This adds guards to genmatch generated code before accessing call
expression or stmt arguments that might be out of bounds when
the user provided bogus prototypes for what we consider builtins.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
Richard.
2020-02-05 Richard Biener
We're now consistently building SLP operations with only
scalar defs from scalars which makes the testcase no longer
testing multiplication vectorization. The following smuggles
in a constant making the vector variant profitable for SLP build.
Tested on x86_64-linux, pushed.
2020-02-05 Ri
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:55 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 2/5/20 1:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:02 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/4/20 2:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 13:08 -0700, Martin Sebor
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:06 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:55 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> > On 2/5/20 1:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:02 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 2/4/20 2:3
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:33 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:06 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:55 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/5/20 1:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:07 PM Martin Liska wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> The series is about small issues that were spotted with cppcheck
> and where David Binderman suggested a patch.
>
> It's probably a stage1 material?
Yes.
> Martin
>
> Martin Liska (4):
> Remove 2 dead variables in bid_internal.h.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:14 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:33 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:06 AM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:55 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
relies that it has one.
> constructor_elt *cep = NULL;
> if (code == ARRAY_TYPE)
> {
> HOST_WIDE_INT i
> = find_array_ctor_elt (*valp, index, /*insert*/true);
> gcc_assert (i >= 0);
> cep = CONSTRUCTOR_ELT (*valp,
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:48 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 19:44, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:37 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 19:10, Richard Biener
>
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:00 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 09:19 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:02 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > On 2/4/20 2:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 13:08 -0700, Martin Sebor wr
The inliner folds stmts delayed, the following arranges things so
to not fold stmts that are obviously not reachable to avoid warnings
from those code regions.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
OK?
Thanks,
Richard.
2020-02-06 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/93519
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 12:08 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 2/6/20 6:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:00 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 09:19 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:02 PM
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 2/6/20 7:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The inliner folds stmts delayed, the following arranges things so
> > to not fold stmts that are obviously not reachable to avoid warnings
> > from those code regions.
> >
> >
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:33 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> As mentioned in the PR, for -mavx -mno-avx2 the backend does support
> vcondv4div4df and vcondv8siv8sf optabs (while generally 32-byte vectors
> aren't much supported in that case, it is performed using
> vandps/vandnps/vorps). The
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:17:04PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > on 2020/1/20 下午8:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:36:52PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > >> As we discussed in the thread
> > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/m
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:34:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Yes, we should decide how often we want to unroll things somewhere before
> > > ivopts already,
Bootstrapped / tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
Richard.
2020-02-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/93661
PR tree-optimization/93662
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vn_reference_lookup_3): Properly guard
tree_to_poly_int64.
* tree-sra.c
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> 11.02.2020 11:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:34:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wro
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 02:58:47PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> > > 11.02.2020 11:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Sound good, but IMHO modulo scheduler is not the best c
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:46:05PM +0300, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> > Hmm, even when trying to move it just few passes earlier many years ago,
> > got another opinion:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01526.html
> > Although w
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 19:17, Richard Biener
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:49 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
The warning was emitted inconsistently on targets, so disable it since
the testcase was for an ICE.
2020-02-12 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/93697
* gcc.dg/pr93661.c: Pass -w, remove dg-warning.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93661.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:12:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Basic block partitioning has wildly disproportionate fallout in all
> > > later passes, both in t
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:53:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:12:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 11 Feb
Pushed.
