On 09/11/2012 12:28 AM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 15:51 +0200, Christian Bruel wrote:
>> This patch implements the simple_return pattern to enable -fshrink-wrap
>> on SH. It also clean up some redundancies for expand_epilogue (called
>> twice from the "return" and "epilogue" patter
This patch fixes a GCC 4.7/4.8 regression for invalid code.
Build and regtested on x86-64-linux.
OK for the trunk and 4.7?
Tobias
2012-09-11 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54225
* array.c (match_subscript, gfc_match_array_ref): Fix
diagnostic of coarray's '*'.
2012-09-11 Tobias Burnus
PR
Oops, not sure how I test that change initially, or I must be blind,
because it triggers an error in tr1/cmath about pow. I'll see what I
can do...
2012/9/10 Jason Merrill :
> OK.
>
> Jason
--
Fabien
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Ian, could you commit the changes in go/gofrontend?
Done. Actually, it looks like you already committed them, but I
brought the master repo up to date.
Ian
> 2012-09-10 Diego Novillo
>
> * vec.h (vec_t::quick_push): Remove o
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> The problem here is that trans-mem.c does not take into account that
> COND_EXPR can happen for pointers. This patch modifies
> thread_private_new_memory to handle COND_EXPR as it can handle PHI
> nodes. The testcase is a modified v
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki
wrote:
> David,
>
>> The %c print_operand modifier was added by Aldy for a pattern that he
>> added in 2004 and removed the same year. However, he did not remove
>> the modifier.
>
> Indeed -- introduced with r80876 and then removed in r84775 --
Hi,
I just had a quick look to this PR, for:
template
class Foo
{
bool m_barbar;
void Bar()
{
auto bar = [this]() { if (!m_barbar) { } };
}
};
we ICE as a Seg fault in lvalue_kind, at line # 147, because for ref we
have an INDIRECT_REF with null TREE_TYPE:
case INDIRECT_REF
Christian Bruel wrote:
> This patch implements the simple_return pattern to enable -fshrink-wrap
> on SH. It also clean up some redundancies for expand_epilogue (called
> twice from the "return" and "epilogue" patterns and the
> sh_expand_prologue parameter type.
>
> No regressions with sh-superh
On 08.09.2012 01:07, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious about the status of this patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00974.html
>
> Chrome OS uses this, and the Ubuntu Security Team has expressed
> interest in it as well. What's needed to land this in gcc?
I don't see any s
OK.
PS: I suspect that the require_complete_type in convert_arg_to_ellipsis should
also be require_complete_type_sfinae
Agreed.
Jason
This bug was introduced by the fix for 53783; the change from
tsubst_copy to tsubst messed up handling of FIELD_DECLs, because tsubst
of a FIELD_DECL always creates a new one. Fixed by limiting the 53783
change to FUNCTION_DECLs.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit d61bd5ca5
fredag 07 september 2012 18.41.29 skrev Joseph S. Myers:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Magnus Granberg wrote:
> > +NOTE: With configure --enable-espf=@r{[}all@r{|}ssp@r{|}pie@r{]}is
>
> @emph{Note:} (existing style). @option{--enable-espf}.
>
> > +this option enabled by default for C, C++, ObjC, Ob
fredag 07 september 2012 18.43.59 skrev du:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Magnus Granberg wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/config/linux.h2011-07-07 17:38:34.0 +0200
> > +++ b/gcc/config/linux.h2012-07-09 14:24:08.599281404 +0200
>
> I see nothing related specifically to Linux rather than other targets
fredag 07 september 2012 18.52.11 skrev du:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Magnus Granberg wrote:
> > * Makefile.in Add
> > -fno-stack-protector when
> >
> > needed for espf.
>
> Toplevel Makefile.in is a generated file. You need to patch M
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 05:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Well, if SJLJ lowering happens as gimple pass somewhere near the end of
>> gimple
>> queue, this should not be problem at all. (and implementation would be
>> cleaner)
>
> If you can find a c
In this failing testcase the LIM pass writes to g_13 regardless of the
initial value of g_13, which is the test protecting the write. This
causes an incorrect store data race wrt both the C++ memory model and
transactional memory (the latter if the store occurs inside of a
transaction).
The
Hi,
I'm finishing (in the C++ library testsuite now) testing this
straightforward patch for a couple of "standard" SFINAE issues
(interestingly, however, 54541 is a regression in mainline).
Ok for mainline?
Thanks,
Paolo.
