Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 38301
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38301&action=edit
Fix ARMv8.1-A big-endian builds.
The config/arm/bpabi.h file wasn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70711
--- Comment #3 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Apr 18 12:11:03 2016
New Revision: 235132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70711
* config/arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70711
--- Comment #4 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Apr 18 12:18:10 2016
New Revision: 235133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70711
* config/arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70711
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77281
--- Comment #3 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Thu Sep 1 08:57:21 2016
New Revision: 239918
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239918&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix an invalid check for vectors of the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #14 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #13)
> There's surely a documentation problem here.
>
> GCC defines this:
>
> `__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST'
> Full barrier in both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #17 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
According to the GCC documentation, __atomic_compare_exchange(ptr, exp, des,
..) is: if (*ptr == *exp) *ptr = *exp; else *exp = *ptr;
On Aarch64 the else (*ptr != *exp) branch is a store rather
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #19 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #18)
> (In reply to mwahab from comment #17)
>
> >
> > int cas(int* barf, int* expected, int* desired)
> > {
> > retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #26 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #21)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #20)
> > (In reply to mwahab from comment #19)
> > > (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #27 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #25)
> My opinion:
>
> 1) is undesirable... even though it could possibly accelerate the conversion
> of legacy sync to atomic calls... I f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #29 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #27)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #25)
> > My opinion:
> >
> > 1) is undesirable... even though it could possibly accelerate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #30 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #28)
> Which leaves 3). From Andrew's two proposed solutions:
>
> > a) introduce an additional memory model... MEMMODEL_SYNC or somet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #33 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #32)
> (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #28)
> > (In reply to torvald from comment #24)
> > > 3) We could do something just on ARM (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #36 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #31)
>
>
> Targets that don't need special sync patterns (ie most of them) simply don't
> provide them. The expanders see n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #40 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #25)
> Documentation needs updating for sure... The rules have changed under us
> since originally SEQ_CST and sync were intended to be the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #41 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #38)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
>
> Also, if you look at the IA-64 __sync_lock_release vs. GCC docs'
> __sync_lock_relea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #44 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #43)
> (In reply to torvald from comment #37)
>
> > > I'm not worried about __sync_lock_release, I think the documentation is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #46 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #45)
> (In reply to mwahab from comment #44)
>
> And this final sentence is buggy by omission of a mention of memory writes:
>
> but f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #48 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #47)
> Created attachment 35425 [details]
> potential patch to add MEMMODEL_SYNC
>
> I don't know where we've finally sett
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #51 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #50)
> Created attachment 35478 [details]
> implement SYNC flag for memory model
>
> > Adding the __sync barriers to coretypes.h is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #53 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #50)
> Created attachment 35478 [details]
> implement SYNC flag for memory model
>
> This compiles on all targets, but is only runtime tested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #54 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #53)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #50)
> > Created attachment 35478 [details]
> > implement SYNC flag for memory model
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #56 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #55)
> (In reply to torvald from comment #49)
>
> > This is the case of allowing non-DRF normal accesses. The *other* case I
> > was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #58 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 1 15:18:19 2015
New Revision: 223983
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223983&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65697
* config/aarch64/a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #59 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 1 15:21:02 2015
New Revision: 223984
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223984&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65697
* config/aarch64/a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #60 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 1 15:24:37 2015
New Revision: 223986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223986&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65697
* gcc.target/aarc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67143
--- Comment #5 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Sep 23 09:48:16 2015
New Revision: 228037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Aarch64][target/PR 67143][5.2] Backport correct con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.4
--- Comment #74 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68534
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68333
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68333
--- Comment #5 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Should be fixed now.
>
> It's still failing for aarch64_be-none-elf.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64783
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64784
Bug 64784 depends on bug 64783, which changed state.
Bug 64783 Summary: -march=armv8.1-a should be supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64783
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68619
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #62 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #61)
> Well, confirmed at least. And at the minute fixed on trunk - not sure if we
> are asking for backports for this ?
Marcus has asked fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64783
--- Comment #3 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've just noticed this has been assigned to me. Support for -march=armv8.1-a
has been added to the Aarch64 backend, the ARM backend is still to be done.
Author: mwahab
Date: Tue Jun 16 13:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #63 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 29 16:03:34 2015
New Revision: 225132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-29 Matthew Wahab
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #64 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 29 16:09:10 2015
New Revision: 225133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-29 Matthew Wahab
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #65 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 29 16:12:12 2015
New Revision: 225134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-29 Matthew Wahab
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #66 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 11:20:59 2015
New Revision: 226618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2015-05-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #67 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 11:29:28 2015
New Revision: 226619
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226619&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk.
2015-06-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #68 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 11:40:25 2015
New Revision: 226620
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk.
2015-06-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #69 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 11:48:43 2015
New Revision: 226621
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226621&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2015-06-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #70 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 13:27:41 2015
New Revision: 226625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk:
2015-06-29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #71 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 13:40:14 2015
New Revision: 226627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk:
2015-06-29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #72 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 13:43:04 2015
New Revision: 226628
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk:
2015-06-29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67143
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mwahab at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67143
--- Comment #3 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Fri Aug 14 15:05:42 2015
New Revision: 226895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2015-08-14 Matthew Wahab
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71984
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70920
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71078
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #24 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 39055
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39055&action=edit
Testcase for ICE on arm targets
Attached vshuf-v64qi.i for the ICE on arm targets.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72824
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Test gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/pr72824-2.c fails for arm targets because the
code generated to move a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77281
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72824
--- Comment #12 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #11)
> The new test-case gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/pr72824-2.c is failing for
> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf with gcc-6 and trunk.
>
> I'm still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77281
--- Comment #2 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Fri Aug 19 13:59:18 2016
New Revision: 239610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239610&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix an invalid check for vectors of the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57326
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69047
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69270
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
65 matches
Mail list logo
