2011/9/25 Paolo Carlini :
> On 09/25/2011 08:39 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> And as a really minor detail, some empty constructor I added in
>> libstdc++-v3/src/future.cc, libstdc++-v3/src/system_error.cc, and
>> libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_error.h (r158797) might no longer be
>> necessa
From: Gerald Pfeifer
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:50:22 +0200 (CEST)
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote:
>> I'll add a note about this to gcc-4.7/changes.html along with
>> the FMAF stuff I'm about to commit.
>
> Thanks for doing that, David. I believe my automated tester has
> naged you ov
Hello,
This patch extends the implementation to support instructions with
REG_INC notes.
It addresses the comments from the previous submission:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01299.html.
btw, regarding your previous question about the usage of the address
register been auto inc, ap
Hello,
The attached patch contains a fix to generate_reg_moves
function. Currently we can generate reg-moves for stores which are later
eliminated. This happens when we have mem dependency with distance 1
and as a result the number of regmoves is at least 1 based on the
following
calculation take
Ville pointed out that my earlier patch failed to support 'this' in
NSDMIs. So this patch implements that.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 3c4ebe4dc7470d3d8cf2261f87df2f7a97bc0ce9
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Sun Sep 25 23:29:23 2011 -0400
* parser.c (inject_this_p
Jan Hubicka writes:
>
> + Link-time optimization improvements:
> +
> + Improved scalability and reduced memory usage. Link time
> optimization
> + of Firefox now require 3GB of RAM on 64bit system, while over 8GB was
> needed
> + previously. Linking time has be
Ping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01106.html
* config/arm/t-arm (MD_INCLUDES): Add marvell-f-iwmmxt.md.
* config/arm/marvell-f-iwmmxt.md: New file.
* config/arm/arm.md (marvell-f-iwmmxt.md): Include.
At 2011-07-29 11:09:37,"Xinyu Qi" wrote: > Ping.
>
>
Ping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00279.html
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_output_iwmmxt_shift_immediate): New function.
(arm_output_iwmmxt_tinsr): Likewise.
* config/arm/arm-protos.h (arm_output_iwmmxt_shift_immediate): Declare.
(arm_output_iwmmxt_tinsr
Ping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01103.html
* config/arm/arm.c (enum arm_builtins): Revise built-in fcode.
(builtin_description bdesc_2arg): Revise built in declaration.
(builtin_description bdesc_1arg): Likewise.
(arm_init_iwmmxt_builtins): Revi
Ping
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01963.html
* config/arm/mmintrin.h: Revise.
At 2011-08-24 16:14:30,"Xinyu Qi" wrote:
> At 2011-08-18 09:33:27,"Ramana Radhakrishnan"
> wrote:
> > On 6 July 2011 11:11, Xinyu Qi wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It is the second part of iWM
Ping
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01100.html
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_option_override): Enable use of iWMMXt with VFP.
Disable use of iwMMXt and Neon.
(arm_expand_binop_builtin): Accept VOIDmode op.
* config/arm/arm.md (*arm_movdi): Remove check for
Hello,
The attached patch improves the generated code for integer abs
operations on SH, in particular SH4. There was already some code that
was supposed to utilize SH's conditional execution it but it was never
triggered, because the standard branch-free abs code was generated at a
very early sta
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Index: changes.html
> ===
> + Link-time optimization improvements:
> +
> + Improved scalability and reduced memory usage. Link time
> optimization
> + of Firefox now requ
On 9/25/2011 11:14 AM, Cesar Strauss wrote:
> On 09/25/2011 02:36 AM, JonY wrote:
>> Ping, mingw.org OK with this?
>
> Please, enable this only for w64 flavor. We (mingw.org) are not
> building our libstdc++ with this configure option, and there are no
> plans to change it.
>
> I quote my reason
On 9/25/2011 23:20, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 09/25/2011 05:14 PM, Cesar Strauss wrote:
>> I quote my reasoning: On 09/20/2011 11:56 PM, Cesar Strauss wrote:
>>> On the one hand, according to comment 4 of [1], by using
>>> --enable-fully-dynamic-string, all other users will miss a very good
>>> opt
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote:
> I'll add a note about this to gcc-4.7/changes.html along with
> the FMAF stuff I'm about to commit.