PS: I suspect that the require_complete_type in convert_arg_to_ellips
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> The enclosed patch fixes a reversed conditional when calculating the
>> is_static flag while generating gdb index--is_static is the opposite
>> of the DW_AT_external flag.
>>
>> OK for google 4.7?
>>
>> Sterling
>>
>> 2012-09-10 Sterling Aug
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 15:51 +0200, Christian Bruel wrote:
> This patch implements the simple_return pattern to enable -fshrink-wrap
> on SH. It also clean up some redundancies for expand_epilogue (called
> twice from the "return" and "epilogue" patterns and the
> sh_expand_prologue parameter type.
> The enclosed patch fixes a reversed conditional when calculating the
> is_static flag while generating gdb index--is_static is the opposite
> of the DW_AT_external flag.
>
> OK for google 4.7?
>
> Sterling
>
> 2012-09-10 Sterling Augustine
>
> * dwarf2out.c (output_pubname): Correct co
The enclosed patch fixes a reversed conditional when calculating the
is_static flag while generating gdb index--is_static is the opposite
of the DW_AT_external flag.
OK for google 4.7?
Sterling
2012-09-10 Sterling Augustine
* dwarf2out.c (output_pubname): Correct conditional.
Index:
On 09/09/2012 10:23 PM, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh wrote:
> 2012-09-05 Ganesh Gopalasubramanian
>
> * config/i386/i386.md : Comments on fma4 instruction
> selection reflect requirement on register pressure based
> cost model.
>
> * config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_det
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
> 2012-08-10 Maciej W. Rozycki
>
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Move a splitter next to its insn.
>
> This patch is okay. Yes, the splitter should not have been separated
> from the basic pattern. Thanks for helping to clean up the p
>
> On 10 September 2012 07:34, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 21:07:39 +0100
> >> From: Jonathan Wakely
> >>
> >> On 4 September 2012 20:26, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >> > Fixes a few testcases. Mostly based on the existing
> >> > NetBSD/FreeBSD/Darwin code.
> >> >
> >> > 2012-09-
On 09/06/2012 02:56 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> + (3) Keep its original order when there is no chance to fall through. bbro
> + bases on the result of cfg_cleanup, which does lots of optimizations on
> cfg.
> + So the order is expected to be kept if no fall through.
Thanks for doing this.
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM, rbmj wrote:
> On the other hand, I've read this on the website:
>
>> Don't mix together changes made for different reasons. Send them
>> individually. Ideally, each change you send should be impossible to
>> subdivide into
>
> parts that we might want to con
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> PR target/46191
> * config/t-slibgcc-libgcc (SHLIB_MAKE_SOLINK): Use -lgcc instead
> of libgcc.a.
This is OK.
Thanks.
Ian
On 09/10/2012 09:09 AM, Ian Bolton wrote:
>> Can you send me the test case you were looking at for this?
>
> See attached. (Most of it is superfluous, but the point is that
> we are not using the address to do a memory access.)
Ok. Having dug a bit deeper I think the main problem is that you're
Dear All,
Please find attached a new attempt at the patch for PR46897. It now
uses temporaries to overcome the side effects that Mikael pointed out.
The resulting code can be quite profligate:
infant0 = new_child()
produces
ASSIGN main:da@0 new_child[[()]]
ASSIGN main:da@1 main:infant0
Ping.
Thanks,
Sharad
Sharad
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> Ping.
>
> Thanks,
> Sharad
>
> Sharad
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>>
>> Sorry about the delay. Please see comments inline.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Richard Gue
There's an access within glibc wherein we've forced an important global
variable into the .sdata section (so that accesses to its members can use
16-bit relocations), but an array access gets constant-folded such that we
produce an offset well well outside of a 16-bit range.
A test case that mu
On 9/10/2012 9:35 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
On 09/09/12 08:54, rbmj wrote:
Just because I *love* bothering everyone with emails...
I don't mind, as long as you don't expect me to do anything
until I'm certain you've stabilized the patch ;)
I'm glad you rolled it up into one patch, because I was
ev
Here's the revised patch with a param. Bootstrapped and tested in the
same manner. Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Bill
2012-08-10 Bill Schmidt
* doc/invoke.texi (max-slsr-cand-scan): New description.
* gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (find_basis_for_candidate): Limit
the tim
Thanks for helping test this. I'll try to build mozzila to check the
memory consumption as well as find new bugs.
