On 6 June 2012 22:14, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.1 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.1-RC-20120606
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 188257.
>
> I have so far bootstrapped and tested the relea
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20120607 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20120607/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:48:38PM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 05/31/12 15:44, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >Hello gentlemen.
> >
> >Would it be ok to backport the fix for PR52558 into the 4.7 branch? This
> >PR is the store data race patch I have been iterating with Richi. Doing
> >so will avoid
On 05/31/12 15:44, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hello gentlemen.
Would it be ok to backport the fix for PR52558 into the 4.7 branch? This
PR is the store data race patch I have been iterating with Richi. Doing
so will avoid critical data races for both TM and the C++ memory model.
The code is all pred
Steven Bosscher writes:
> I am confused by the following code in
> ifcvt.c:noce_mem_write_may_trap_or_fault_p():
>
> static bool
> noce_mem_write_may_trap_or_fault_p (const_rtx mem)
> {
> rtx addr;
>
> if (MEM_READONLY_P (mem))
> return true;
> (...)
>
> addr = XEXP (mem, 0);
>
> /* C
Hello,
I am confused by the following code in
ifcvt.c:noce_mem_write_may_trap_or_fault_p():
static bool
noce_mem_write_may_trap_or_fault_p (const_rtx mem)
{
rtx addr;
if (MEM_READONLY_P (mem))
return true;
(...)
addr = XEXP (mem, 0);
/* Call target hook to avoid the effects of -fpi
Hi,
so it looks like there are other ia64 specific calls to plus_constant that need
to be adjusted.
Tristan.
On Jun 6, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Mailaripillai, Kannan Jeganathan wrote:
What is the backtrace ?
>> #0 0x6db96a0:0 in plus_constant (mode=RFmode, x=0x18, c=1)
>> #13 0x6f68260:0 in exp
