Re: HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED question (PR53595)

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > I observed that HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED gets called with > hard registers that HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK would reject. > > Is it save to set HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED to FALSE for > hard registers for which HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK is FALSE? IMHO it sho

Re: HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED question (PR53595)

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >> I observed that HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED gets called with > >> hard registers that HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK would reject.

Re: Are we fast yet?

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: > you may have thought I'd disappeared but here I am, after weeks of working on > a small project of mine. What started as a very small hack for visualising > callgrind's profiles is now an -experimental still- website, a GCC version of > mozilla's "a

Ad-hoc notes from the "pending patches" BOF at the GNU tools cauldron.

On a whim I hosted a BOF at the GNU tools cauldron yesterday, titled "pending patches" (no compliance with RFC5434 intended). This was originally only out of egotistic motives: BUMPing the "Fix gcc.dg/lower-subreg-1.c failure, revisited" patch at

Re: Ad-hoc notes from the "pending patches" BOF at the GNU tools cauldron.

> From: Dimitrios Apostolou > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:25:49 +0200 > Hi hp, thanks for the notes, I'm just going to highlight my point of view. > > Regarding patch pinging, my take is that is should be seldom necessary, > for example I tend to forget my small patches after sometime. Me too, s

Re: problems in interaction between peephole on CALL_INSN and final_scan_insn

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012, Alan Lehotsky wrote: > I'm certain there are better ways; can you be more specific though? > > Or are you just talking about defining a sibcall_epilogue pattern? I'm not Andrew but I think obviously enough "yes". Better to say, perhaps even document, that text peepholes are de

Re: Problem running the libgomp testsuite

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, jojelino wrote: > On 2012-08-20 AM 6:44, Ji?í Pale?ek wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I tried to run "make check-c++" from the top directory of the source > > code. During the run, all of the libgomp tests run by it failed. From > > the log file, you can see that the gcc from the sys

Re: RFC - Alternatives to gengtype

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote: > === Approach: Move GTY to cc1plus. > > Instead of a separate weak parser, we would make cc1plus > understand GTY attributes. The compiler would emit IL in the > object files instead of generating source. > > This solution would require a first boot stage

Re: RFC - Alternatives to gengtype

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 11/17/12, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > === Approach: Move GTY to cc1plus. > > > > > > Instead of a separate weak parser, we would make cc1plus > > > unders

Re: question about section 10.12

> From: Kenneth Zadeck > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:19:40 +0100 > the definition of vec_duplicate in section 10.12 seems to restrictive. > > i have seen examples where the "small vector" is really a scalar. Should > the doc be "small vector or scalar"? Yes. This patch has been sitting in a tree

Re: Modeling predicate registers with more than one bit

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Paulo Matos wrote: > Hello, > > I am looking at how to correctly model in GCC predicate > registers that have more than one bit and the value set into to > the predicate register after a comparison depends on the size > of the comparison. > > I have looked into GCC backends but

How to stop gcc from not calling noinline functions

Also known as "nooo, it's not *inlined*, it's just the call being removed because the called function was found to be pure/const". :) This happens when you try to synthesize executable test-cases and you need e.g. a call with such-and-such parameters, but the called function doesn't do anything; i

Re: How to stop gcc from not calling noinline functions

> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:16:23 +0100 > From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (Yeah, new attributes "impure" and/or "nonconst" would solve > > this, but only for IPA and there's already the existing option > > and asm I mentioned. And if you say different files/compilation > > units, I sa

Re: How to stop gcc from not calling noinline functions

> From: "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:26:33 - > If you wanted to stick to standard C, you could surely force it with a call > through function pointer, perhaps? (You might need to make it volatile to > fool IPA.) No. No tricks in the calling function. To rei

Re: Segmentation fault in df-scan.c

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > If you > build your compiler with --enable-checking=df,yes (basically add "df" > onto what ever you normally set for --enable-checking) it will check that > there have been no unauthorized changes to any instructions after > every rtl pass. For the reco

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > There is good coverage for > bare-metal ELF targets, but none for bare-metal a.out and COFF targets > (perhaps we should consider deprecating all of those, on the > presumption that bare-metal use has moved to ELF and objcopy is likely > to be used in a

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > message was truncated because of the massive number of failures. > > Or massive number of multilibs :-) Let me humbly and pragmatically suggest testing with just the default multilib (or a much smaller subset than all you do) once in a while. Fixing te

Re: Proper way to make a one-off multi-file testcase?