Thanks for doing that, David. I believe my automated tester has
naged you over a small markup issue in the patch which I am
addressing thusly (together w
Thanks, Jakub! I just realized that I failed to commit some small
changes I had meant to suggest to this patch. Applied now, with a
bit of delay.
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote:
> For some reason I can't take ownership of your PR and mark it
> closed, otherwise I'd do so as well.
Done, thanks. The most common cause is not using your
gcc.gnu.org account in bugzilla, needed to get those
superpowers. (For future reference, marking t
>
> Hm, what do we do for
>
> if (op0 > 10)
>if (op1 > 10)
> some code
>
> ? Do we make sure to only register one predicate with op0 > 10 && op1 > 10?
Yes, we end up with predicate (op0 > 10) && (op1 > 10). That is until we hit of
maximum limit of clauses in a single predicate. Then
Jason,
Please ignore the previous patch, where I have introduced an
unintentional modification for PR c++/30195 in search.c, here is a new
one, sorry about that.
--
Fabien
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.other/using1.C
===
---
From: David Miller
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 00:45:59 -0400 (EDT)
> 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 whi
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:44:37 +0200
>> Eric, could you give this a quick spin on Solaris? Even if you
>> don't have a FMAF capable cpu available, at least make sure the
>> configury assembler feature detection bits work properly.
>
> This seems to work just fine on Solaris
This expands the use of the TREE_THIS_NOTRAP flag to the dereference expression
built for some unconstrained arrays. It will be propagated onto the regular
INDIRECT_REF expression ultimately passed to the middle-end.
Tested on i586-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2011-09-25 Eric Botcazo
This changes the way loops with iteration schemes are translated in gigi when
optimization is enabled. We now always generate the do-while form, which is
the form expected by the loop optimizer and vectorizer.
Tested on i586-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2011-09-25 Eric Botcazou
Hi,
> Indeed, I've removed the blank trailing lines, and some in the middle,
> not all though, I like it readable as well ;-)
Thanks!
Paolo
2011/9/25 Paolo Carlini :
> ... nitpicking, of course, but in the testcases you have many blank trailing
> lines (and also some gratuitus, imho, blank lines in the middle)
Indeed, I've removed the blank trailing lines, and some in the middle,
not all though, I like it readable as well ;-)
--
Fa
Tested on i586-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2011-09-25 Eric Botcazou
* gcc-interface/decl.c (gnat_to_gnu_entity) : Use
XNEW instead of xmalloc. Do not build useless pointer type.
: Use XNEW instead of xmalloc.
* gcc-interface/trans.c (gnat_to_gnu) : Ti
... nitpicking, of course, but in the testcases you have many blank trailing
lines (and also some gratuitus, imho, blank lines in the middle)
Paolo
I've updated the patch. I can't resist to tackle PR 25994 at the same
time. There was a diagnostic about conflicting using declarations in
add_method, which is no longer necessary and bogus in the case of PR
25994, so I just removed it. Duplicated using declarations are now
diagnosed in supplement_
On 09/25/2011 08:39 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
And as a really minor detail, some empty constructor I added in
libstdc++-v3/src/future.cc, libstdc++-v3/src/system_error.cc, and
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_error.h (r158797) might no
longer be necessary.
I can take care of this, thanks f
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 19:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> There was some discussion a while back about whether we should propagate
> hard regs. But I think that was in the context of propagating a hard-reg
> SET_SRC. In this case, BLAH only mentions pseudos, and I think propagating
> for:
>
>
> Eric, could you give this a quick spin on Solaris? Even if you
> don't have a FMAF capable cpu available, at least make sure the
> configury assembler feature detection bits work properly.
This seems to work just fine on Solaris.
> And any other form of feedback is appreciated as well. This p
2011/9/24 Jason Merrill :
[...]
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applied to trunk. I'm also considering applying
> it to 4.6 since we got more strict about the pre-253 rule in 4.6.
