On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:33:28AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> This fixes PR51249, a failure caused by insufficient care in waking
> threads on sem_post. It's quite a tricky business to get right, but I
> believe this rewrite is now correct. I've also converted over lock.c,
> mutex.h and mutex.c t
Mikael Morin wrote:
This is not a bug nor a regression, so this should normally wait for the next
stage1. It is obvious on the other hand, and safe, as the 'n< loop->dimen'
conditions are inside a 'for (n = 0; n< loop->dimen; n++)' loop.
Regression tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (with the
2011/11/25 Georg-Johann Lay :
> This is a small extension to -mlog
>
> * Print double_int with %D or %X
> * Print supported sub-options with ?
> * Fix thinko in avr_log_set_avr_log that ignored -mdeb.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> Johann
>
> PR target/50566
> * config/avr/avr-protos.h (avr_lo
Hi,
more spurious -Wzero-as-null.. warnings, this one is about
dynamic_casts, which I completely overlooked. In order to fix the
original testcase, which involves pointers, it's enough to use
nullptr_node in ifnnonnull; in order to fix a version I added for
references, we have to use here too
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/24/2011 02:34 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > What about systems with floating-point or vector registers? Ie VFP or
> > WMMX on XScale? Do the callee saved registers in those register banks
> > also have to be saved?
>
> Yes.
>
> I mis-read
This fixes PR51249, a failure caused by insufficient care in waking
threads on sem_post. It's quite a tricky business to get right, but I
believe this rewrite is now correct. I've also converted over lock.c,
mutex.h and mutex.c to use the new atomic builtins. This means no
target should need tar
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:51:31PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote:
> this patch fixes a regression introduced by my recent inline sum change(s).
>
> This change:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=180895
> inserts a loop in gfc_trans_create_temp_array from:
>
>if (size == NULL_TRE
On 11/24/2011 02:34 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> What about systems with floating-point or vector registers? Ie VFP or
> WMMX on XScale? Do the callee saved registers in those register banks
> also have to be saved?
Yes.
I mis-read both the glibc and gcc sources on the matter, assuming
that on
Hello,
This change
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=179689
removed references to gfc_loopinfo's codimen field and one conditional
checking against gfc_loopinfo::dimen (as we had the convention that dimensions
above dimen were codimensions).
I have noticed two more of those condi
Hello,
this patch fixes a regression introduced by my recent inline sum change(s).
This change:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=180895
inserts a loop in gfc_trans_create_temp_array from:
if (size == NULL_TREE)
for (n = 0; n < ss->loop->dimen; n++)
to:
if (size == N
Richard Henderson wrote:
> To get the ball rolling for other targets, and to let port maintainers see
> how easy it really is, here's a first cut at a port to ARM.
I've tried to port libitm to SH based on the ARM patch.
The attached patch is tested on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu:
===
On 11/24/2011 12:50 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> * optab.c (maybe_emit_atomic_exchange): New. Try to emit an
> atomic_exchange pattern.
> (maybe_emit_sync_lock_test_and_set): New. Try to emit an exchange
> using __sync_lock_test_and_set.
> (maybe_emit_compare_and_swap
Committed as obvious:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=181700
Johann
--
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 181699)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2011-11-24 Georg-Johann Lay
+
+
This is a small extension to -mlog
* Print double_int with %D or %X
* Print supported sub-options with ?
* Fix thinko in avr_log_set_avr_log that ignored -mdeb.
Ok for trunk?
Johann
PR target/50566
* config/avr/avr-protos.h (avr_log_t): Add field .builtin.
* config/avr/a
This patch adds missing pattern support for atomic_test_and_set and
atomic_clear operations. It also restructures the code for
atomic_test_and_set, atomic_exchange, and __sync_lock_test_and_set so
that it is easier to read and tries things in a rational manner.
bootstrapped on x86_64-unkno
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 04:20 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > * If TYPE_SIZE_UNIT if the pointer target type is zero. This could be the
> > case for empty structures or zero-size arrays (both GNU extensions).
> > Logically there's nothing wrong with atomic operat
On Nov 23, 2011, at 2:02 AM, Iain Sandoe
wrote:
> the solution is to require the library to be present (no problem, since the
> crts are only fired up for -fgnu-tm) and to remove the dummy funcs from the
> crts,
> OK for trunk?