Dehao
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> I was curious how the patch behaves memory wise on compilling Mozilla. It
> actually crashes on:
> (gdb) bt
> #0
On 10/09/12 16:40, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 7 September 2012 17:28, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>> Ah, sigh! I'd forgotten about the cond-exec issue. That makes things
>> a little awkward, since we also have to deal with the fact that thumb1
>> does not support predication. The solution, unfo
On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 13:50 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Should add BASE_DRIVER_SELF_SPECS too. OK with that change, thanks.
> And thanks for your patience.
>
> Richard
I added BASE_DRIVER_SELF_SPECS and did the checkin. Thanks for all
your help and advice.
Steve Ellcey
sell...@mips.com
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:30:15AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 09:11 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Can you please help me get a start on how to get can be done? From
> > what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong), this requires
> > rearranging and duplicating a lot of p
> All other comments are accepted.
>
> The updated patch is attached. Is it OK?
As you probably gathered, I had missed that Steven and Richard had already
commented on your patch before posting my message. Sorry about that...
I think that the patch is interesting because, even if it doesn't ex
Hi, ping, could any one take a look at this patch? Thanks,
-Han
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious about the status of this patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00974.html
>
> Chrome OS uses this, and the Ubuntu Security Team has expressed
>
Hi,
I was curious how the patch behaves memory wise on compilling Mozilla. It
actually crashes on:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x7fab8cd70945 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x7fab8cd71f21 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2 0x00b52330 in linemap_location_from_macro_expansion_p (set=0x78
On 09/10/2012 09:09 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> >If that's the case, what's the point in defining an external ABI and
>> >defining what
>> >__attribute__((vector)) placed on a function declaration means?
> When you have __attribute__((vector)) you are asking the compiler to
> create a vector AND
On 09/10/2012 09:11 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Can you please help me get a start on how to get can be done? From
> what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong), this requires
> rearranging and duplicating a lot of passes and can potentially open
> up to a lot of bugs.
Certainly not duplic
>-Original Message-
>From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 12:01 PM
>To: Iyer, Balaji V
>Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Andi Kleen; Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;
>Gabriel Dos Reis; Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
>Subject: Re: [PAT
>-Original Message-
>From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 12:03 PM
>To: Iyer, Balaji V
>Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Gabriel Dos Reis; Aldy
>Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into
> Can you send me the test case you were looking at for this?
See attached. (Most of it is superfluous, but the point is that
we are not using the address to do a memory access.)
Cheers,
Ian
constant-test1.c
Description: Binary data
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2012/8/28 下午 04:15, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 12/7/12 下午2:52, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Xtensa parts updated to use MD pattern.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chung-Lin
>>
>> * config/xtensa/xtensa.md (get_thread_pointersi): Renamed from
>> lo
On 09/07/2012 12:31 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I hope I have not mistaken your question, but to clarify the
> elemental function's definition and body is visible to all passes
> after the invocation of gimplify_function_tree (). It is also visible
> for the LTO optimization.
If that's the case, w
On 09/07/2012 02:00 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> So, if I am understanding this correctly, there is no way to have the
> vectorization turned on/off on a function by function basis? I don't
> mind if it is turned off for -O0, but would like it be turned on/off
> for anything > -O1.
There's probably
On 7 September 2012 17:28, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> Ah, sigh! I'd forgotten about the cond-exec issue. That makes things
> a little awkward, since we also have to deal with the fact that thumb1
> does not support predication. The solution, unfortunately, is thus a
> bit more involved.
>
Sorr
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 16:56 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:45:24PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Richard found some N^2 behavior in SLSR that has to be
On 09/06/2012 10:19 AM, Ian Bolton wrote:
> Based on that, and assuming I remove the constraints on the
> pattern, would you say the patch is worthy of commit?
Can you send me the test case you were looking at for this?
r~
Hi,
The attached patch implements TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK target hook.
Regression-tested on aarch64-none-elf. OK for aarch64-branch?
Thanks,
Tejas Belagod
ARM.
PS: This patch applies over vldn-vstn.txt sent earlier.
Changelog:
2012-09-10 Tejas Belagod
gcc/
* config/aarch64/a
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> Hi, Diego,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the review. I've updated the patch.
>>
>> This patch is large and may easily break builds because it reserves
>> more complete information for TREE_BL
Hi,
The attached patch has fixes to assembler templates for rshrn2 and shrn2. OK?
Thanks,
Tejas Belagod.
ARM.
Changelog:
2012-09-10 Tejas Belagod
gcc/
* config/aarch64/arm_neon.h (vrshrn_high_n_s16, vrshrn_high_n_s32,
vrshrn_high_n_s64, vrshrn_high_n_u16, vrshrn_high_n_u32,
Hi,
This patch adds the missing intrinsic vmovq_n_f64(). OK?
