On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 17:04 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 23:50 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Does ppc32 have any atomic 64-bit loads/stores (in the sense that the
> > aligned
> > 64 bits are written as one memory transaction, not each 32-bit word
>
/219249.html
Once that is committed and merged into gcc, we can re-enable building
libsanitizer for powerpc*-linux.
Peter
On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 14:07 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 09:36 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > This is being discussed in the thread at
> > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02031.html>. Until that
> > has been resolved, I do agre
Oops, forgot to CC the x86 maintainers. Is the i386.c change ok for 4.8?
Peter
Forwarded Message
From: Peter Bergner
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Richard Biener , Jakub Jelinek
, Vladimir Makarov
Subject: [PATCH, reginfo.c, i386.c] Backport fix for PR58139 to 4.8
Date
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 09:11 +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Backport from mainline
> > 2013-09-06 Jan Hubicka
> >
> > * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok): AVX modes are valid
&
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 13:49 +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > We were already testing for OImode, so do you want me to
> > remove the redundant compare and make the code look like
> > the following instead?
>
> Yes,
s the normal RMs, because LIBITM doesn't seem to have a maintainer
or reviewer listed in the MAINTAINERS file. Is that an oversight or???
Peter
Backport from mainline
2013-06-20 Torvald Riegel
* query.cc (_ITM_inTransaction): Abort when using the HTM fa
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 13:48 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 19:32 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > I'd like to ask for permission to backport the following two LIBITM bug
> > fixes to the FSF 4.8 branch. Although these are not technically fixing
> >
ry to redefine CC1_SPEC.
This passed bootstrap and regtesting on powerpc64-linux with no regressions.
Ok for mainline?
Peter
* config.gcc (powerpc*-*-linux*): Include gnu-user.h in tm_file.
* config/rs6000/sysv4.h (CC!_SPEC): Undefine it before defining it.
Index: gcc/confi
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 11:23 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:18:06AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > This passed bootstrap and regtesting on powerpc64-linux with no
> > > regressions.
> > > Ok for mainline?
> > >
> > >
This passed bootstrap and regtesting on powerpc64-linux with no regressions.
Ok for 4.8?
Peter
* config/rs6000/sysv4.h:
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/sysv4.h
===
--- gcc/config/rs6000/sysv4.h (revision 212695)
+++ gcc/config/r
This is slightly different than the 4.8 patch, since the STATIC_LIB[AT]SAN_LIBS
macro was deleted in 4.9.
This passed bootstrap and regtesting on powerpc64-linux with no regressions.
Ok for 4.9?
Peter
* config/rs6000/sysv4.h:
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/sy
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 17:53 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40:31AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > This patch is okay with me if it is okay with the Release Managers.
>
> Ok.
Ok, I committed this as revision 212899. Thanks!
Peter
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 17:54 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:38:22AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > This is okay with me if it is okay with the Release Managers.
>
> Ok.
Ok, I committed this as revision 212898. Thanks!
Peter
provides the same identical definitions.
There are also a few macros that gnu-user.h defines that are different than
the what rs6000/*.h files define (eg, STARTFILE_SPEC, ENDFILE_SPEC, CC1_SPEC
LIB_SPEC and TARGET_LIBC_HAS_FUNCTION), so we'll want to leave those macro
definitions as well.
Peter
On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 15:06 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 11:23 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:18:06AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > This seems weird. Why wasn't this file included before or whenever it
> >
On Sat, 2014-07-26 at 06:24 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > * config.gcc (powerpc*-*-linux*): Include gnu-user.h in tm_file.
> > * config/rs6000/sysv4.h (CC!_SPEC): Undefine it before defining it.
> >
assed bootstrap and regtesting on powerpc64-linux. Ok for trunk?
Peter
libgcc/
* config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble.c (typedef union longDblUnion): Delete.
(pack_ldouble): New function.
(__gcc_qadd): Use it.
(__gcc_qmul): Likewise.
(__gcc_qdiv): Lik
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 22:13 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > libgcc/
> > * config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble.c (typedef union longDblUnion): Delete.
> > (pack_ldouble): New function.
