Hi,
in order to get the IBM z13 support into present distros the Linux distributors
asked me to get this
stuff upstream into the older GCC branches first. This would ease the whole
backporting efforts,
interactions with other patches and would make sure that everybody uses the
same code level.
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:44:31PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Let's wait for Alan's patch that makes combine not reorder things
> unnecessarily, that should take care of it all as far as I see.
Patch here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02055.html
It doesn't do anything fancy
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in order to get the IBM z13 support into present distros the Linux
> distributors asked me to get this
> stuff upstream into the older GCC branches first. This would ease the whole
> backporting efforts,
> interactions with other patches and
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:22:07AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'm somewhat missing the point of backporting z13 support. ppc64le
> enablement was a different story (IBM basically saying ppc64-linux
> is dead), but surely all z13 machines can run non-z13 code just fine.
>
> s390x-linux-gnu is
On 05/22/2015 10:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in order to get the IBM z13 support into present distros the Linux
>> distributors asked me to get this
>> stuff upstream into the older GCC branches first. This would ease the whole
>> bac
2015-05-21 22:08 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Makarov :
> On 05/21/2015 05:54 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks. For me it looks like an inheritance bug. It is really hard
>>> >to fix the bug w/o the source code. Could you send me your patch in
>>> >order I can debug RA with it to investigate more.
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 05/22/2015 10:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> in order to get the IBM z13 support into present distros the Linux
> >> distributors asked me to get this
> >> stuff upstream into th
> (Assuming it's a goal of this standard to be human parseable to more
> than a few dozen people on the planet.)
Unfortunately, that's rarely a goal of most standards. ;-)
2015-05-22 11:53 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> 2015-05-21 22:08 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Makarov :
>> So, Ilya, to solve the problem you need to avoid sharing subregs for the
>> correct LRA/reload work.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks a lot for your help! I'll fix it.
>
> Ilya
I've fixed SUBREG sharing and got a missing
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> All arguments still apply apart from the fact that we'll have plenty
> of releases from the GCC 5 branch (and the alternatives patch is
> safe there).
>
> So for GCC 5 I'm willing to leave it to the architecture maintainers,
> but please wait for other
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:43:14PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > All arguments still apply apart from the fact that we'll have plenty
> > of releases from the GCC 5 branch (and the alternatives patch is
> > safe there).
> >
> > So for GCC 5 I'm will
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:48:42AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > I think we should add to
> > the canonicalisation rules so that fixed regs sort after other regs.
> > That requires a lot of testing.
>
> What if you have two hard regs as above? Which of reg 5 and reg 76
> sorts first? If they are
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:43:32AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > (Assuming it's a goal of this standard to be human parseable to more
> > than a few dozen people on the planet.)
>
> Unfortunately, that's rarely a goal of most standards. ;-)
My experience does match Richard's, sad to say. The
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 08:43:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > (a) the "official" rules are completely pointless, and make sense
> > only because the standard is written for some random "abstract
> > machine" that doesn't actually exist.
>
> Presuming the inte
Hi Paul,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:02:12PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:24:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:16:06PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On to #5:
> > >
> > > r1 = atomic_load_explicit(&x, memory_order_consume);
> > >
On 05/22/2015 10:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>
>> On 05/22/2015 10:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>>
Hi,
in order to get the IBM z13 support into present distros the Linux
distributor
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:30:29PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:02:12PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:24:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:16:06PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On to #5:
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