Thanks,
Tejas Belagod
ARM.
Changelog:
2012-09-10 Tejas Belagod
gcc/
* config/aarch64/arm_neon.h (vmovq_n_f64): Add.diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/arm_neon.h b/gcc/config/aarch64/arm_neon.h
index e7dadf9..cf8b676 100644
Hi,
This patch fixes vfmaq_lane_f64 () AdvSIMD intrinsic.
Regression-tested on aarch64-none-elf. OK for aarch64-branch?
Thanks,
Tejas Belagod.
ARM.
Changelog:
2012-09-10 Tejas Belagod
gcc/
* config/aarch64/arm_neon.h (vfmaq_lane_f64): Fix prototype and
assembler template
Hi,
This patch adds support for move an immediate DImode value into an AdvSIMD
scalar D register. i.e. movi Dd, #imm.
Regression-tested on aarch64-none-elf. OK for aarch64-branch?
Thanks,
Tejas Belagod.
ARM.
Changelog:
2012-09-10 Tejas Belagod
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64-prot
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> So, I assume it is OK for me to include testsuites with the
> code-changes? I included them separately because I remember someone in
> the mailing list saying the patch size must be small and one logical way
> is to put test cases separately from the
Hi,
This patch tightens the predicate for the CMP pattern. It makes it restrictive
to accept reg or zero as prescribed by the architecture.
Regression-tested on aarch64-none-elf. OK for aarch64-branch?
Thanks,
Tejas Belagod
ARM.
PS: This patch applies over vldn-vstn.txt sent out earlier.
Chan
Hi,
This patch fixes the mov pattern to split a move between general regs that
contain a Q-reg vector value.
Regression-tested on aarch64-none-elf. OK for aarch64-branch?
Thanks,
Tejas Belagod
ARM.
Changelog:
2012-09-10 Tejas Belagod
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (*aarch64
Hi,
This patch expands an Advanced SIMD intrinsic's operand into a constant operand
only if the predicate allows it.
Regression-tested on aarch64-none-elf. OK for aarch64-branch?
Thanks,
Tejas Belagod
ARM.
Changelog
2012-09-10 Tejas Belagod
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarc
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:45:24PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > Richard found some N^2 behavior in SLSR that has to be suppressed.
> > > Searching for the best possible basis is overkill whe
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 16:45 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Richard found some N^2 behavior in SLSR that has to be suppressed.
> > Searching for the best possible basis is overkill when there are
> > hundreds of thousands of possibilities. Thi
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:45:24PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Richard found some N^2 behavior in SLSR that has to be suppressed.
> > Searching for the best possible basis is overkill when there are
> > hundreds of thousands of possibilitie
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> Richard found some N^2 behavior in SLSR that has to be suppressed.
> Searching for the best possible basis is overkill when there are
> hundreds of thousands of possibilities. This patch constrains the
> search to "good enough" in such cases.
>
>
Richard found some N^2 behavior in SLSR that has to be suppressed.
Searching for the best possible basis is overkill when there are
hundreds of thousands of possibilities. This patch constrains the
search to "good enough" in such cases.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> 2012-09-10 Teresa Johnson
>
> * loop-unroll.c (code_size_limit_factor):
OK.
Diego.
Fix divide by zero error.
Passes bootstrap and regression tests. Ok for google branches?
Teresa
2012-09-10 Teresa Johnson
* loop-unroll.c (code_size_limit_factor):
Index: loop-unroll.c
===
--- loop-unroll.c (revis
This area of the standard is in flux, but what we were doing was
definitely wrong. The proposed resolution for issue 1402 says that if a
move constructor would call a non-trivial non-move constructor for a
subobject, it is not implicitly declared. We might end up dropping that
provision entir
The following fixes PR54520 - we were not updating bb->loop_father
for all basic-blocks converted to "pre-header" blocks during jump
threading. Fixed as follows.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2012-09-10 Richard Guenther
* tree-ssa-threadupda
On 09/07/2012 07:52 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
This patch contains a lot of unnecessary, gratuitous changes in
addition to being very invasive. It was not edited and cleaned
sufficiently before posting. It has too much of a negative impact on
the current PowerPC port. The patch is not going to
This patch implements the simple_return pattern to enable -fshrink-wrap
on SH. It also clean up some redundancies for expand_epilogue (called
twice from the "return" and "epilogue" patterns and the
sh_expand_prologue parameter type.
No regressions with sh-superh-elf and sh4-linux gcc testsuites.