> >
On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 10:11 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 7:56 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Currently, the IBM long double routines in libgcc use a union to construct
> > a long double from two double values. This causes horrific code generation
> > that
On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 10:30 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:25:57AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
> >
> > Ok. Does this also fix the PPC regression?
>
> That is a que
ch,
> > plus the C++ FE / libstdc++ changes), and how much does this affect
> > code generation and overall stability of the PowerPC big endian existing
> > targets.
>
> * 15/26 might be one we can do without. I need to check with Peter
> Bergner, who originally backp
7;d like to
fix this in the FSF branch so they'll all get the fix automatically.
Ok for the FSF 4.8 branch once my bootstrap and regtesting are
complete (using powerpc64-linux)?
Peter
libstdc++-v3/
Backport from mainline
2013-08-01 Fabien Chêne
PR c++/54537
On Fri, 2014-03-21 at 11:30 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The following patch has lived on mainline for 6 months and has
> not generated any issues there. We've also been using it on
> our 4.8 based IBM branch with no problems either, so I'd like to
> ask for permission t
I'd like to ping the following backport patch for the fix for PR54537.
This did bootstrap and regtest with no regressions on powerpc64-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01148.html
Peter
r this,
but dg-error and dg-message both seem to only allow you to match the
error output after the line #/row #, so it seems impossible to test
for this. If someone has any suggestions on how a test case can be
written, I'm willing to try it.
Peter
PR c/57653
* c-family
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 15:15 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Peter reported on IRC that many asan tests are failing on ppc, apparently
> lots of that is related to -fsection-anchors decls and STRING_CSTs, which
> weren't considered before.
>
> This patch attempts t
On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 17:19 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Because Peter Bergner most recently worked on embedded PPC targets, I
> had asked him to double-check the patch before approving it.
> Hopefully he will give me some feedback soon.
I've had a look at the patch and it looks
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 10:03 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 08:49 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > + if (TARGET_LINK_STACK)
> > + asm_fprintf (file, "\tbl 1f\n\tb 2f\n1:\n\tblr\n2:\n");
> > + else
> > + asm_fprintf (file, "\
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 20:43 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Index: gcc/config/rs6000/476.opt
[snip]
> +Target Var(rs6000_link_stack) Init(1) Save
Oops, this should actually be Init(-1). The hunk above was just my
way of testing the modified code more by enabling it by default.
Sorry abou
On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 08:20 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 06:43 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Ok, here's a patch to implement that, and it passes bootstrap and
> > regtesting. Richard, is this what you had in mind? I'll note that
> >
ther than doing it silently? Like so:
if (TARGET_POWERPC64)
{
if (TARGET_LINK_STACK > 0)
warning (0, "-m64 disables -mpreserve-ppc476-link-stack");
SET_TARGET_LINK_STACK (0);
}
else if (TARGET_LINK_STACK == -1)
SET_TARGET_LINK_STACK (rs6000_cpu == PROCESSOR_PPC476 && flag_pic);
Peter
On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 15:37 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
>
> > So David, do we even want to bother trying to support this on -m64
> > given the only cpu that needs this is a 32-bit only cpu? If so, I
> > can t
ludes
the support for 64-bit because it makes the code cleaner and changes
the option name back to -mpreserve-link-stack. Thanks.
Peter
* config.gcc (powerpc*-*-linux*): Add powerpc*-*-linux*ppc476* variant.
* config/rs6000/476.h: New file.
* config/rs6000/476.opt:
xtern const char * output_isel (rtx *);
extern void rs6000_call_indirect_aix (rtx, rtx, rtx);
extern void rs6000_aix_asm_output_dwarf_table_ref (char *);
-extern void get_ppc476_thunk_name (char name[32]);
+extern void get_ppc476_thunk_name (char name[32]) ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED;
/* Declare functions in rs6000-c.c */
Peter
realize that either. Does the following fix
your problem?
Peter
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (USE_HIDDEN_LINKONCE): New define.
(get_ppc476_thunk_name): Use it.
(rs6000_code_end): Likewise.
Index: config/rs6000/rs6000.c
===
fresh build fixing things for you.