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > One issue here is that in some cases const and pure calls can get > combined and eliminated even with attribute noinline (unless this > changed recently). So in addition to attribute noinline, putting an > asm volatile ("") in the function can help ma

Re: Proper way to make a one-off multi-file testcase?

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Paul Koning wrote: > >>>>> "Hans-Peter" == Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hans-Peter> (The "volatile" is redundant; an asm without in/out > Hans-Peter> operands is always volatile.) > > That&#

Re: Replying to a mailing list thread

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Rodrigo Dominguez wrote: > Hi, > > This sounds like a trivial question but I wasn't able to find any > information on the Mailing List webpage: > > How do you reply to a thread in the mailing lists? (s/mailing lists/mailing list archives on gcc.gnu.org/) Sheesh, don't people l

Re: How to stop gcc from not calling noinline functions

> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:59:21 -0800 > From: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Richard Guenther wrote: > > > You can apart from the other suggestions also mark the function weak > > which will prevent both inlining and pure/const analysis. > > How about just writing to a volatile variable f

Re: [RFC] Change (flatten) representation of memory references

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote: > (anyone for an Ada tutorial during the summit? ;) (I wish I didn't see that smiley, because) For practical reasons, I'd agree that's a very good idea! I mean, those (hopefully "we") who attend could presumably hear about some subset that relates to GC

Re: [RFC] Change (flatten) representation of memory references

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Richard Kenner wrote: > > > (anyone for an Ada tutorial during the summit? ;) > > > > (I wish I didn't see that smiley, because) > > For practical reasons, I'd agree that's a very good idea! > > > > I mean, those (hopefully "we") who attend could presumably hear > > about some s

Re: Is anyone testing for a (cross-) target (board) with dynlinking?

> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:04:52 -0800 > From: Nathan Froyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 02:47:39AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > Is it as simple as nobody having tested cross-gcc setups for > > targets with dynamic linking, or are they inco

Is anyone testing for a (cross-) target (board) with dynlinking?

Cross-compiling from "one Linux/GNU" to another, different arches. In my case, from x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu to crisv32-axis-linux-gnu. Replace with arm, mips, ppc or yourarch as you please; you should see the same thing. When you've eventually added the required telnet_exec support needed due t

Re: Is anyone testing for a (cross-) target (board) with dynlinking?

> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:29:39 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 07:20:52PM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:16:27 -0500 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >

Re: Is anyone testing for a (cross-) target (board) with dynlinking?

the same use as in gcc. ;) > Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Apparently tricks are needed as the -rpath is used both at > > run-time and at link-time, ld complains about "No such file or > > directory" if the path doesn't exist on the

Re: Is anyone testing for a (cross-) target (board) with dynlinking?

> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:16:27 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:13:45AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > Thanks to you and David Daney. Have you used it yourself? > > Apparently tricks are needed as the -rpath i

Re: -fpic support detection in testsuite

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Jan Beulich wrote: > Should the testsuite not instead do a test whether all involved tools > are able to handle -fPIC and its results)? *shrug* Then, would you want to build a dso or just link something compiled with -fpic/-fPIC or both? (I guess just the link; save the othe

Re: Possible GCC 4.3 driver regression caused by your patch

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Greg Schafer wrote: > Hi Carlos and Mark, > > Your "Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix" patch here: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00280.html > > appears to have caused a regression in my GCC 4.3 testing. So *now* I know why my cross-test setup to (non-sysr

Re: Possible GCC 4.3 driver regression caused by your patch

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > cutnpasting commands from the dejagnu .log files don't work; > there's some environment variable (more than just > GCC_EXEC_PREFIX, AFAICT). Wrong; I just missed the terminating / as in env GCC_EXEC_PREFIX=/home/hp/crisprefix/

Committed: fix cris.md strict_low_part constraints (was: Re: A doubt about constraint modifiers)

> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:32:02 +0200 > From: Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mohamed Shafi wrote: > > In cris i saw this patten > > > > (define_insn "*andhi_lowpart" > > [(set (strict_low_part > > (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand""=r,r, r,r,r,r")) > > (and:HI (match

Re: Committed: fix cris.md strict_low_part constraints (was: Re: A doubt about constraint modifiers)

> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:18:04 +0530 > From: "Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am glad that the mistake has been rectified. But it would be of > great help requirement of the '+' constraint for strict_low_part is > mentioned somewhere in the gcc internals. Even though the mailing list > h

