On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:58 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 26/01/2012 12:53, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If I know what I am doing, and my code itself guarantees, that there
>> will be no overflows and UB here, can I switch off this signed char to
>> unsigned char expansion in favor
On 27/01/2012 10:02, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:58 PM, David Brown wrote:
On 26/01/2012 12:53, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
Hi,
If I know what I am doing, and my code itself guarantees, that there
will be no overflows and UB here, can I switch off this signed char to
u
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 10:02, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:58 PM, David Brown
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/01/2012 12:53, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
Hi,
If I know what I am doing, and my code itself gua
Hi,
Whilst investigating an ICE with the Blackfin compiler, I bumped in to a bit of
code which seems questionable:
in reload1.c:reload() we call select_reload_regs() and then check if failure
was set. However, looking at find_reload_regs() (called via
select_reload_regs()), the only time we se
On 27/01/2012 10:56, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 27/01/2012 10:02, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:58 PM, David Brown
wrote:
On 26/01/2012 12:53, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
Hi,
If I know what I am doing, and my co
Status
==
GCC is now in stage4, only regression and documentation fixes are being
accepted. The trunk will remain in this state until it is sufficiently
stable for release. Then we will create the 4.7 branch and do a first
release candidate.
The overall status looks nice, please keep up the
Hello All,
It is my pleasure to announce the release of MELT plugin 0.9.3 for GCC 4.6 (&
4.7 when available)
Please download the gzipped tar archive from
http://gcc-melt.org/melt-0.9.3-plugin-for-gcc-4.6.tgz
(file of 4233531 bytes and md5sum 8df30ba643b11a78a607cde67cdcb073)
[w.r.t. previous
A member of our team was working on some switch statement optimizations,
and ran into a situation that seems a little curious on the face of it.
Consider these two test variants:
int
test_switch_1 (unsigned int *index, int i)
Hi Webmaster,
I created my own Construction Management education site called
http://www.constructionmanagementdegree.com,
a personal project that I've finally gotten to a stage that is
"presentable". I would like to submit my website for your review and inclusion
in
the resource section of yo
Hi,
while debugging the java failure Divide_1 on s390 I stumbled over
some weird behaviour in the unwinding code.
In the testcase a divide by zero is triggered intentionally. So that
the java sigfpe handler is invoked in __divdi3:
Divide_1::probe_1() -> __divdi3
|SIGFP
On 27/01/2012 16:46, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Divide_1::probe_1() -> __divdi3
>|SIGFPE
>V
> catch_fpe -> _Jv_Throw
>
> After doing the instruction parsing in order to figure out whether
> it's actually the INT_MIN/-
On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> while debugging the java failure Divide_1 on s390 I stumbled over
> some weird behaviour in the unwinding code.
>
> In the testcase a divide by zero is triggered intentionally. So that
> the java sigfpe handler is invoked in __divdi3:
>
> Divide_1::p
On 27/01/2012 16:58, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 16:46, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> So the CFAs of __divdi3 and probe_1 are the same!
>>
>> This triggers the assertion in _Unwind_RaiseException_Phase2 which
>> assumes that it is about to pass the frame with the handler without
>> actually findi
> To my understanding this can only happen if there is control flow from
> a leaf function which in turn should only occur with signals. Perhaps
> we could modify the CFA "a bit" for the frame where the signal
> occurred? There is already a hack in uw_identify_context which does
> this for the si
On 27/01/2012 17:01, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> Starting with this IRA patch:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00028.html
>> __divdi3 does *not* need a stack frame at all.
>>
>> So the CFAs of __divdi3 and probe_1 are the same!
>
> I'm c
On 01/27/2012 05:14 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 17:01, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>
>>> Starting with this IRA patch:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00028.html
>>> __divdi3 does *not* need a stack frame at all.
>>>
>>> So the CF
On 27/01/2012 17:16, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 05:14 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 17:01, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
Starting with this IRA patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00028.html
__divdi3 does *not*
Hi,
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> int
> test_switch_1 (unsigned int *index, int i)
> {
> switch (*index)
...
> However, for the first case, temporary expression replacement has
> effectively removed th
On 01/27/2012 05:18 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 17:16, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 01/27/2012 05:14 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 17:01, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Starting with this IRA patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patche
I would like to propose myself as the maintainer for the TILEPro and
TILE-Gx gcc ports. The gcc ports are currently under review, with the
corresponding binutils available in the lastest binutils release
(2.22), and the corresponding glibc port has been accepted. I am the
primary author of both
[answering to self...]
> Why does this "hack" not work? It was precisely devised for this purpose.
Probably because you don't set fs->signal_frame in the fallback routine:
/* SIGILL, SIGFPE and SIGTRAP are delivered with psw_addr
after the faulting instruction rather than before it.
I'm raising this on the steering committee, Walter.
Gerald
Great. Thanks!
Walter
On 1/27/2012 1:31 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
I'm raising this on the steering committee, Walter.
Gerald
Great, thanks! Results are good on this specific test case. Seems like
a nice thing to add in 4.8.
On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 18:40 +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> >
> >
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 06:08:23PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > To my understanding this can only happen if there is control flow from
> > a leaf function which in turn should only occur with signals. Perhaps
> > we could modify the CFA "a bit" for the frame where the signal
> > occurred? Ther
On 01/27/2012 06:16 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 05:14 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 17:01, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>
Starting with this IRA patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00028.html
__divdi3 does
> Mmmh. But actually it is the stack frame of _divdi3 and not the signal
> frame which gets the wrong cfa assigned from here. Not sure though,
> perhaps it's time to draw a picture ;)
The restored context inherits the signal flag set in the frame description and
its CFA points to within _divdi3.
On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 18:40 +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> The hack below works in this specific situation (TERed into a switch), and
> adds a REG_EXPR when an TERed SSA name ever expanded into a pseudo (i.e.
> also for some more generic situations).
FYI, I bootstrapped and regtested your patch on
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20120127 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20120127/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
29 matches
Mail list logo