Great, I would be glad to see it applied to 4.6. If you do that, you
may also want to adjust the last paragraph in the
2011/9/25 Georg-Johann Lay :
> This is just a code clean-up that deals with loading 16-bit constants
> (HImode).
>
> o Length adjustment is triggered by insn attribute "adjust_len"
>
> o To print the constant output_movhi can use output_reload_inhi
>
> o output_reload_inhi can use the same functio
This is just a code clean-up that deals with loading 16-bit constants (HImode).
o Length adjustment is triggered by insn attribute "adjust_len"
o To print the constant output_movhi can use output_reload_inhi
o output_reload_inhi can use the same function as output_reload_insisf uses,
just a sm
Bernd Schmidt writes:
> On 09/21/11 19:33, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Why, then, is this the only place in dwarf2cfi that needs to handle
>> registers via a loop over nregs? It seems to me that we should either
>> be handling multi-register spans everywhere or nowhere.
>>
>> Because alternately
This patch tries to fix one thing that has bugged me for a while:
there's no way of explicitly saying that some hard registers are
only available with certain target options. The usual approach is
to make TARGET_CONDITIONAL_REGISTER_USAGE fix any registers that
don't exist, but this doesn't in its
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> We have some new tests that use assembler names without regard to
> USER_LABEL_PREFIX. These tests fail for targets with non-empty
> USER_LABEL_PREFIX during the assembly phase.
>
> Fixed by using ASMNAME macro like in e.g. gcc.dg/alias-7.c .
OK in t
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> This patch has not been reviewed for eight weeks.
>
> - Forwarded message from amyl...@spamcop.net -
> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 01:01:30 -0400
> From: Joern Rennecke
> Reply-To: Joern Rennecke
> Subject: RFA: Testsuite fixes (
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> This patch has not been reviewed for eight weeks.
>
> - Forwarded message from amyl...@spamcop.net -
> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 01:01:13 -0400
> From: Joern Rennecke
> Reply-To: Joern Rennecke
> Subject: RFA: Testsuite fixes (
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> I am working with a toolchain that is frugal with stack usage at startup, so
> an attempt to read dozens more bytes than have been pushed causes unmapped
> memory references.
>
> Fixed by adding an automatic variable that occupies sufficient space.
Sh
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> This patch has not been reviewed for eight weeks.
>
> - Forwarded message from amyl...@spamcop.net -
> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:41:04 -0400
> From: Joern Rennecke
> Reply-To: Joern Rennecke
> Subject: RFA: Testsuite fixes (
While working on a MIPS16 patch, I came across an ICE on code like:
(set (reg:DI 64) (unspec:DI BLAH))
(set (reg:SI PSEUDO) (reg:SI 64))
The problem was that fwprop.c:forward_propagate_and_simplify
tried to replace (reg:SI 64) with (unspec:DI BLAH), i.e. it tried
to replace an SImode valu
2011/9/25 Paolo Carlini :
> On 09/25/2011 05:14 PM, Cesar Strauss wrote:
>>
>> I quote my reasoning: On 09/20/2011 11:56 PM, Cesar Strauss wrote:
>>>
>>> On the one hand, according to comment 4 of [1], by using
>>> --enable-fully-dynamic-string, all other users will miss a very good
>>> optimizatio
This limits the alignment promotion we do for local aggregate variables in Ada,
which doesn't play nice with the NRV optimization.
Tested on i586-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2011-09-25 Eric Botcazou
* gcc-interface/decl.c (gnat_to_gnu_entity) : Do not promote
the al
On 09/25/2011 05:14 PM, Cesar Strauss wrote:
I quote my reasoning: On 09/20/2011 11:56 PM, Cesar Strauss wrote:
On the one hand, according to comment 4 of [1], by using
--enable-fully-dynamic-string, all other users will miss a very good
optimization. On the other hand, these users of -static-li
On 09/25/2011 02:36 AM, JonY wrote:
> On 9/23/2011 22:15, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> I hope you got the basic point anyway, sorry about the confusion
>> ;)
>>
>> I meant that if the user configuring doesn't pass anything to
>> configure, then _GLIBCXX_FULLY_DYNAMIC_STRING remains undefined.
>> Otherw
This patch has not been reviewed for eight weeks.
