On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Chung-Lin Tang
wrote:
> On 12/9/27 6:25 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> On 09/26/2012 01:58 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>
>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-mthumb -O1 -march=armv5te -fno-omit-frame-pointer
>> -fno-forward-propagate" } */
>> +/* { dg-r
On Oct 19, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> As I beging work on extensions for a potential future machine, I am running
> into the overload table.
I still like the built-in mechanism Kenny and I have Not perfect, but
vastly better... If you wanted to help submitify it I be
Thanks.
On 20 October 2012 02:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 19 October 2012 21:28, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> Looks like _U is one of those identifiers that should be
>> avoided: Grep yields:
>> src/newlib/libc/include/ctype.h:#define _U 01
>
> Argh! my bad, sorry - fix on the way ...
Sorry abou
On 19 October 2012 21:28, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Looks like _U is one of those identifiers that should be
> avoided: Grep yields:
> src/newlib/libc/include/ctype.h:#define _U 01
Argh! my bad, sorry - fix on the way ...
As suggested in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00285.html, I
have updated the attached patch to rename 'dump_enabled_phase' to
'dump_enabled_phase_p'. The 'dump_enabled_p ()' doesn't take any
argument and can be used as a predicate for the dump calls.
Once this patch gets in, the plan is to
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> During expression reassociation, statements are conservatively moved
>> downwards to ensure that dependences are correctly satisfied after
>> reassocation. This could le
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During expression reassociation, statements are conservatively moved
> downwards to ensure that dependences are correctly satisfied after
> reassocation. This could lead to lengthening of live ranges. This
> patch moves statements on
const struct altivec_builtin_types altivec_overloaded_builtins[] = {
[big fat table constructed using many macros]
Now, it bothers me that every time we do the overloaded builtins, we
essentially have to scan the table in a linear fashion. I'm
thinking that we
may want to move these tables
Hi Joseph,
Thank you very much for your response. I will look into this and get
back to you soon!
-Balaji V. Iyer.
>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 5:38 PM
>To: Iyer, Balaji V
>Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc-patch
CC'ing the LTO maintainers.
On 10/18/2012 10:30 AM, Meador Inge wrote:
> Ping ^ 2.
>
> On 10/09/2012 09:44 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
>> Ping.
>>
>> On 10/04/2012 03:45 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Currently the gcc-{ar,nm,ranlib} utilities assume that binutils is in
>>> path when invok
On 10/18/2012 01:33 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 18 October 2012 17:30:20 Meador Inge wrote:
>> Ping ^ 2
>
> Been a while but wasn't --with-build-sysroot for exactly this?
AFAICT, no. --with-build-sysroot seems to be used for setting a different
sysroot to use for compiling target
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Here is a link to the latest spec. This should clear several of the
> questions you are seeking.
> (http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/m/4/e/7/3/1/40297-
> Intel_Cilk_plus_lang_spec_2.htm#array)
This specification is much impr
As I beging work on extensions for a potential future machine, I am running
into the overload table. In the power7 timeframe, I just gritted my teeth, and
added all of the appropriate entries, but I would like to visit making the
table somewhat friendlier to edit and add new overloaded functions.
2012/10/19 Marc Glisse :
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
>> Looks like _U is one of those identifiers that should be
>> avoided:
>
> [...]
>>
>> What's the preferred replacement?
>
>
> std::pair seems to use _U1 and _U2 rather than _U and _V.
When not numbered, I have seen (and
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Looks like _U is one of those identifiers that should be
avoided:
[...]
What's the preferred replacement?
std::pair seems to use _U1 and _U2 rather than _U and _V.
--
Marc Glisse
(Adding Joseph in Cc: because we'll want the same behavior in C
afterwards. Conversation starts here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01665.html )
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
Clang's webpage says they support ?: for vector types, but my version (3.1)
rejects it, I'll
> From: Jonathan Wakely
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:16:51 +0200
> This adds support for piecewise construction of std::pair by
> scoped_allocator_adaptor. The only thing missing from
> scoped_allocator_adaptor now is that my definition of OUTERMOST isn't
> recursive so doesn't work for nested sc
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> The library builds fine with the following diff. The file acinclude.m4
> is cloned from libmudflap.