Ok.
On 11/24/2011 02:51 AM, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> Would the addition of blockages around each load exclusive and store
> exclusive be sufficient to guarantee no load or store was scheduled
> between the exclusives?
The ldrex/strex insns themselves are written as barriers,
and yes, that is sufficie
On 11/22/2011 04:20 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
* If TYPE_SIZE_UNIT if the pointer target type is zero. This could be the
case for empty structures or zero-size arrays (both GNU extensions).
Logically there's nothing wrong with atomic operations on such a zero-size
object (they should evaluate al
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Michael Zolotukhin
wrote:
> I found and fixed another problem in the latest memcpy/memest changes
> - with this fix all the failing tests mentioned in #51134 started
> passing. Bootstraps are also ok.
> Though I still see fails in 32-bit make check, so probably, it
On 11/24/2011 01:55 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> That was deliberate. The ARM ARM says that it is unsafe to have any
> other load or store instruction between an LDREX and its matching STREX.
> If we split these instructions before the final scheduling operation
> then there is a chance of that
On 11/24/2011 02:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> >> + /* For Linux, we have access to kernel support for atomic operations.
>>> >> */
>>> >> + if (arm_abi == ARM_ABI_AAPCS_LINUX)
>>> >> +init_sync_libfuncs (8);
>>> >> +
>>> >>/* There are no special library functions unless we are us
On 11/24/2011 02:34 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> + unsigned long s[8]; /* r4-r12 */
>
> R4-R12 is 9 registers. But R12 is callee clobbered. So is the code or
> the comment incorrect?
The comment is clearly a typo.
>> +/* ARM generally uses a fixed page size of 4K. */
>> +#define PAGE
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> Unless there are any objections, I am planning on checking this
>> in. (The script is generally run as gccadmin with group gcc.)
>> Affirmative notes welcome as well. :-)
> Seems fine to me.
Thanks, Joseph. I have now applied this to trunk and the g
Hi,
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 05:28:00PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> > As the default defs are already automatically handled by all our ssa
> > infrastructure (including warning and propagation machinery) I think it
> > would be best to generate such o
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 05:28:00PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> As the default defs are already automatically handled by all our ssa
> infrastructure (including warning and propagation machinery) I think it
> would be best to generate such one instead of a clobber for the RHS.
So like this?
201
On 11/24/2011 07:22 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ok for mainline, or we want to do something more sophisticated, maybe
earlier?
OK, but in the case that decl is null, let's gcc_assert (errorcount);
that should never happen for well-formed code.
Jason
Hi,
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> When stmt is mem = {v} {CLOBBER};, then lhs is neither
> SSA_NAME, but it doesn't satisfy gimple_assign_copy_p either.
> With this patch it will set the new_tree also to the clobber,
> making it clear that the next iteration uses unitialized variabl
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:13:53AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Build and regtested on x86-64-linux.
> OK for the trunk and 4.6?
>
OK
--
Steve
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 03:48:06PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> from Jakub's 2010-10-12 commit. OK for both?
Yes.
Jakub
Is it OK to backport the fix for PR48190:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00255.html
to 4.5 and 4.6? It fixes a case of excessive memory usage in dwarf2
location tracking, to the extent that the testcase blows VM on most
32-bit hosts.
For the record, Richard OKed it here:
ht
Hi!
This PR has been fixed by
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180058
This patch just adds the testcase from the PR, so it can be closed.
Tested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk as obvious.
2011-11-24 Jakub Jelinek
PR rtl-optimization/50290
*
Hi!
Since Richard's build_int_cst changes to make it effectively
build_int_cst_type when extract_range_from_assert wants to subtract
or add 1 to min or max of a signed 1-bit precision type,
build_int_cst (..., 1) returns actually -1 constant and that overflows
on the fold_build2, leading to ICEs l
Hi!
When stmt is mem = {v} {CLOBBER};, then lhs is neither
SSA_NAME, but it doesn't satisfy gimple_assign_copy_p either.
With this patch it will set the new_tree also to the clobber,
making it clear that the next iteration uses unitialized variable.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686
2011/11/24 Uros Bizjak :
> Hello!