- Forwarded message from amyl...@spamcop.net -
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 01:01:30 -0400
From: Joern Rennecke
Reply-To: Joern Rennecke
Subject: RFA: Testsuite fixes (3/3): USER_LABEL_PREFIX
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
We have
This patch has not been reviewed for eight weeks.
- Forwarded message from amyl...@spamcop.net -
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 01:01:13 -0400
From: Joern Rennecke
Reply-To: Joern Rennecke
Subject: RFA: Testsuite fixes (2/3): struct padding / alignment
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
This patch has not been reviewed for eight weeks.
- Forwarded message from amyl...@spamcop.net -
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:41:04 -0400
From: Joern Rennecke
Reply-To: Joern Rennecke
Subject: RFA: Testsuite fixes (1/3): builtin_apply
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
I am workin
On 25 September 2011 14:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ira Rosen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch supports an automatic choice of vector size in basic block
>> vectorization similar to the loop vectorization case.
>>
>> I am not sure about the new keyword.
>
> The t
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ira Rosen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch supports an automatic choice of vector size in basic block
> vectorization similar to the loop vectorization case.
>
> I am not sure about the new keyword.
The testsuite one? I guess we should name them vect128, vect256, etc
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> You don't care for a NULL get_base_address return in the other
>> place you added it. I think you should instead bail out on a
>> NULL return from said.
>>
>> Note that get_base_address will not strip things down to an
>> SSA name pointer
2011/9/25 Jan Hubicka :
>>
>> Shouldn't this be either and_predicates or not accumulating but taking
>> the minimum (or maximum?)
>
> The predicates are always assumed to be conservative estimate (i.e. when they
> are false, the code is known to be unreachable. When they are true they may or
> may
Following Eric's fix to the stack-check output for rs6000/Darwin, I
think we can enable this function for the port.
bootstrapped/tested (including Java, Ada), on *-darwin9, x86-64-
darwin10.
OK for trunk?
Iain
gcc:
* config/darwin9.h (STACK_CHECK_STATIC_BUILTIN): Enable for
Hi,
This patch supports an automatic choice of vector size in basic block
vectorization similar to the loop vectorization case.
I am not sure about the new keyword.
Bootstrapped on powerpc64-suse-linux, tested on powerpc64-suse-linux
and arm-linux-gnueabi.
Thanks,
Ira
ChangeLog:
* tre
Hi,
I'm committing as obvious the testcase and closing the PR as fixed for 4.7.
Thanks,
Paolo.
/
2011-09-25 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/50280
* g++.dg/template/bitfield1.C: New.
Index: g++.dg/template/bitfield1.C
> 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.
Oops, would be possible to see what kind of difference the path does on the
assembly
output? (i.e. have .s file f
>
> You don't care for a NULL get_base_address return in the other
> place you added it. I think you should instead bail out on a
> NULL return from said.
>
> Note that get_base_address will not strip things down to an
> SSA name pointer but will return a MEM[ptr, offset] for that.
> But I suppo
>
> Shouldn't this be either and_predicates or not accumulating but taking
> the minimum (or maximum?)
The predicates are always assumed to be conservative estimate (i.e. when they
are false, the code is known to be unreachable. When they are true they may or
may not be. This is used when detect
On 09/25/2011 10:57 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:29 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.
>>>
On 23 September 2011 23:09, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Ira Rosen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch makes data-refs analysis to not fail if simple_iv returns
>> false in basic block SLP.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-suse-linux.
>> OK for mainline?
>
> Ok
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:29 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-
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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" } }
>>
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> 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
>
> How about attached (untested) patch implementing a conservative, but
> runtime-efficient approach?
This doesn't work. My understanding is that you need to recompute far more
than that, in particular the points-to information for _all_ the calls in the
function. I don't know enough of the mac
On 9/23/2011 22:15, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 09/23/2011 03:59 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> On 09/23/2011 03:46 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>> On 09/23/2011 11:39 AM, JonY wrote:
Ping, any updates?
>>> I'm wondering if it wouldn't be cleaner to handle this in the
>>> appropriate config/os/ heade
67 matches
Mail list logo