This is OK with the corresponding ChangeLog entry (in ChangeLog.asan).
Diego.
The library builds fine with the following diff. The file acinclude.m4
is cloned from libmudflap.
David
index 485d169..3e847f1 100644
--- a/libasan/aclocal.m4
+++ b/libasan/aclocal.m4
@@ -1037,8 +1037,8 @@ AC_SUBST([am__tar])
AC_SUBST([am__untar])
]) # _AM_PROG_TAR
-m4_include([m4/libtool.m4])
Quoting Richard Sandiford :
Joern Rennecke writes:
When the condition is not fulfilled, we want to keep the length from the
previous iteration.
Right, that's what I mean. So we need to make sure that the difference
between the address of the current instruction and the address of the
next
I checked in your patch along with my patches into the trunk.
[gcc]
2012-10-19 Michael Meissner
Dominique Dhumieres
* config/rs6000/rs6000-cpus.def (POWERPC_MASKS): Don't assume
OPTION_MASK_STRICT_ALIGN is defined.
(MASK_STRICT_ALIGN): If OPTION_MASK_STRIC
> 2012-10-18 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR debug/54970
> * cfgexpand.c (expand_debug_expr): Expand &MEM_REF[&var, n]
> as DEBUG_IMPLICIT_PTR + n if &var expands to DEBUG_IMPLICIT_PTR.
> * tree-sra.c (create_access_replacement): Allow also MEM_REFs
> with ADDR_EXPR
Jim,
How do you want to move forward with the VLE patch? Can you localize
more of the changes?
Thanks, David
David, I put the m4 subdir under libasan because once I use the .m4
files (libtool.m4 lt~obsolete.m4 ltoptions.m4 ltsugar.m4
ltversion.m4) and ltmain.sh under $topsrcdir, the problem that a bad
libtool was generated under
$topbuilddir/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libasan you met yesterday
appeared.
On 2012-10-19 13:16 , Xinliang David Li wrote:
Other than that, if there are no other comments, the change is good to
check into the branch. Remaining bugs can always be found and fixed
later.
Agreed. David, could you commit the patch after Wei has addressed your
feedback? I have just commi
Hi Tobias,
>> I have found a fix that is rather trivial in the sense that it's a
>> one-liner.
>
>
> I think it is the proper fix.
good :)
>> However, it may not be as trivial conceptually (in particular I'm not 100%
>> sure what caused this regression in the first place
>
>
> I think it is the
I tried it, and this version works for me.
Your probably do not need to add the m4 subdir under libasan. The
required m4 files are either in .. or ../config dir. See how
libmudflap does it.
Other than that, if there are no other comments, the change is good to
check into the branch. Remaining bu
Unwind/debug info on x86-64/Windows:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00013.html
PR bootstrap/54820 (stage #1 bootstrap failure)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01093.html
--
Eric Botcazou
On 19/10/12 17:51, Greta Yorsh wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard Earnshaw
Sent: 19 October 2012 16:44
To: Greta Yorsh
Cc: GCC Patches; Ramana Radhakrishnan; ni...@redhat.com;
p...@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM][1/4] New RTL patterns for LDRD/STRD in Thumb
mode
On 19/10/
gfortran's INTENT(IN) check was too strict for "do" variables. While a
variable in the normal do-stmt and in an io-implied-do is in the scope
and, hence, the variable may not be modified for a nonpointer intent(in)
variable.
However, ac-implied-do and data-implied-do live in their own scope an
The table's a bit out of date
* doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml: Update.
Committed to trunk.