On 09/09/12 08:54, rbmj wrote:
> Just because I *love* bothering everyone with emails...
I don't mind, as long as you don't expect me to do anything
until I'm certain you've stabilized the patch ;)
I'm glad you rolled it up into one patch, because I was
eventually going to ask you to do that. Tha
>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 7:23 AM
>To: Iyer, Balaji V
>Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law;
>r...@redhat.com
>Subject: RE: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of a
Oleg Endo wrote:
> This patch does two things...
>
> 1) The dynamic shift cost is set to be the same if HW dynamic shifts are
> available. This improves code size for SH2A a little (-2 KByte on CSiBE
> for -m2a-single -O2).
>
> 2) Improve code around library function calls for software dynamic
On 9 September 2012 12:46, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> check_GNU_style.sh currently leaves a temporary file in the current
>> directory. This patch removes it upon exit.
>>
>> Christophe.
>>
>> 2012-09-03 Christophe Lyon
>>
>> * check_GNU_style.s
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> Please do the early outs where you compute the arguments. Thus, right
>> after getting op0 in this case or right after computing n for the n != 1
>> check.
>>
>> I think you need to verify that
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> You do work above and then bail late here. Always do early exists early
>> to reduce useless compile-time.
>
> [...]
>
>> You need to verify that fold_ternary returns something that is valid
>> G
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Here is an updated patch. I think I have fixed all the changes you
> and others have mentioned. Please let me know if everything looks OK.
> Thanks again for doing the review!
Has the user documentation for this feature been posted? For patch r
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=191132
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=191133
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=191134
Committed these changes as obvious fix for a typo in
avr-devices.c / avr-mcus.def
at90usb1287 had a wrong library_name "usb128
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello Joseph,
> Here is an updated patch. I think I have fixed all the changes you
> and others have mentioned. Please let me know if everything looks OK. Thanks
> again for doing the review!
The ChangeLog still mentions the vector
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Hi, Diego,
>
> Thanks a lot for the review. I've updated the patch.
>
> This patch is large and may easily break builds because it reserves
> more complete information for TREE_BLOCK as well as gimple_block (may
> trigger bugs that was hided whe
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> Here the problem is that get_base_address() can return NULL_TREE and
> this later leads to a segfault. Fix by checking that the return value is
> valid.
> gcc-4.6 and 4.7 are also affected.
>
> Please commit if this looks OK.
> Thanks.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> This is a bit different, in that we don't currently have an infrastructure
> to test transactional memory code within the simulate-thread framework.
> Luckily for this test, the LIM pass has an actual dump message when it fails
> to hoist a v
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> This is the same thing as gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c, but in this case I had to
> tweak the testcase a bit because optimization passes after LIM are smart
> enough to remove the condition altogether, thus never triggering the test.
> Interestingly, G
Hi,
this patch makes variable and cgraph handling more alike so code can be shared
in future. The basic idea is to categorize symbols into three categories:
1) external symbols that goes only into boundary if they are used.
2) partitioned symbols that goes into one partition based on decision
On 10 September 2012 07:34, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 21:07:39 +0100
>> From: Jonathan Wakely
>>
>> On 4 September 2012 20:26, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> > Fixes a few testcases. Mostly based on the existing
>> > NetBSD/FreeBSD/Darwin code.
>> >
>> > 2012-09-04 Mark Kettenis
>
James, I've committed your patch.
/Marcus
On 6 September 2012 15:38, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 06/09/12 15:31, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch implements section anchors for the AArch64 port.
>>
>> OK for aarch64-branch?
>>
>> Regards,
>> James Greenhalgh
>>
>> --
>> 2012-0
On 06/09/12 15:34, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
Enable the raising of exception in long double soft float and support
for rounding mode.
2012-09-06 Marcus Shawcroft
* config/aarch64/sfp-machine.h (FP_EX_INVALID, FP_EX_DIVZERO)
(FP_EX_OVERFLOW, FP_EX_UNDERFLOW, FP_EX_INEXACT)
On 06/09/12 15:30, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
Relax the logic that prevents TFmode constants being addressed in the
constant pool.
2012-09-06 Marcus Shawcroft
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_classify_address):
Allow 16 byte modes in constant pool.
I've just committed t
On 09/08/12 00:52, David Edelsohn wrote:
This patch contains a lot of unnecessary, gratuitous changes in
addition to being very invasive. It was not edited and cleaned
sufficiently before posting. It has too much of a negative impact on
the current PowerPC port. The patch is not going to be a
91 matches
Mail list logo