2020-02-13 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/93717
* gcc.dg/optimize-bswapsi-2.c: Add BE case.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/optimize-bswapsi-2.c | 19 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/optimize-bswapsi-2.c
ssign_rhs1 (def_stmt);
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr93582-1.c.jj 2020-02-12
> 18:23:02.522285857 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr93582-1.c 2020-02-12 18:24:51.284661882
> +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/93582 */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target int32 } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-fre1" } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return 1;" "fre1" } } */
> +
> +union U {
> + struct S { int a : 1, b : 4, c : 27; } s;
> + struct T { int d : 2; int e : 2; int f : 28; } t;
> +};
> +
> +int
> +foo (void)
> +{
> + union U u;
> + u.s.b = 10;
> + return u.t.e;
> +}
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr93582-2.c.jj 2020-02-12
> 18:23:05.608239781 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr93582-2.c 2020-02-12 18:31:12.443970643
> +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/93582 */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target int32 } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-fre1" } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return 593;" "fre1" } } */
> +
> +union U {
> + struct S { int a : 1, b : 14, c : 17; } s;
> + struct T { int d : 2; int e : 12; int f : 18; } t;
> +};
> +
> +int
> +foo (void)
> +{
> + union U u;
> + u.s.b = -7005;
> + return u.t.e;
> +}
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr93582-3.c.jj 2020-02-12
> 18:30:55.372225545 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr93582-3.c 2020-02-12 18:31:20.136855767
> +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/93582 */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target int32 } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-fre1" } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return 1;" "fre1" { target be } } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return 2;" "fre1" { target le } } } */
> +
> +union U {
> + struct S { int a : 1, b : 14, c : 17; } s;
> + struct T { int d : 10; int e : 4; int f : 18; } t;
> +};
> +
> +int
> +foo (void)
> +{
> + union U u;
> + u.s.b = -7005;
> + return u.t.e;
> +}
>
> Jakub
>
>
--
Richard Biener
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Felix Imendörffer; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:46 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> Ping^3.
OK.
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed there's a costly signed 64-bit division in rtx_cost on x86 as
> > well as
> > any other target where UNITS_PER_WORD is implemented like TARGET_64BI
, new_acc);
> + /* Because get_ref_base_and_extent always includes padding in size for
> + accesses to DECLs but not necessarily for COMPONENT_REFs of the same
> + type, we might be actually attempting to here to create a child of the
> + same type as the parent. *
This makes sure to not promote diagnostics about unrecognized -Wno-
options to errors and make the intent of the diagnostic clearer.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Richard.
2020-02-14 Richard Biener
PR c/86134
* opts-global.c
On February 15, 2020 7:09:51 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>As the following testcases show (the first one reported, last two
>found by code inspection), we need to disallow side-effects
>in simplifications that turn some unconditional expression into
>conditional
>one. From my littl
/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-lower" } */
> +
> +unsigned a(unsigned x, int n)
> +{
> + return x >> (n % 32);
> +}
> +
> +unsigned b(unsigned x, int n)
> +{
> + return x << (n % 32);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not " % " "lower" } } */
>
--
Richard Biener
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Felix Imendörffer; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 09:01:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, Li Jia He wrote:
> > > This patch wants to fix PR66552 on gimple and optimizes (x shift (n mod
> > > C))
> > > to (x sh
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/opts-global.c b/gcc/opts-global.c
> > index d5e308bf800..52ea083a6d5 100644
> > --- a/gcc/opts-global.c
> > +++ b/gcc/opts-global.c
> > @@ -139,8 +1
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:05 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 2/7/20 6:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 02:55:14PM +0100, Martin Liska wrote:
> >>
> >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> 2020-02-04 Martin Liska
> >>
> >> PR c/92472.
> >
> > That trailing dot should not be t
Bootstrap / regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Richard.
2019-12-04 Richard Biener
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vn_reference_lookup_3): Properly guard
empty CTOR and memset partial-def registering. Take advantage
of fancy offset analysis in memset handling.
Index
This improves on the existing partial-def support by allowing
shadowed non-constant partial defs.
Step 1 to really support non-constant partial-defs which would
help Skia.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2019-12-04 Richard Biener
* tree-ssa
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:52 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-11-20 at 11:18 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:02 PM David Malcolm
> > wrote:
> > > > > The checker is implemented as a GCC plugin.