Otherwise, let me know what you find.
Peter
lse
> ASM_GENERATE_INTERNAL_LABEL (name, "LPPC476_", 0);
> +#endif
> }
...
Instead of that, see my patch to fix David's AIX problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg00198.html
Peter
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 14:05 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 18:52 +, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> > Hmm .. I wonder if this is just a temporary glitch because of the move
> > of files to libgcc.
>
> Note that I just hit a problem with the libgcc move.
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 22:02 +, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2011, at 19:39, Peter Bergner wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 19:33 +, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >> I'm going to try this
> >> char name[32];
> >&
off a bootstrap with those changes. I'll let
you know how it goes.
Peter
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 09:13 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 14:48 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > I sent a patch for that one:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg00300.html
> >
> > plus Paolo's typo fix:
> >
&g
worth the
> implementation effort.
I'm surprised and saddened to head we don't at least treat copies
specially wrt computing conflicts. That said, if one or both of
the pseudos are undefined, then that could explain why two pseudos
are allocated to the same hard register at the same time even with
the code we have now.
Peter
used any fallout.
Thanks again for your reviews and committing the patch for me!
Peter
regtesting on powerpc64-linux.
Ok for mainline? The same problem exists in 4.7 and 4.6, is this
patch ok for the release branches too assuming my testing there
passes without problems?
Peter
libstdc++-v3/
PR c++/54036
* include/decimal/decimal.h (_DEFINE_DECIMAL_UNARY_OP): Us
sly, you don't want to use this as in general
set usage, but where speed is critical, it has its uses.
Peter
I'd like to ping the following libstdc++ DFP patch that fixes PR54036:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg00959.html
Peter
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:24:48 -0700 Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 07:29 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > On 08/01/2012 12:46 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >> I'd like to ping the following libstdc++ DFP patch that fixes PR54036:
> >>
> >>http://gcc.gnu
cimal, we
> normally use:
>
> using namespace std::decimal.
Fixed.
Ok, once more with feeling! :) How about the updated patched below?
...and thank you for the gentle review. This is my first libstdc++
patch and I guess I was used to the normal gcc/testsuite/ tests
that don't include
I committed the following patch to the FSF 4.6 branch which Jakub
approved on IRC.
Peter
Backport from mainline
2011-08-29 Jakub Jelinek
* gthr-posix.h (__gthread_active_p): Do not use preprocessor
conditionals and comments inside macro arguments.
Index: gcc
.
The bug is exposed by dragonegg which requires the callee type to be
correct.
libjava tested, x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
2011-08-02 Peter Collingbourne
* expr.c (expand_invoke) Use the type of the method rewrite target.
---
gcc/java/expr.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2
rve_args " $opt $optarg"
This turns off warnings for --silent (and turns them on again for
--verbose).
But I am not sure that --silent was meant to imply "no warnings", rather
it turns off the verbose compile/link messages.
Would a new --no-warnings option be more appropri
doesn't make any sense.
>
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
Thanks for fixing this Jason! The same error also occurs on 4.6.
Do you plan on fixing it there too?
Peter
lwz 3,0(9) lwz 3,0(9)
I have bootstrapped and regtested the following patch with no regressiosn.
To test the code even more, I modified the patch so that we default to always
using -mpreserve-link-stack and that bootstrapped and regtested with no
regressions too.
of r2?
Alan describes the scenario here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00304.html
Peter
mitting it there too (and to
the 4.6 branch since that was created between when you submitted that
patch and committed it)? I'd like to see this fixed on both of those
FSF release branches.
Peter
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 11:40 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 10:37 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> > Patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00625.html was
> > approved by Jason last December but I never got around to checking
> > it in. Paolo Ca
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 14:18 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't see that note about backports, but then I'm way behind
> on gcc mail.
Heh, no problem. I can sympathize!
> Peter, would you be able to test this patch for a backport? I'm kind of
> swamped r
efore Janis
committed the mainline patch? I have verified that Janis' patch
bootstraps and regtests with no regressions on both the 4.5 and
4.6 branches.
