x86_64, okay to commit if no regressions?
--
Quentin Neill
--
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index caed12e..5af1c78 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2011-10-31 Quentin Neill
+
+ Piledriver f16cintrin.h fix.
+ * config/i386/f16cintrin.h
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 05:23:58PM -0500, Quentin Neill wrote:
>> Interested parties should view these threads from three years ago:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/threads.html#00145
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/m
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>> Ping?
>
> The problem with this patch is it reorders the listing so that lower priority
> things are after higher priority things. The entire point of the routine is
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>> Ping?
>>
>> The problem with this patch is it reorders the listing so that lower
>> priority thi
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> Following http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg02901.html, I have
> applied
> the following patch on x86_64-apple-darwin10
>
> --- ../_clean/gcc/config.gcc 2011-11-05 22:25:37.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/config.gcc 2011-11
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Attached patch fixes all remaining i386 testsuite failures. The header
> did say that we can include it also through immintrin.h ...
>
> 2011-11-07 Uros Bizjak
>
> * config/i386/f16cintrin: Remove extra _X86INTRIN_H_INCLUDED
Hi,
This patch turns on FMA4 for the AMD BDVER2 processor.
Okay for trunk if no regressions?
--
Quentin
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 181147)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2011-11-07 Quentin
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>> This patch concatenates the common .sum files before comparing.
>>
>> Okay to commit?
>
> Ok, thanks for the contribution.
>
FYI I see my patch was missing these
Hi,
Should not change behavior for comparing two files (expect for usage
output), and also should be POSIX compliant.
Tested on x86_64 tests logs and test directories, would be interested
in help testing on other platforms.
Ok to commit?
--
Quentin Neill
>F
Ping?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Should not change behavior for comparing two files (expect for usage
> output), and also should be POSIX compliant.
>
> Tested on x86_64 tests logs and test directories, would be interested
> in help testi
Hi,
I'm testing the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48743#c4 against trunk
Is this considered okay for stage3?
If so, okay to commit after bootstrap testing on x86_64?
--
Quentin
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> I'm testing the patch in
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48743#c4 against trunk
>
>
> --cut here--
> --- gcc-4.7-20110521/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c.~1~ 2011-01-06
> 23:59:46.0 +0100
> +++ gcc-4.7-20110521
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> I'm testing the patch in
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48743#c4 against trunk
>
>
> --cut here--
> --- gcc-4.7-20110521/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c.~1~ 2011-01-06
> 23:59:46.0 +0100
> +++ gcc-4.7-20110521
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Ping.
>
> I think this is a useful improvement to the docs and could prevent the
> most commonly-encountered bootstrap failure for inexpert users
> building GCC.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
>
> On 30 December 2011 13:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 20 January 2012 23:08, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>
>> My 2c - I heartily recommend this patch.
>
> Thanks. I'm a bit surprised noone else has commented - I hoped this
> would be a no-brainer, or at least get s
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> On 11/07/2011 07:28 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
> > + Add FMA4 to bdver2.
> > + * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Add FMA4
> > to bdver2.
>
> Ok.
>
>
> r~
This pa
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>> On 11/07/2011 07:28 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>> > + Add FMA4 to bdver2.
>> > + * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal):
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>> My scenario about "ANY test results changed" is what I added with -strict.
>> This patch concatenates the common .sum files before comparing.
>
> So, how
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>> My scenario about "ANY test results changed" is what I added with -strict.
>>> This patch conc
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>> Thanks for the fix. This seemed familiar, and upon review it looks
>>> like I never committed this fix
Hi,
The patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26585)
attached to the bug
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52137) recovers
performance regressions for AMD's bdver2 processor.
It passes bootstrap and make check on x86_64.
The patch is simple and seems to have little risk
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Quentin Neill
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26585)
>> attached to the bug
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 08:49:13AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> > 2012-02-20 Quentin Neill
>> >
>> > PR target/52137
>> > * gcc/config/i386/bdver1.md (bdver1_call, bdver1_push,
>
> Pl
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> All of these _mm{,256}_permute2_p[sd] and _mm_roti_epi{8,16,32,64}
> intrinsics ICE if the last argument is constant integer, but not in the
> expected range.
>
> I could only find MSFT documentation for these intrinsics, where for
>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> All of these _mm{,256}_permute2_p[sd] and _mm_roti_epi{8,16,32,64}
>> intrinsics ICE if the last argument is constant integer, but not in the
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Quentin Neill
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> All of these _mm{,256}_permute2_p[sd] and _mm_roti_epi{8,16,32,64}
>
atch
thread, or just use this one?
--
Quentin
From aa70d4f6180f1c6712888b7328723232b5da8bdc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Quentin Neill
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:24:17 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] 2011-05-17 Harsha Jagasia
* config/i386/sse.md (fma4_fmsubadd): Use .
(fma4_fmaddsub): Li
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> This patch fixes an obvious problem: the fma4_fmsubadd/fma4_fmaddsub
>> instruction templates don't generate vfmsubaddpd/vfmaddsubpd because
>> they don't use
>>
>> This passes bootstrap on x86_64 on trunk. Okay to commit?
>
> Se
28 matches
Mail list logo