> > > > >
&
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 11:48 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> In r278410 I added code to handle VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRs between
> variable-length vectors. This included support for decoding
> a VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P with subbyte elements.
>
> However, it turns out that we were already mishandling such
g - change CHECKING_P to flag_checking.
Any objections?
Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unkown-linux-gnu.
Richard.
2019-12-05 Richard Biener
* diagnostic.c: Include options.h.
(diagnostic_report_diagnostic): Enable ICEs after errors with
-fchecking.
Index: gc
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Currently IL verification errors trigger "confused by earlier errors"
> > messages with a release compiler but compiling with -fchecking.
> > That is b
The following patch fixes invariant vector construction in vector CTOR
optimization.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2019-12-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92803
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_vector_constructor): Fix
Richard Biener
PR middle-end/92818
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_vector_constructor): Improve
heuristics on what don't care element to choose.
* match.pd (VEC_PERM_EXPR -> BIT_INSERT_EXPR): Fix typo.
* gcc.target/i386/pr92818.c: New testcase.
Index:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 15:46, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >
> > The PR shows I added the bail-out prematurely.
> >
> > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
> >
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:52 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> with recent fixes to proile updating I noticed that we get more regressions
> compared to gcc 9 at Firefox testing. This is because Firefox train run is
> not covering all the benchmarks and gcc 9, thanks to updating bugs sometimes
> opt
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> This PR shows that we weren't checking for bitwise-identical values
> when trying to encode a VECTOR_CST, so -0.0 was treated the same as
> 0.0 for -fno-signed-zeros. The patch adds a new OEP flag to select
> that behaviour.
>
> Tested
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 1:41 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 12/5/19 1:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I wonder if the behavior shouldn't be the default? The only thing we lose
> > is failing to notice really cold calls (error paths) in programs?
>
> I would also cons
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 15:41, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 16:54, Richard Biener wrote:
> > &g
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 1:50 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> As mentioned in the PR, there are classes in cgraph.h that are
> not PODs and are initialized with ggc_alloc_cleared. So that I'm suggesting
> to use proper constructors. I added ggc_new function that can be used
> at different locatio
After the PR92818 commit there's one function in the testcase below
remaining not using bit-inserts. The following fixes this.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Richard.
2019-12-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92819
* mat
On December 5, 2019 2:03:58 PM GMT+01:00, "Martin Liška" wrote:
>On 12/5/19 1:59 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Isn't there ggc_alloc for this? Also ggc_alloc_no_dtor in
>case you
>> want to handle finalization yourself.
>
>No, if I see correctly it
On December 5, 2019 3:09:40 PM GMT+01:00, "Martin Liška" wrote:
>On 12/5/19 2:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On December 5, 2019 2:03:58 PM GMT+01:00, "Martin Liška"
> wrote:
>>> On 12/5/19 1:59 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> Isn't ther
On December 5, 2019 3:35:17 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Martin" == Martin Liška writes:
>
>Martin> + /* Default constructor. */
>Martin> + symtab_node (symtab_type t)
>
>FWIW, in gdb, we normally make single-argument constructors "explicit".
>This helps avoid surprises with implici
On December 5, 2019 2:03:24 PM GMT+01:00, Marc Glisse
wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> --- gcc/match.pd.jj 2019-12-03 10:20:00.244913801 +0100
>> +++ gcc/match.pd 2019-12-03 13:36:01.084435697 +0100
>> @@ -2159,20 +2159,26 @@ (define_operator_list COND_TERNARY
>> /* A
On December 5, 2019 5:31:59 PM GMT+01:00, Michael Matz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On December 5, 2019 3:35:17 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Tromey
>wrote:
>> >>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Liška writes:
>> >
>&
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> After the PR92818 commit there's one function in the testcase below
> remaining not using bit-inserts. The following fixes this.
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Committed with the follo
contain enough information here.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2019-12-06 Richard Biener
* genmatch.c (c_expr::gen_transform): Emit newlines from line
number changes rather than after every semicolon.
