From: David Miller
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 02:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
> I'll look into your other suggestion in PR48974, namely making use of
> fone VIS instructions.
Hans, just FYI, here is a patch I am regression testing which
implements this.
diff --git a/gcc/config/sparc/constraints.md b/gcc/confi
From: David Miller
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:05:19 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:32:55 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> PS. gcc-4.7/changes.html?
>
> Also on my TODO list, and Eric made some noise about documenting these
> improvements as well, thanks for the reminder.
I
As discussed over the past few days. Committed to trunk.
Hans, thanks again for all of your feedback. I'll also work
on adding more VIS test cases.
gcc/
* config/sparc/sparc.h (FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER): Bump to 103.
(SPARC_GSR_REG): Define.
(FIXED_REGISTERS): Mark GSR as
This patch implements C++11 non-static data member initializers (NSDMI),
as proposed in
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2008/n2756.htm and
specified by the C++11 standard.
For ease of reading, the changes are broken into four patches:
1) Implementation of non-static data me
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:32:55 -0400 (EDT)
> PS. gcc-4.7/changes.html?
Also on my TODO list, and Eric made some noise about documenting these
improvements as well, thanks for the reminder.
I'll post and commit the current version of my %gsr changes after my
bootstrap/t
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote:
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:37:33 -0400 (EDT)
>
> > BTW, don't forget to clobber GSR at call insns!
>
> This I explicitly want to avoid and is an explicit design decision.
Aha, now I get it; that's certainly key. Thanks for tak
On 09/24/2011 05:29 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an
>> updated testcase which I will sent out individually.
>>
>> Patch set was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>>
>> Ok for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Tom
>>
>> 2011-07-30 Tom de
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:37:33 -0400 (EDT)
> BTW, don't forget to clobber GSR at call insns!
This I explicitly want to avoid and is an explicit design decision.
Like I said the model is like setting the floating point rounding mode
for a family of functions.
You set t
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote:
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:15:06 -0400 (EDT)
> > I'd prefer it as a parameter to the builtins (expanding to two
> > insns, letting gcc get rid of the redundant ones; let the
> > initialization value be 0). I understand you're tr
Hi,
committed to mainline and 4_6-branch.
Paolo.
///
2011-09-24 John Salmon
PR libstdc++/50510
* include/bits/random.tcc (seed_seq::generate): Fix computation.
Index: include/bits/random.tcc
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
> Why is gnu.gcc.org hosting work that is specific to some company's
> build system?
This list isn't for this topic. If you want, please, really, go play in
gnu.misc.discuss. This list is for technical patches and the technical review
of such
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:15:06 -0400 (EDT)
> It's more of a parameter actually, GSR.scale_factor is the
> bit-shift count for the pack insns and GSR.alignaddr_offset the
> byte-shift in the aligndata insns.
I realize this.
> I'd prefer it as a parameter to the builtins
I think you may be trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt since you seem to be lacking some background.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 15:19, Michael Witten wrote:
> Why is gnu.gcc.org hosting work that is specific to some company's
> build system?
We've long allowed different companies
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote:
> Hans, here is what I'm playing with right now against current
> trunk.
A spot-check review:
> I looked at the use cases for making use of the scale factor in the
> VIS %gsr register and it's used similar to how rounding modes are
> modified in the FPU co
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
These are OK (with ChangeLog entries properly omitting the "include/",
since they go in include/ChangeLog) in the absence of libiberty maintainer
objections within 72 hours.
Thanks. Is someone willing to commit them now they have been accepted? I
am
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:00:37 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 11-09-24 09:37 , Michael Witten wrote:
>>> Re: [google] Linker plugin to do function reordering...
>>
>> Is there a particularly good reason for why you guys
>> slip `[google]' into all of your `Subject:' lines?
>
> Yes, labels in brack
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:19:57 -0700
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I committed this patch to mainline to fix the problem. Bootstrapped on
>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>>
>> 2011-09-23 Ian Lance Taylor
>>
>> * md5.c (md5_process_bytes): Correct handling of
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> a typo fixed.
Thanks, Kirill. Note you were attaching the patch as
Application/OCTET-STREAM which does not generally view nicely for
others; perhaps just include the patch in the body of the mail to
avoid that?
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html
=
Hi,
committed mainline and 4_6-branch.
Paolo.
//
2011-09-24 John Salmon
PR libstdc++/50509
* include/bits/random.tcc (seed_seq::generate): Fix computation.