Fix for libstdc++/35887 broke build for single-thread targets

apparently for all single-thread targets (like cris-elf). Could it be that you forgot to actually test that this works on single-thread targets? Or how did you test that? Build worked with trunk 134647 and was broken with 134655 (still broken with 134662 in the same way), yours being the only su

Re: Bad code generation on HPPA platform

On Wed, 7 May 2008, Peter Bergner wrote: > Note that the rtlanal.c:ÿÿcommutative_operand_precedence() hunk was reverted > because it caused some problems on CRIS For the record, that's a simplification. It breaking CRIS wasn't the main reason for the revert. I applied a fix, but raised a general

RFA and RFC: tweak -fstrict-aliasing docs, provide pointer-cast example

There's background in . Neither Richi nor me could find the union-assignment "gcc extension" at a glance, probably because it's not an *extension* but an implementation-defined behavior, and actually duly documented as such. However, to cross-ref

Re: RFA and RFC: tweak -fstrict-aliasing docs, provide pointer-cast example

> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:36:15 +0100 > From: Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I thought cast-through-pointer-to-union didn't work and was already > disallowed; we've been around all this already. We also bless assignments through unions, and this could be argued as assigning through a union,

IRA_COVER_CLASSES

I think the necessity and urgency of IRA_COVER_CLASSES, calls for a few more details to be documented. tm.texi says for it: Cover classes are a set of non-intersecting register classes covering all hard registers used for register allocation purposes. Ok, so I can construct a set from reg_class a

Re: PR37363: PR36090 and PR36182 all over again (was: Re: Call for testers, ppc64-linux)

> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:55:17 +0200 > From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I got negative feedback on that patch (no, not regression > > results :) on IRC from David Edelsohn and understandably you > > held off your testing because of this, as for one the patch > > affects the rs6000 ba

Re: PR37363: PR36090 and PR36182 all over again

> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:42:11 +0200 > From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > We can do it incrementally. For now, only redefine > LEGITIMATE_CONSTANT_P on CRIS and in the documentation, and use it in > simplify_plus_minus. For 4.5, we can look at other places using > gen_rtx_CONST and str

Re: PR37363: PR36090 and PR36182 all over again

> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:57:00 +0200 > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Maybe as part of a change from target macro to target hook, with > LEGITIMATE_CONSTANT_P as a default would fit, even at this > stage? Sorry, I mean CONSTANT_P, not LEGITIMATE_CONSTA

Re: PR37363: PR36090 and PR36182 all over again

> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:50:18 +0200 > From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Still, having a new target hook for this seems overkill. But it's better than abusing an old macro with a slightly different use. > For example, > since ports do have to deal with complicated constants when they

Re: PR37363: PR36090 and PR36182 all over again

> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:14:46 +0200 > From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> H-P can check for the problematic case inside his LEGITIMATE_CONSTANT_P > >> (*), or add a move expander for it. > > > > I think you're mixing up CRIS and rs6000, the latter which > > generated something it had

Re: PR37363: PR36090 and PR36182 all over again

> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:48:17 +0200 > From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 3. Change the default of LEGITIMATE_CONSTANT_P to a helper > >function, maybe trivial_constant_expression_p above. > > Agreed, but I don't see t_c_e_p in GCC sources Of course not, as it's a *proposed* new

Miscompilations for cris-elf on dataflow-branch

I hear dataflow-branch is near merge to trunk, so I thought it'd be about time to verify that it works for the targets I maintain... Comparing dataflow-branch with trunk, both r125590, I see these regressions (alas no improvements) on the branch for cris-elf cross from x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (De

Re: Miscompilations for cris-elf on dataflow-branch

> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:47:16 -0700 > From: "=?EUC-KR?B?U2VvbmdiYWUgUGFyayAoudq8urnoLCDa0+D328Yp?=" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > This little patch: > [...] > should fix the problem (thanks to Ian Lance Talyor and Andrew > Pinski for helping me debug the problem on IRC). I've started > the bootstr

Re: PR 33089: Canonicalizing a + b != 0 as a != -b causes missed optimization

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: >We start out with (eq (plus X A) 0): >I want to hear some opinions on which form we should choose as the > canonical one. I'm proposing two forms: > > 1) (eq (neg X) Y) because the change to simplify_comparison will be simpler. > 2) (e

Re: Why is LIMITS_H_TEST defined in cris/t-linux? It caused cross-compiler build errors

> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:24:36 -0500 > From: "Stephen M. Kenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Can anyone explain why LIMITS_H_TEST is defined in cris/t-linux, while > it is not defined for any other linux target? A STFW would have given you .