Index:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 4:16 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On December 5, 2019 2:03:24 PM GMT+01:00, Marc Glisse
> wrote:
> >On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> >> --- gcc/match.pd.jj 2019-12-03 10:20:00.244913801 +0100
> >> +++ gcc/match.pd
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 4:16 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On December 5, 2019 2:03:24 PM GMT+01:00, Marc Glisse
> > wrote:
> > >On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > >> --- g
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:36 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> prune_runtime_alias_test_list used ordered_remove to remove a merged
> alias pair, which made the function quadratic when many aliases could
> be removed.
>
> I had a testcase in which these memmoves accounted for an impressive
> 85% of c
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >>> nop_convert sees that 'a' comes from a conversion, and only returns d
> >>> (unlike 'convert?' which would try both a and d).
>
> Maybe I should
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > >>> nop_convert sees that 'a' comes from a conversion, and only returns d
> > >>> (unlike 'c
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:20 AM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> This patch converts various "gimple *" to "const gimple *" and similar
> fixes for gimple subclasses, adding is_a_helper for gimple subclasses
> to support the const form of as_a, and adding a few "const" overloads
> of accessors.
>
> This i
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 05:26:25PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I'd fear people will use -fchecking and feel error-recovery bugs are then
> > more important because they no longer get the more user friendly message.
> > Can't we arrange for the em
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 6:27 PM Kwok Cheung Yeung wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> A number of the libgomp tests running with AMD GCN offloading fail with
> the following internal compiler error:
>
> during RTL pass: final
> /scratch/ci-cs/amdtest/upstream-offload/src/gcc-mainline/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.for
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:31 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 12:55 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 11/15/19 6:22 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > This patch kit introduces a static analysis pass for GCC that can
> > > diagnose
> > > various kinds of problems in C code at compile-time
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:53 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Hello world,
>
> the attached patch introduces a new option, -finline-pack.
>
> Since the fix for PR88821, we now do inline packing of
> arguments (if required) via the scalarizer, instead of
> using _gfortran_internal_[un]pack when optimizin
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 3:28 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 20:22 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > This patch converts various "gimple *" to "const gimple *" and
> > similar
> > fixes for gimple subclasses, adding is_a_helper for gimple subclasses
> > to support the const form of as_a,
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 6:47 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 11:52 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:20 AM David Malcolm
> > wrote:
> > > This patch converts various "gimple *" to "const gimple *" and
long
> +smax4 (long long a, long long b)
> +{
> + return a + ((b - a) & -(a <= b));
> +}
> +
> +static inline long long
> +smin4 (long long a, long long b)
> +{
> + return a + ((b - a) & -(a >= b));
> +}
> +
> +void
> +test (unsigned *x, int *y, unsigned long long *z, long long *w)
> +{
> + x[2] = umax1 (x[0], x[1]);
> + x[5] = umin1 (x[2], x[3]);
> + y[2] = smax1 (y[0], y[1]);
> + y[5] = smin1 (y[2], y[3]);
> + z[2] = umax2 (z[0], z[1]);
> + z[5] = umin2 (z[2], z[3]);
> + w[2] = smax2 (w[0], w[1]);
> + w[5] = smin2 (w[2], w[3]);
> + x[8] = umax3 (x[6], x[7]);
> + x[11] = umin3 (x[9], x[10]);
> + y[8] = smax3 (y[6], y[7]);
> + y[11] = smin3 (y[9], y[10]);
> + z[8] = umax4 (z[6], z[7]);
> + z[11] = umin4 (z[9], z[10]);
> + w[8] = smax4 (w[6], w[7]);
> + w[11] = smin4 (w[9], w[10]);
> +}
>
> Jakub
>
>
--
Richard Biener
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Felix Imendörffer; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
T_BIT_BUCKET) != 0)
> - /* AUX_BASE_NAME is set and is not the bit bucket. If it
> -contains a directory component, prepend those directories.
