Re: -Wstack-usage and alloca in loops

> The implementation of -Wstack-usage is a bit lame in that it does not do > any flow analysis or tie into the range information computed by VRP. Right, that was by design in order to be conservatively correct. May I remind you of where we came from with -Wframe-larger-than? :-) > Moving the st

Re: -Wstack-usage and alloca in loops

On 09/22/14 09:56, Dmitry Antipov wrote: For the following translation unit: #include int foo (unsigned n) { int *p; if (n < 1024) p = alloca (n * sizeof (int)); else p = malloc (n * sizeof (int)); return g (p, n); } int bar (unsigned n) { int x, i, *p; for (x =

Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?

On 09/22/14 08:06, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! As has been noted before, , GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilkrts, or GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally. Shouldn

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 16:32 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:22:59AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 22:15 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Steve Kargl > > > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 07:57:45PM -0700, And

Re: Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able

On 09/22/14 08:35, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Mon, 2014-09-22 16:06:21 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: As has been noted before, , GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilk

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:21:08PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 09/22/2014 11:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >LGTM (though, supposedly we want similar change in > >libstdc++-v3/testsuite/Makefile.am). > >Or, if people would really like to see the commands, we could print them > >just once, using

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

On 09/22/2014 11:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: LGTM (though, supposedly we want similar change in libstdc++-v3/testsuite/Makefile.am). Or, if people would really like to see the commands, we could print them just once, using e.g. -$(if $(check_p_subno),@)(rootme= ... (then e.g. check-parall

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:49:12PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:44:06AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:26:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > I've been considering that too, but not sure what info people find > > > valuable > > > and

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:43:35AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 09/22/2014 11:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:21:14AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > >>If I say 'rgt dg.exp=var-templ1.C' the actual test results are lost in the > >>explosion of shell verbosity. Could we

-Wstack-usage and alloca in loops

For the following translation unit: #include int foo (unsigned n) { int *p; if (n < 1024) p = alloca (n * sizeof (int)); else p = malloc (n * sizeof (int)); return g (p, n); } int bar (unsigned n) { int x, i, *p; for (x = 0, i = 0; i < n; i++) { if (n < 1024)

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:44:06AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:26:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > I've been considering that too, but not sure what info people find valuable > > and what they don't. > > The ten million "Running blablablalba.exp ..." messages

Inserting global variable daclaration

Hi, I was trying to insert a global variable declaration using gcc plugins. I tried to make simple plugin example that inserts a global int variable called _fake_var_. The plugin code is this: plugin.cpp -- int plugin_is_GPL_compatible; static tree fake_var =

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:26:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I've been considering that too, but not sure what info people find valuable > and what they don't. The ten million "Running blablablalba.exp ..." messages on a very parallel run aren't helpful in my opinion. There might be more but

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

On 09/22/2014 11:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:21:14AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: If I say 'rgt dg.exp=var-templ1.C' the actual test results are lost in the explosion of shell verbosity. Could we add some '@'s to more of the rules, perhaps? I've been considering that

Re: Implementing OpenACC's Fortran module

On 22.09.2014 17:31, Tobias Burnus wrote: In case of OpenACC, the OpenACC semantics require that the argument is contiguous. If users gets it wrong, it will be wrong either way: If the variable is not packed and when it is packed (and the temporary removed after the function call). Post scrip

Re: Implementing OpenACC's Fortran module

On 22.09.2014 17:17, Thomas Schwinge wrote: That works. For avoidance of doubt: just tag to the actual implementation (which is enough to avoid the references to _gfortran_internal_unpack and _gfortran_internal_pack), or also the interfaces, as detailed in the following "pseudo patch": Well, t

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:21:14AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 09/12/2014 08:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >I've been worried about the quick cases where > >parallelization is not beneficial, like make check-gcc \ > >RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=pr60123.c or similar, but one doesn't usually pass -jN >

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

On 09/12/2014 08:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: I've been worried about the quick cases where parallelization is not beneficial, like make check-gcc \ RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=pr60123.c or similar, but one doesn't usually pass -jN in that case. I have -jN in my $MAKEFLAGS, so I've been running into thi

Re: Implementing OpenACC's Fortran module

Hi Tobias! On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:51:58 +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > On 19.09.2014 11:03, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Regarding linking the object file produced by Fortran openacc.f90 into > > libgomp: (with the version that Jim already has internally checked in) > > I find that libgomp then ha

Make name+email address cut'n'paste-able (was: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?)

On Mon, 2014-09-22 16:06:21 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > As has been noted before, > , > GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilkrts, or > GCC's Cilk Plus implementation

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

This aspect of pp-numbers is mentioned in the manual (trouble.texi) because of the confusion it causes. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:22:59AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 22:15 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Steve Kargl > > wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 07:57:45PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Steve Ka

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:15:01PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 07:57:45PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Steve Kargl > >> wrote: > >> > + is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexid

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 22:15 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 07:57:45PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Steve Kargl > >> wrote: > >> > + is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-

Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?

Hi! As has been noted before, , GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilkrts, or GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally. Shouldn't it? I regularely consult this file when

Re: LTO testsuite - single test execution

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > I would to introduce a new test case for an issue (PR63270). I was looking > for *.exp files and I expected that another test located in: > ./gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr63166_0.ii can be executed with: make check -k > RUNTESTFLA

Re: [gomp4] openacc kernels directive support

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 09-09-14 12:56, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > > On 18-08-14 14:16, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > On 06-08-14 17:10, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > > We could insert a pass-group here that only deals with function