Peter
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 12:12 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 11:34 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 10:37 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> >> Patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00625.html was
> >> approved by Jason last Decembe
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 23:34 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Ok, it has been committed to both the FSF 4.6 and 4.5 branches now.
>
> The ChangeLog entry is in the wrong file, it must be moved to cp/ChangeLog.
Oops, thanks for catching that! Fixed now.
Peter
ning
I also tested this with the -mpreserve-ppc476-link-stack on by default,
as well as configuring without 476 support and verified that the
TARGET_LINK_STACK tests are not only optimized away, but so is the
-mpreserve-ppc476-link-stack option itself.
Is this ok for mainline now?
Peter
I'd like to ping this patch backport:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg01428.html
Peter
I'd like to re-ping this patch backport:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg01428.html
Peter
) to nail
this loop down.
It's definitely a fix for upstream - saving the sanity of some souls.
Peter
On 19.03.2012 17:38, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 16/03/12 13:29, EXTERNAL Waechtler Peter (Fa. TCP, CM-AI/PJ-CF31) wrote:
The CodeSourcery toolchain contains a "fix" like the following,
please consider for adding it.
Here&
I have committed the following patch to fix the libffi build breakage I'm
seeing on powerpc64-linux (when building java) which was caused by the
recent merge of upstream libffi. Anthony Green ack'd this patch for
upstream, but said to commit it here and he'd merge the gcc sources
back to upstream
7;t far off and we're working toward Primary Arch.
> Ubuntu Precise:
> * ARM is a primary architecture
> * Beta 2 is out
> * ARMv7 hard float by default with ARMv7 softfp being community supported
>
> Debian:
> * ARM is a primary architecture
> * Has a ARMv4T soft float and in-development ARMv7 hard float
>
> openSUSE:
> * Kicked off at a hackfest in September 2011
> * Have a ARMv5T soft float and ARMv7 hard float build
Is only hard float, they haven't ruled out doing v5 soft float but
it's not their current focus.
Peter
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 10:46 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > This patch fixes PR16458 by using the type expression attached to a reg
> > rtx to detect its signedness and generating unsigned compares when
> > appr
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 10:43 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:50 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >
> >> 2012-mm-dd Peter Bergner
> >>Michael Matz
> >
on IRC, he thought it was
probably a good idea to backport it.
I bootstrapped and regtested the backport patch below on powerpc64-linux with
no regressions.
Ok for the 4.6 branch?
Peter
Backport from mainline
2011-06-11 Jan Hubicka
PR lto/48246
* lto.c (lto_1_to_1_m
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 11:33 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > We're still hitting the overzealous assert identified in PR49246 that is
> > looking for empty LTO partitions, even after the change to a checking
> >
glibc code, I do see:
mfcr r0
followed by a store of r0.
Peter
R is volatile, maybe it's the same
on Darwin?
Peter
On 14 December 2011 15:00, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Anyhow, makecontext is easy to write in a system specific manner. It
> doesn't even have to be written in assembler, though getcontext and
> setcontext do have to be assembler. Why not just implement them for
> ARM?
We're looking at implement
pilled pseudos.
It seems we rely on coloring to try and assign the same hard reg to
pseudos connected by a copy so the copy can be removed as a nop.
Looking at all the code used to do the cost preferencing to achieve
that, I'm guessing just coalescing them would be a lot easier.
Peter
The 476 cpu has dynamic branch prediction, so we don't want to always
use static branch prediction hints. Is the following patch ok assuming
my currently running bootstrap/regtesting doesn't uncover any regressions?
Is this appropriate for the 4.6 and 4.5 branches as we
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 19:13 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > The 476 cpu has dynamic branch prediction, so we don't want to always
> > use static branch prediction hints. Is the following patch ok assuming
> > my c
ootstrap and regtesting with no regressions.
Ok for mainline?
Peter
gcc/
PR target/16458
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_unsigned_reg_p): New function.
(rs6000_generate_compare): Use it.
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/16458
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr16458-1.c: New t
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 10:46 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > This patch fixes PR16458 by using the type expression attached to a reg
> > rtx to detect its signedness and generating unsigned compares when
> > appr
can this be committed? Now or stage1?