> -Typically this places things in the same directory as the
> -object file. */
> - {
> - const char *aux_base;
&
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:23 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this is a regression present on the mainline and 9 branch: the compiler gives
> an ICE for the attached Ada testcase on the following assertion:
>
> if (DECL_P (ref))
> {
> /* We shouldn't have true variables h
On December 10, 2019 12:39:53 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>The direct_slp_reduc code in vect_create_epilog_for_reduction was
>still assuming that all types involved in a reduction are the same
>(up to types_compatible_p), whereas we now support differences in
>sign. This was causing a
On December 10, 2019 12:28:24 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Unlike most vector ops, extract-last reductions replace the original
>scalar code in-situ rather than adding an adjacent vector
>implementation.
>I.e.:
>
> dest_1 = COND_EXPR <...>;
>
>becomes:
>
> dest_1 = .EXTRACT_LAST (.
On December 10, 2019 12:34:33 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>The analysis phase of vectorizable_condition wasn't recording the
>loop masks needed by the transform phase. This meant that the masks
>wouldn't be created in the (rare) case that no other statement needed
>them.
>
>Tested on
On December 10, 2019 12:44:01 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>The dwarf2 handling of vector constants currently divides the vector
>into a length (number of elements) and byte element size. This doesn't
>work well for MODE_VECTOR_BOOL, where several elements are packed into
>the same byt
On December 11, 2019 12:27:31 PM GMT+01:00, "Andre Vieira (lists)"
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We can now vectorize an epilogue for this loop for arm too, so removing
>
>xfail.
>
>Is this OK for trunk? Wasn't entirely sure whether I could commit this
>under obvious.
Sure.
Richard.
>gcc/testsuite/ChangeL
On December 12, 2019 12:56:01 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>The AVX512{F,VL} vector comparisons that set %kN registers are
>represented
>in RTL as comparisons with vector mode operands and scalar integral
>result,
>where at runtime the scalar integer is filled with a bitmask.
>Unfort
On December 12, 2019 7:43:58 AM GMT+01:00, Stefan Franke
wrote:
>Am 2019-12-08 01:54, schrieb Oleg Endo:
>> On Tue, 2019-11-26 at 07:38 +0100, ste...@franke.ms wrote:
>>> > On 11/21/19 10:30 AM, ste...@franke.ms wrote:
>>> > > Hi there,
>>> > >
>>> > > here is mc68k's patch to switch the m68k arc
On December 12, 2019 10:53:26 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 09:22:47AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > So there's no whole vector equality RTX but we have to pun to
>integer
>> > modes for that? The eq:SImode would suggest that. Guess we should
>have
>> > used
On December 12, 2019 4:10:33 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>One problem with adding an N-bit vector extension to an existing
>architecture is to decide how N-bit vectors should be passed to
>functions and returned from functions. Allowing all N-bit vector
>types to be passed in register
On December 12, 2019 5:44:25 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Richard Biener writes:
>> On December 12, 2019 4:10:33 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>>One problem with adding an N-bit vector extension to an existing
>>>architecture is to deci
On December 13, 2019 12:54:08 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 04:59:40PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >If it starts being ambiguous somewhere, could we use some target
>macro
>> >or
>> >target hook to decide?
>>
>> A
On December 12, 2019 7:15:36 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Richard Biener writes:
>> On December 12, 2019 5:44:25 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>>Richard Biener writes:
>>>> On December 12, 2019 4:10:33 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
On December 13, 2019 12:03:30 PM GMT+01:00, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 09:32:27AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> I doubt it will be long before we deprecate
>> all targets that require old reload.)