>
>> Here is a short patch to fix PR target/51287. Patch avoids
>> get_attr_type call for instructions which cannot be recognized.
>>
>> 2011-11-24 Enkovich Ilya
>>
>> PR target/51287
>> * i386.c (distance_non_agu_define_in_bb): Fix insn attr check.
Hello!
> Here is a short patch to fix PR target/51287. Patch avoids
> get_attr_type call for instructions which cannot be recognized.
>
> 2011-11-24 Enkovich Ilya
>
> PR target/51287
> * i386.c (distance_non_agu_define_in_bb): Fix insn attr check.
This is OK for mainline and releas
Jakub Jelinek wrote on 21/11/2011 07:25:10 PM:
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> To: Razya Ladelsky/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
> Cc: GCC Patches , Richard Guenther
>
> Date: 21/11/2011 07:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH, take 2] Fix PR tree-optimization/49960 ,Fix
> self data dependence
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 0
Hi,
this is an ICE on invalid: toward the end of
instantiate_class_template_1 we call lambda_function without checking
its return value for NULL_TREE (it can well be so) and we pass it
directly to instantiate_decl which doesn't know how to cope with that.
But everything is wrong in that case,
Joel,
> Works for me. I posted test results for powerpc-rtems4.11
> at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-11/msg02314.html
>
> From the rtems perspective, you can commit it.
thanks for the confirmation. It would be great if one of the powerpc
maintainers could review it.
Thanks.
Hello,
Here is a short patch to fix PR target/51287. Patch avoids
get_attr_type call for instructions which cannot be recognized.
Bootstrapped and checked on linux-x86_64. 252.eon also works fine with
this fix on Atom.
Could please someone review it?
Thanks,
Ilya
---
2011-11-24 Enkovich Ilya
> Thanks for your comment.
> Please find attached the updated patch.
>
Ok - please apply .
Ramana
> --
On 23/11/11 23:43, Richard Henderson wrote:
+/* Split a compare and swap pattern. It is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED whether
+ another memory store between the load-exclusive and store-exclusive can
+ reset the monitor from Exclusive to Open state. This means we must wait
+ until after reload t
Hi,
Please find attached the patch fixing bugzilla issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51162.
ARM architecture implements vec_[load|store]_lanes which are
implemented as internal function calls. The function gimple_call_fn ()
returns NULL for internal calls. Hence, this patch guards
On 23/11/11 23:47, Richard Henderson wrote:
> To get the ball rolling for other targets, and to let port maintainers see
> how easy it really is, here's a first cut at a port to ARM.
>
> Only cross-compiled as yet, and qemu-linux-user isn't good enough to emulate.
> I'll do another build on the
On 11/24/2011 03:58 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/23/2011 08:09 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
if (null_test)
{
- tree zero = cp_convert (TREE_TYPE (expr), integer_zero_node);
+ tree zero = cp_convert (TREE_TYPE (expr),
+ want_pointer ? nullptr_node : integer_zero_n
On 24/11/11 02:23, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 04:00 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> + __asm volatile ("swi %1"
>>> + : "+r"(sc_0)
>>> + : "i"(SYS_futex), "r"(sc_1), "r"(sc_2), "r"(sc_3)
>>> + : "me
This patch fixes a 4.6/4.7 wrong-code regression where an call to a
subroutine which is neither pure nor implicit_pure didn't mark the
calling procedure as impure.
Additionally, I changed for functions:
if (!pure_function (expr, &name) && name)
...
if (!pure_function (expr, &name) && na
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 23:12 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 17 November 2011 15:16, Sameera Deshpande
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Please find attached the patch updating NEG_POOL_RANGE from 1008 to
> > 1020 -(8 + ).
>
> This is OK - can you add a comment around the neg_pool_range attribute
On 23/11/11 23:37, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Ping 2.
>
> r~
>
> On 11/03/2011 04:24 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Cc: Richard Earnshaw
>> ---
>> gcc/config/arm/arm.c |4
>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.
On 23/11/11 23:43, Richard Henderson wrote:
> This transformation is quite a bit more dramatic than the other ports
> because ARM was not splitting the code sequences post-reload.
> Indeed, the failure to split resulted in a distinctly odd coding
> style where fake output routines were used to comp
50 matches
Mail list logo
