Andrew Pinski writes:
> Hi,
> I was looking into why we don't produce fmls with a scalar register
> as the last argument but I found a difference in how fnma4 is
> described in RTL which I think is causing the missed optimization.
> Look at the scalar version:
>
> (define_insn "fnma4"
> [(set
> >
> >It then later decides to undo this and so generates a different order.
> >Question is, is this unexpected or should optimizations in expand be
> >checking for associativity?
>
> It's expected. Once fully in SSA the canonical operand order is lower SSA
> name versions first.
Ah, fair enoug
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> A release candidate for GCC 6.4 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6.4.0-RC-20170628/
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 249715.
>
> I have so far bootstrapped and tested the relea
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > A release candidate for GCC 6.4 is available from
> >
> > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6.4.0-RC-20170628/
> >
> > and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision
Hi Richard,
> Unless sparc-sun-solaris2.10 is also affected this won't block the
> release and I'm relying on you and the target maintainers to sort
> things out (confirming the above change is the culprit would be nice,
> even though it doesn't sound likely).
it's not: the Solaris (sparc and x86
> Iff 6.3.0 worked then it must be caused by
>
> r245546 | andreast | 2017-02-17 20:21:39 +0100 (Fri, 17 Feb 2017) | 9
> lines
>
> 2017-02-17 Andreas Tobler
>
> Backported from mainline
> 2017-02-16 Andreas Tobler
>
> PR sanitizer/79562
> * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platf
On June 29, 2017 4:27:18 PM GMT+02:00, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>> Iff 6.3.0 worked then it must be caused by
>>
>> r245546 | andreast | 2017-02-17 20:21:39 +0100 (Fri, 17 Feb 2017) | 9
>> lines
>>
>> 2017-02-17 Andreas Tobler
>>
>> Backported from mainline
>> 2017-02-16 Andreas Tobler
Hi,
GCJ has been removed from GCC 7.1, so these broken links should also be removed
from the documentation page (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/) and probably from
the scripts generating them:
"GCC 7.1 GCJ Manual (also in PDF or PostScript or an HTML tarball)"
Thanks,
Krisztian Paczari
On 06/28/2017 05:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
A release candidate for GCC 6.4 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6.4.0-RC-20170628/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 249715.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86
> OK to re-apply then on the branch(es) if it fixes the bootstrap issue.
I was wrong, it's PR sanitizer/78532 + PR sanitizer/78992 instead...
2016-11-30 Maxim Ostapenko
PR sanitizer/78532
* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.h
(__sanitizer_sigaction): Adjust
On June 29, 2017 8:27:18 PM GMT+02:00, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>> OK to re-apply then on the branch(es) if it fixes the bootstrap
>issue.
>
>I was wrong, it's PR sanitizer/78532 + PR sanitizer/78992 instead...
>
>2016-11-30 Maxim Ostapenko
>
> PR sanitizer/78532
> * sanitizer_common/s
Snapshot gcc-7-20170629 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7-20170629/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-7
compiling gcc as a part of toolchain (linux from scratch) gives me the
following error when compiling as user
but compiles fine when compiling as root:
--prefix=/tools \
--target=x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu \
--with-sysroot=/media/usbdisk \
--with-glib-version=2.25 \
--with-newlib \
--without-headers \
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
