFERENCE is set
>>> }
>
On 3 December 2016 at 00:25, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > As mentioned in PR, the issue seems to be that in
>
e that's OK ?
clang unconditionally transforms
strstr (s, t) == s to strncmp (s, t, strlen (t))
However I am not sure what algorithm glibc's strstr uses, so didn't
attempt to transform
if strlen (t) is unknown. Should we do the transform even if strlen
(t) is unknown ?
Thanks,
Pratham
On 5 December 2016 at 23:38, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/05/2016 07:02 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>> This patch folds strstr (s, t) eq/ne s to strcmp (s, t) eq/ne 0 if
>> strlen (t) is known.
>
>
> That's not the same thing, is it?
>
> s = &qu
On 5 December 2016 at 23:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 5 December 2016 at 23:38, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 12/05/2016 07:02 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch folds strstr (s, t) eq/ne s to strcmp (s, t) eq/ne 0 if
>>> strlen (t) is known
On 6 December 2016 at 14:50, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:36:55AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > > As shown on the testcase, with K&R definitions and fn prototypes with
>> > > promoted types, we can end up computing caller's va
On 5 December 2016 at 23:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 11:32:15PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> So I had to check if SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (rhs2) was call to strstr
>> rather than rhs1.
>
> Then you need to test both whether it is strstr (s, t) == s o
On 7 December 2016 at 17:36, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:02:46PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> + if (arg1_len == NULL_TREE)
>> + {
>> + gim
On 9 December 2016 at 17:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 05:36:41PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
>> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
>> @@ -2302,7 +2302,81 @@ strlen_optimize_stmt (gimple_stmt_iterator *gs
On 13 December 2016 at 15:27, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 03:08:17PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> Thanks for the suggestions. It didn't occur to me to check for gimple_cond.
>> I have tried to do the changes in the attached version.
>> I am
On 13 December 2016 at 17:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 05:41:09PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
>> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
>> @@ -,6 +,90 @@ handle_char_store (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
>>return t
Hi Richard,
The attached patch attempts to reject invalid pass-name in startwith
and verified gimplefe tests pass with the patch (not sure if bootstrap
is required?)
Does it look OK ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-12-18 Prathamesh Kulkarni
c/
* gimple-parser.c (c_parser_gimple_pass_list
On 18 December 2016 at 18:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 05:41:23PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/c/gimple-parser.c
>> +++ b/gcc/c/gimple-parser.c
>> @@ -1046,6 +1046,17 @@ c_parser_gimple_pass_list (c_parser *parser)
>>if
On 19 May 2016 at 13:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 18 May 2016 at 19:38, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 May 2016 at 18:36, Richard
Hi,
I have updated my patch for divmod (attached), which was originally
based on Kugan's patch.
The patch transforms stmts with code TRUNC_DIV_EXPR and TRUNC_MOD_EXPR
having same operands to divmod representation, so we can cse computation of mod.
t1 = a TRUNC_DIV_EXPR b;
t2 = a TRUNC_MOD_EXPR b
i
Hi,
This patch overrides expand_divmod_libfunc for ARM port and adds test-cases.
I separated the SImode tests into separate file from DImode tests
because certain arm configs (cortex-15) have hardware div insn for
SImode but not for DImode,
and for that config we want SImode tests to be disabled bu
On 5 February 2016 at 18:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 4 February 2016 at 16:31, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On 31 July 2015 at 15:04, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>>> wrote:
>>
On 23 May 2016 at 17:35, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have updated my patch for divmod (attached), which was originally
>> based on Kugan's patch.
>> The patch transforms stmts with cod
On 24 May 2016 at 17:42, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 23 May 2016 at 17:35, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> I
On 24 May 2016 at 19:39, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 24 May 2016 at 17:42, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Tue, 24 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 23 May 2016 at 17:35, Richard Biener
ht be wrong)
>
> Yeah. I also think it's not so much important - I just wanted to mention
> vectors...
>
> Btw, I still think we need a more sensible infrastructure for passes
> to gather, analyze and modify complex conditions. (I'm always pointing
> to tree-affine
On 7 November 2016 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 4 November 2016 at 13:41, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrot
On 7 November 2016 at 23:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 7 November 2016 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 November 2016 at 13:41, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Marc Glisse wr
On 8 November 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 7 November 2016 at 23:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> > On 7 November 2016 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Prath
On 8 November 2016 at 16:46, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 8 November 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 7 November 2016 at 23:06, Prat
On 2 November 2016 at 23:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 2 November 2016 at 23:07, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On 2 November 2016 at 18:29, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>> Then I'll approve th
commit this patch in stage-3 ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-11-17 Prathamesh Kulkarni
* tree-vrp.c (gimple_str_nonzero_warnv_p): New function.
(gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p): Call gimple_str_nonzero_warnv_p.
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr78154.c: New test-case.
diff --git a
Hi,
As discussed in PR, this patch marks the test-case to xfail on arm-none-eabi.
OK to commit ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2016-11-17 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR tree-optimization/78319
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/uninit-pred-8_a.c (foo): Mark dg-bogus test to xfail on
arm-none-eabi
On 17 November 2016 at 03:20, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 01:23 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> As discussed in PR, this patch marks the test-case to xfail on
>> arm-none-eabi.
>> OK to commit ?
>
> You might check if Aldy's change to
On 17 November 2016 at 14:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>> Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks if stmt
>> contains call to memmove (and friends) in gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p
>>
On 17 November 2016 at 15:24, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 17 November 2016 at 14:21, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Richard,
>> >>
Hi,
As suggested by Martin in PR78153 strlen's return value cannot exceed
PTRDIFF_MAX.
So I set it's range to [0, PTRDIFF_MAX - 1] in extract_range_basic()
in the attached patch.
However it regressed strlenopt-3.c:
Consider fn1() from strlenopt-3.c:
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) size_t
fn1
On 20 November 2016 at 19:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 07:20:20PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
>> +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
>> @@ -4013,6 +4013,16 @@ extract_range_basic (value_range *vr, gimple *stmt)
>>
On 21 November 2016 at 15:34, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 17 November 2016 at 15:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 November 2016 at 14:21,
501 - 600 of 1038 matches
Mail list logo