Peter
* config/rs6000/dfp.md (floatdidd2): New define_insn.
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/dfp.md
===
--- gcc/config/rs6000/dfp.md(revision 183808)
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/dfp.md
ok everywhere?
I'll note that there seem to be a few other places that need this change,
but they aren't needed to fix this ICE, so I left them for a 4.8. cleanup.
Peter
gcc/
PR middle-end/52140
* dojump.c (do_compare_rtx_and_jump): Use SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P.
gcc
On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 20:34 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The following patch fixes an ICE when we try and generate a compare of
> decimal float variables when we are not compiling for a cpu with dfp
> hardware support. This is a regression from gcc 4.4. The patch below
> boot
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 11:31 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > The following patch fixes an ICE when we try and generate a compare of
> > decimal float variables when we are not compiling for a cpu with dfp
> > hardwar
powerpc64-linux bootstraps and regtesting don't show any regressions?
Peter
PR target/50181
Backported from mainline
gcc/
2012-01-20 Andreas Krebbel
PR rtl-optimization/51856
* reload.c (find_reloads_subreg_address): Set the address_reloaded
fl
branches once the branches are open for fixes and my
bootstrapping/regtesting are complete?
Peter
* gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md (vsx_set_): Reorder operands.
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr52457.c: New test.
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 11:19 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > The patch below fixes a typo in the vsx_set_ pattern that causes
> > wrong code to be generated when using -mcpu=power7. This passed bootstrap
> > and regres
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 23:09 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > The POWER Toolchain IPC team who is adding POWER7 support to valgrind
> > reminded me that Power ISA 2.06 added a new convert from integer to
> > decimal64
ng does require modifying g++.dg/cpp0x/range-for5.C.
> >
> > Tested with g++ testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu; tests in progress
> > for libstdc++. OK to commit?
>
> Below is a slightly revised patch that actually adds all the necessary
> dg-error directives to r
m NS*/
int(*efcnet_arp_fct)
(struct ndd *, struct mbuf *); /* efcnet_arp function address */
} *fc_softc ;
David, do you have any idea if this is what it's supposed to be?
Ok for trunk?
Peter
--
Peter O'Gorman
po...@thewrittenword.com
In
Bruce's change to the test.
>
> I will try to find the AIX header owners to fix the problem as well.
That would be great.
Peter
--
Peter O'Gorman
po...@thewrittenword.com
I suppose the new
> version matches what XLC does?
Yes, XLC passes V2DI parameters and return values in Altivec registers
as per the ABI, so we're the buggy ones.
Peter
,
without introducing any new SPEC regressions.
This patch passed bootstrapp and regtesting on powerpc64-linux
(test suite run in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes). Ok for mainline?
Peter
gcc/
PR target/48053
* config/rs6000/predicates.md (easy_vector_constant_add_self
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 12:34 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> This patch fixes the two related bugs in PR48053. The problem here deals
> with loading constants into VSX registers. The first bug occurs when we
> try and load up a full constant into the VSX register. We end u
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr48053-2.c: Likewise.
>
> Okay.
Thanks, committed as revision 170920.
Peter
I'd like to ping this test suite patch:
[PATCH, testsuite] Update gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c SIZE values for powerpc
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00077.html
Peter
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 10:24 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > I'd like to ping this test suite patch:
> >
> > [PATCH, testsuite] Update gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c SIZE values for powerpc
> >
> >http://gcc.g
g patch fix the
failures for you? I did not add a non-Altivec 32-bit define,
since I believe Altivec is always enabled for darwin, correct?
Peter
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-usag
2 (I guess this is right) while I get 272 at
> -m64
> (so the test will fail).
Ok, slightly updated. How about this? Although it seems strange that
darwin has such a large amount of inherent stack usage compare to
linux.
Peter
Index: gcc/te
the same stack usage, which makes sense.
Thanks.
Mike and David, I assume the updated patch below is ok for mainline?
Peter
* gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c (SIZE): Provide proper values for __ppc64__
and __APPLE__ && __PPC__ && __ALTIVEC__.
--- /opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/te
701 - 800 of 2337 matches
Mail list logo