Index: include/bits/random.tcc
===
On 09/24/2011 07:26 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
I don't see why
f4 (s, s)
would be invalid. But you would miscompile it.
+int
+f4 (S&x, S&y)
+{
+ x.p[0] = 4;
+ y.p[0] = 0; // { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "return 4" 0 "optimized" } }
+ return x.p[0];
+}
It looks to me like the t
Hi,
this is a couple of small tweaks to the GIMPLE optimizers aimed at helping
vectorization in Ada. More changes will be needed, so no testcases yet.
1. pass_fold_builtins knows how to delete a call to __builtin_stack_restore
that is the only real statement in a cleanup, i.e. to turn
:
> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an
> updated testcase which I will sent out individually.
>
> Patch set was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>
> 2011-07-30 Tom de Vries
>
> PR middle-end/43513
> * Makefil
Jan,
This patch causes a bootstrap failure on AIX because some symbols no
longer are exported by libstdc++. When I remove your patch, bootstrap
proceeds past this failure.
David
exec(): 0509-036 Cannot load program exec(): 0509-036 Cannot load
program /tmp/20110923/./gcc/cc1plus/tmp/20110923/./
On 11-09-24 09:37 , Michael Witten wrote:
Re: [google] Linker plugin to do function reordering...
Is there a particularly good reason for why you guys
slip `[google]' into all of your `Subject:' lines?
Yes, labels in brackets tend to be markers for branches, version
numbers, specific modules
> Re: [google] Linker plugin to do function reordering...
Is there a particularly good reason for why you guys
slip `[google]' into all of your `Subject:' lines?
I was under the impresions that this list is for work
on GCC. Consider putting something germane in the
brackets instead.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 01:26:36PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > +int
> > +f3 (S &__restrict x, S &__restrict y)
> > +{
> > + x.p[0] = 3;
> > + y.p[0] = 0;
> > +// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "return 3" 1 "optimized" } }
> > + return x.p[0];
> > +}
> > +
> > +int
> > +f4 (S &x, S &y)
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This simple patch improves the f3 function in the testcase below,
> a parameter with TYPE_RESTRICT REFERENCE_TYPE IMHO can be safely treated
> like the DECL_BY_REFERENCE case where the source actually didn't contain
> a reference, but
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Terry Guo wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> >
>> > I suppose you want a torture that excercises different -march/-mtune
>> > combinations then.
>> >
>> > But can't you do the pruning somewhere in an .exp file then instead
>> > of sprinkling it all over the tests itself?
>> >
>
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:31:25AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> In the end I'd probably say the patch is ok without the option (thus
>> turned on by default), but if LC_GLOBAL_LOCALE is part of the
>> glibc ABI then we clearly can't do
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> OK. I will wait 24 more hours. If no objections by then, I will get it
> checked into trunk.
I don't think you need -funroll-loops though.
> Thanks,
> -Jiangning
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mike Stump [mailto:mikes
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> ipa-inline-analysis use is_gimple_min_invariant that in turn require
> current_function_decl
> to be set to the corresponding function or all addresses of automatic vars
> are considered
> non-invariant.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested x8
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch extends handling of non-SSA arguments to bultin_constant_p and
> execution predicates.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, will commit it shortly.
>
> Honza
>
> * ipa-inline-analysis.c (set_cond_stmt_execution_pred
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:19:57 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I committed this patch to mainline to fix the problem. Bootstrapped on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
> 2011-09-23 Ian Lance Taylor
>
> * md5.c (md5_process_bytes): Correct handling of unaligned
> buffer.
This is *exac
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:31:25AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> In the end I'd probably say the patch is ok without the option (thus
> turned on by default), but if LC_GLOBAL_LOCALE is part of the
> glibc ABI then we clearly can't do this.
Yes, LC_GLOBAL_LOCALE is part of glibc ABI. I guess w
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a patch for PR43814. It introduces an option that assumes that function
> arguments of pointer type are aligned, and uses that information in
> tree-ssa-ccp. This enables the memcpy in pr43814-2.c to be inlined.
>
> I te
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Jan,
>
> The following patch started as a one-liner for ipa-inline-analysis.c:
> account_size_time() to merge predicates when we are adding data to entry[0]
> (i.e., when space for 32 size_time entries is exhausted):
>
> @@ -537,6 +592,9
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Ira Rosen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When we can't vectorize a certain statement in SLP we mark it as not
> vectorizable and continue with the analysis. This is wrong when the
> reason for the failure is that we can't analyze a data-ref, because
> this way we may miss a data
37 matches
Mail list logo