Re: Why is LIMITS_H_TEST defined in cris/t-linux? It caused cross-compiler build errors

> From: Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:31:07 +0200 > > Segher - If remember right, cris was one of the targets that did not > > build for you. This might help. > > No idea if it would help or not -- it currently dies with > an ICE while building __mulvdi3: Wh

Re: Bootstrap failure on i386-pc-solaris2.10

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 17/11/2007, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm still seeing the same failure on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, is this > > > going to get fixed? > > > > You're not supposed to configure the compiler with --disable-checking as > > this > >

Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > If only static libraries are being built, it may be possible to build them > > without linking, and in such cases it may be possible to define a generic > > set of libc symbols considered to be present, as libstdc++-v3/configure.ac > > does with newlib.

Re: Rant about ChangeLog entries and commit messages

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Samuel Tardieu wrote: > On 2/12, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > | That is supposed to be written in a comment. The change log entry > | should describe _what_ is being changed, so that you can find out when a > | particular change was made. > > This should be the job of the VCS, e.

$prefix/lib/../$target/sys-include not in <> search path

When configured with just a --prefix=x and --target=y, $prefix/lib/../$target/sys-include used to be searched, for e.g. limits.h, stdio.h and stdlib.h. No $prefix-rooted path shows up as a "ignoring nonexistent directory" message either. I don't know when this changed, but it doesn't seem like a

Re: $prefix/lib/../$target/sys-include not in <> search path

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > When configured with just a --prefix=x and --target=y, > $prefix/lib/../$target/sys-include used to be searched, for e.g. > limits.h, stdio.h and stdlib.h. No $prefix-rooted path shows > up as a "ignoring nonexistent director

RE: Help with another constraint

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Dave Korn wrote: > On 12 December 2007 12:14, Revital1 Eres wrote: > > > It seems that the pair m and I is missing (which indicate the memory = > > constant instruction). > > So doesn't the question then become "Why isn't reload reloading the constant > into a register"? Ye

Re: porting gcc to tic54x

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, a2220333 wrote: > hi, > I have been porting tic54x to gcc. I use gcc-4.2.2 version. I write some > simplest c54x.h and c54x.c and a empty md, and I I think the answer is right there ^^ > compil

RE: Help with another constraint

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Dave Korn wrote: > > > On 12 December 2007 12:14, Revital1 Eres wrote: > > > > > It seems that the pair m and I is missing (which indicate the memory = > > > constant instruction). > >

Re: __builtin_expect for indirect function calls

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When we can't hint the real target, we want to hint the most common > target. There are potentially clever ways for the compiler to do this > automatically, but I'm most interested in giving the user some way to do > it explicitly. One possiblity i

gcc-backport problem on Debian 9

Again, Debian 9. Doing "git gcc-backport a4aca1edaf37d43" on releases/gcc-10 gave me: [releases/gcc-10 83cf5a7c6a5] PR94600: fix volatile access to the whole of a compound object. Date: Sun Jul 5 20:50:52 2020 +0200 9 files changed, 276 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 gcc/test

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

> From: Jeff Law via Binutils > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:30:59 +0200 > On 4/25/2022 9:26 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > > Just FYI - I am also looking at adding in another warning. This > > time for > > when the linker creates a PT_LOAD segment which has all of the RWX > > fla

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson > Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 03:17:01 +0200 Regarding setting the default for the RWX-segment warning per-target: > How about the usual method, a line in the ld emulparams > file for the target? JFTR: no extra infrastructure bits needed. I found the right

Re: [PATCH] analyzer: implement reference count checking for CPython plugin [PR107646]

t declaration too, which I just changed for consistency-- but it's close enough for me.) With this, retesting plugin.exp for cris-elf works. Ok to commit? -- >8 -- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 04:36:03 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Fix analyzer_cpython_plugin.c decla

Re: Enable top-level recursive 'autoreconf'

> From: Thomas Schwinge > Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:42:26 +0200 > It's just GCC and Binutils/GDB, or are the top-level files also shared > with additional projects? Not sure if that counts as "shared", but I regularly drop in* newlib to build simulator targets (*-elf, *-newabi). That's git://sou

<    1   2   3