>
>Do we wait until GCC 12 (to remove old reload completely)? If not,
On December 13, 2019 10:12:40 AM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Richard Biener writes:
>>>>>The AArch64 port emits an error if calls pass values of SVE type to
>>>an
>>>>>unprototyped function. To do that we need to know whether the
>value
On December 14, 2019 6:28:48 AM GMT+01:00, Andrew Pinski
wrote:
>On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:32 AM Richard Biener
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am testing the following followup to my BIT_FIELD_REF
>simplification
>> changes which resolve issues when applying to memory BI
On December 14, 2019 10:11:33 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>As discussed on IRC and in the PR, we get an ICE during
>inline_read_section
>in the offloading lto1, because the size of streamed out and expected
>to be
>streamed in data doesn't match. This happens on the testcase from t
On December 14, 2019 9:21:21 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>__builtin_apply calls some other function, so whether it is const, pure
>or
>none of that, whether it can throw or not etc. depends on whether that
>called function is const or pure or none of that, whether it can throw
>etc.
On December 14, 2019 11:43:48 AM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Richard Biener writes:
>> On December 13, 2019 10:12:40 AM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>>Richard Biener writes:
>>>>>>>The AArch64 port emits an error if
On December 17, 2019 9:43:26 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>big ? "-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie" doesn't make much sense, either we want
>to
>use big ? "-fno-PIE" : "-fno-pie", but as both mean the same thing, I
>think
>just using "-fno-pie" is good enough. + a few formatting nits and one
>
On December 17, 2019 8:40:59 PM GMT+01:00, Roman Zhuykov
wrote:
>Hello.
>
>> As pointed out in the PR
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92591#c1, the test can
>be
>> fixed by DFA-checking more adjacent row sequences in the partial
>> schedule.
>> I've found that on powerpc64 gcc.c-t
On December 17, 2019 1:40:47 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Jambor
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>because the follow-up patches perform some non-trivial operations on
>SRA patches, I wrote myself a verifier. And sure enough, it has
>spotted two issues, one of which is fixed in this patch too - we did
>not correctly set t
On December 17, 2019 1:43:15 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Jambor
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>the previous patch unfortunately does not fix the first testcase in PR
>92706 and since I am afraid it might be the important one, I also
>focused on that. The issue here is again total scalarization accesses
>clashing with
On December 20, 2019 2:13:47 AM GMT+01:00, "Bin.Cheng"
wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:26 AM bin.cheng
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As reported in PR92926, constant ctor is shared translation unit wide
>because of constexpr_call_table,
>> however, during gimplify, the shared ctor could be modified
On December 27, 2019 5:02:55 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>The fold-left reduction code has a (rarely-used) fallback that handles
>cases in which the loop is fully-masked and the target has no native
>support for the reduction. The fallback includea a VEC_COND_EXPR
>between the reducti
On December 28, 2019 5:29:20 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>The EXTRACT_LAST_REDUCTION handling needs to generate a separate
>comparison instruction that feeds the vector mask argument of the
>IFN_EXTRACT_LAST call. We weren't checking whether that comparison
>was supported, leading to
On December 28, 2019 5:31:20 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>In this testcase we use an unmasked SVE loop with an Advanced SIMD
>epilogue (because we don't yet support fully-masked downward loops).
>The main loop uses a gather load for the strided access while the
>epilogue loop builds th
On December 30, 2019 3:15:14 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>This patch fixes an awkward corner case in which:
>
>(a) we apply if-conversion to a loop;
>
>(b) the original scalar loop doesn't have a vdef, and thus doesn't
>need a virtual phi;
>
>(c) the vectorised main loop does need
On December 31, 2019 12:00:56 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>This patch fixes various issues in the popcount{64,32}c matcher.
>
>The first issue is that it blindly uses tree_to_uhwi on all the
>INTEGER_CST
>operands. That is fine for those where we know their type, after the
>prec <=
; >>
> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >>>
> >>> 2019-12-12 Andre Vieira
> >>>
> >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-epilogues.c: XFAIL for arm big endian.
> >>> * lib/target-supports.exp
> >>> (check_effe
1201 - 1300 of 27429 matches
Mail list logo
