Re: At which pass thing goes wrong for PR43491?

2011-12-01 Thread Amker.Cheng
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Amker.Cheng wrote: > Hi, > I looked into PR43491 a while and found in this case the gimple > generated before pre > is like: > > reg.0_12 = reg > ... > c() > reg.0_1 = reg > D.xxx = MEM[reg.0_1 + 8B] > > The pre pass transforms it into: > > reg.0_12 = reg > ... > c

Re: At which pass thing goes wrong for PR43491?

2011-12-01 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Amker.Cheng wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Amker.Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> I looked into PR43491 a while and found in this case the gimple >> generated before pre >> is like: >> >> reg.0_12 = reg >> ... >> c() >> reg.0_1 = reg >> D.xxx = MEM[reg.0_1 + 8B]

Warning for functions called before declared inline

2011-12-01 Thread Steven Bosscher
Hello, Today I ran into a problem building today's GCC trunk with an older GCC 4.3. There is a warning in libcpp/macro.c about tokens_buff_remove_last_token declared inline after being called. (This is apparently valid C99 but is it also valid C89?) After some digging and diffing, it turns out tha

Re: C++ memory model... What to do with libatomic

2011-12-01 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/30/2011 10:07 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > PS. Reflecting upon it, I wonder if it could be a part of the gcc > libraries like libgomp or libitm are. During configuration we could > check to see if there is an existing libatomic in the system, and if > there is NOT, enable building libatomic

Re: Warning for functions called before declared inline

2011-12-01 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Is it valid in dialects older than C99 to declare a function static > inline after calling it? Should the warnings be brought back in the > compiler? Older dialects didn't have inline. > One reason to bring the warnings back could be that there is now

Re: Warning for functions called before declared inline

2011-12-01 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > >> Is it valid in dialects older than C99 to declare a function static >> inline after calling it? Should the warnings be brought back in the >> compiler? > > Older dialects didn't have inline. N

Re: Warning for functions called before declared inline

2011-12-01 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Today I ran into a problem building today's GCC trunk with an older > GCC 4.3. There is a warning in libcpp/macro.c about > tokens_buff_remove_last_token declared inline after being called. A previous instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg01426.html -- Eric Botcazou

Parallel build error

2011-12-01 Thread Richard Henderson
For the past couple of years I've simply ignored these problems by ritually adding 'echo .NOTPARALLEL: >> Makefile' to my top-level issue-the-long-configure-option scripts. But I suppose the reason why these never get fixed is no one reporting... This one happened shockingly early. $ make -j4 al

Re: volatile correctness: combine vs. target.md

2011-12-01 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Georg-Johann Lay writes: If general_operand can be perceived as (define_predicate "general_operand" (ior (match_operand 0 "memory_operand") (match_operand 0 "register_operand") (match_operand 0 "immediate_operand"))) how can low_io_mem ever match? Oh

Re: volatile correctness: combine vs. target.md

2011-12-01 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Georg-Johann Lay writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> It's a case that will never ordinarily arise. It only >> arises for you because you are specifically trying to combine a volatile >> MEM. I don't know if it makes sense for the general purpose combine to >> try to handle such an unusual sp

gcc-4.5-20111201 is now available

2011-12-01 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20111201 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20111201/ 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

Re: Warning for functions called before declared inline

2011-12-01 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joseph S. Myers > wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > >> Is it valid in dialects older than C99 to declare a function static > >> inline after calling it? Should the warnings be brought back in t

RE: A case exposing code sink issue

2011-12-01 Thread Jiangning Liu
> -Original Message- > From: Michael Matz [mailto:m...@suse.de] > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 9:07 PM > To: Jiangning Liu > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: RE: A case exposing code sink issue > > Hi, > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Jiangning Liu wrote: > > > > > One more question... > > >

Simplification of relational operations (was [patch for PR18942])

2011-12-01 Thread Maxim Kuvyrkov
Zdenek, I'm looking at a missed optimizations in combine and it is similar to the one you've fixed in PR18942 (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/81504). I'm trying to make GCC optimize (leu:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI) (const_int -1)) (const_int 1)) into (leu:SI (reg:SI) (const_in

Creating a structure at compile time.

2011-12-01 Thread Matt Davis
I am working on a gcc-plugin where I need to create a structure at compile time. I have gleaned over one of the front ends to learn more about creating structures at compile time. What I have thus far is a type node for my struct. I now need to create an instance of this struct. For exemplary pu