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml
b/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml
index 226eef9..6b1ad51 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml
+
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: 19 October 2012 16:44
> To: Greta Yorsh
> Cc: GCC Patches; Ramana Radhakrishnan; ni...@redhat.com;
> p...@codesourcery.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM][1/4] New RTL patterns for LDRD/STRD in Thumb
> mode
>
> On 19/10/12 16:20, Greta Yors
> > > What about the conservative variant of simply
> > >
> > > else
> > > delta = double_int_one;
> >
> > I think it would be bad idea: it makes us to completely unroll one
> > interation
> > too many that bloats code for no benefit. No optimization cancels the path
> > in
> > CF
I can't approve this, but some comments:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/alias.c b/gcc/alias.c
> index 0c6a744..9e67823 100644
> --- a/gcc/alias.c
> +++ b/gcc/alias.c
> @@ -1490,9 +1490,9 @@ rtx_equal_for_memref_p (const_rtx x, const_rtx y)
>
> case VALUE:
> CASE_CONST_UNIQU
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> This adds a warning switch for the existing "returning address of
> local variable" warnings in the C and C++ FEs which are enabled by
> default but have no switch controlling them. Adding a switch allows it
> to be turned into an error with -Werror=re
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Manuel L?pez-Ib??ez wrote:
> documentation but I can also implement -Wformat=0 being an alias for
> -Wno-format and -Wformat=1 an alias for -Wformat and simply reject
> -Wno-format=.
I think that's what's wanted; -Wno-format= should be rejected, -Wformat=
should take an arbi
This adds support for piecewise construction of std::pair by
scoped_allocator_adaptor. The only thing missing from
scoped_allocator_adaptor now is that my definition of OUTERMOST isn't
recursive so doesn't work for nested scoped_allocator_adaptors.
That's a suitably obscure use case that I'm not g
Hi Janus,
Janus Weil wrote:
I have found a fix that is rather trivial in the sense that it's a
one-liner.
I think it is the proper fix.
However, it may not be as trivial conceptually (in particular I'm not 100% sure
what caused this regression in the first place
I think it is the combinat
On 2012-10-19 11:51 , Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I counted 4 vectors (with about 25 lines referencing them). One vector
(point_freq_vec) is analogous to IRA.
Perfect. That shouldn't be hard at all then. Thanks.
Diego.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Manuel L?pez-Ib??ez wrote:
> This patch changes most trivial cases to use the new (Lang)EnabledBy.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK?
>
> 2012-10-17 Manuel L?pez-Ib??ez
>
> PR c/53063
> PR c/40989
> c-family/
> * c.opt (Wad
On 12-10-19 11:46 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 2012-10-19 10:31 , Vladimir Makarov wrote:
So my plan is to merge trunk into LRA branch first and, if it looks
ok, commit LRA to the trunk on Sunday to be ready solve problems (if
there are any) starting Monday morning EST. LRA merge will affect
On 2012-10-19 10:31 , Vladimir Makarov wrote:
So my plan is to merge trunk into LRA branch first and, if it looks
ok, commit LRA to the trunk on Sunday to be ready solve problems (if
there are any) starting Monday morning EST. LRA merge will affect only
x86/x86-64 target. If you suspect any
On 19/10/12 16:20, Greta Yorsh wrote:
Removed the condition "!optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun))".
The condition "current_tune->prefer_ldrd_strd" is needed because the
patterns
for LDRD/STRD appear before the patterns for LDM/STM that can match the same
RTL
(two register in the list). Conditi
Quoting Richard Sandiford :
Joern Rennecke writes:
Quoting Richard Sandiford :
The fact that we even have shared unique ids is pretty bad -- and surely
a contradiction in terms -- but I think both ways of handling them rely
on the length being the same for all copies. If we don't record a le
On 18 October 2012 14:41, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > +/* Checks whether the operands are valid for use in an LDRD/STRD
instruction.
> > + Assumes that RT, RT2, and RTN are REG. This is guaranteed by the
patterns.
> > + Assumes that the address in the base register RTN is word aligned.
Pattern
On 2012-10-12 18:19 , Sriraman Tallam wrote:
When the front-end sees more than one decl for "foo", it calls a target hook to
determine if they are versions. To prevent duplicate definition errors with
other
versions of "foo", "decls_match" function in cp/decl.c is made to return false
when 2
> > What about the conservative variant of simply
> >
> > else
> > delta = double_int_one;
>
> I think it would be bad idea: it makes us to completely unroll one interation
> too many that bloats code for no benefit. No optimization cancels the path in
> CFG because of undefined eff
On 10/10/12 16:03, Greta Yorsh wrote:
As a result of adding LDRD/STRD patterns in Thumb mode, the compiler
generates LDRD/STRD instead of LDM/STM in some cases. This patch adjusts
existing tests to accept LDRD/STRD in addition to LDM/STM.
ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite
2012-09-13 Sameera Deshpande
On 10/10/12 16:03, Greta Yorsh wrote:
Generate epilogue using LDRD in Thumb mode when prefer_ldrd_strd is set in
tune_params.
ChangeLog
gcc/
2012-09-13 Sameera Deshpande
Greta Yorsh
* config/arm/arm.c (thumb2_emit_ldrd_pop): New function.
(arm_expand_epilogue): U
Hi all,
this regression is haunting me a lot in real-world code. It's 'just' a
bogus warning, but it can really swamp the output for modules with
many private procedures.
I have found a fix that is rather trivial in the sense that it's a
one-liner. However, it may not be as trivial conceptually (
I'd like to commit LRA patches on the Sunday. I got a lot of
feedback about LRA for a few last weeks. All patches besides RA part
were approved by Jeff Law. Steven Bosscher and I solved LRA speed
problem on famous PR54146. Now Steven does not object to LRA merge.
I got invaluable revie
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > this patch fixes off-by-one error in the testcase attached. The problem is
> > that
> > dominance based test used by record_estimate to check whether the given
> > statement
> > must be executed at last iteration of the loop is wrong ignor
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:26:13PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> + /* If we felt back to using the mode fail if there was
> + no scalar type for it. */
> + if (scalar_type == NULL_TREE)
> + return NULL_TREE;
s/felt/fell/ ;)
Marek
> > Eric and Dominique could you try it on your respective systems? Thanks in
> > advance.
>
> It works for me, thanks.
It does not for me:
In file included from ../../work/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:1475:0:
../../work/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-cpus.def:54:0: error: "MASK_STRICT_ALIGN"
redefined
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
> 2012-10-19 Paulo Matos
> * tm.texi, tm.texi.in: Add IDENTIFIER_NODE as an alternative
> possibility
> to possible values of decl.
This is OK.
Thanks.
Ian
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2012 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2012 07:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>>
This fixes PR54981, loop distribution was depending on DEBUG_STMT
uses.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
Richard.
2012-10-19 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/54981
* tree-loop-distribution.c (ssa_name_has_uses_outside_loop_p):
As a followup to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00276.html
2012-10-19 Paulo Matos
* tm.texi, tm.texi.in: Add IDENTIFIER_NODE as an alternative possibility
to possible values of decl.
Paulo Matos
doc.patch
Description: doc.patch
On 10/19/2012 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
On 10/19/2012 07:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2012 07:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>>
On 10/19/2012 07:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED
with
the new fu
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED
>>> with
>>> the new functions tree_int_cst_lt
On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED
with
the new functions tree_int_cst_lts_p and tree_int_cst_ltu_p. With the new
implementation of int_cst these functio
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk
and branch.
Richard.
2012-10-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/54976
* tree-vect-stmts.c (get_vectype_for_scalar_type_and_size):
Robustify against odd inner_mode inputs.
Index: gcc/tree-vect-s
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch fixes off-by-one error in the testcase attached. The problem is
> that
> dominance based test used by record_estimate to check whether the given
> statement
> must be executed at last iteration of the loop is wrong ignoring the side
>
On 19 October 2012 14:53, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Zhenqiang Chen
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In function arm_expand_compare_and_swap, oldval is converted to SImode
>> when its "mode" is QImode/HImode. After "FALLTHRU" to "case SImode",
>> we should use "SImode", o
Hi,
this patch fixes off-by-one error in the testcase attached. The problem is that
dominance based test used by record_estimate to check whether the given
statement
must be executed at last iteration of the loop is wrong ignoring the side effect
of other statements that may terminate the program
> The patch builds in 32-bit on my powerpc64-linux system (which showed up
> Eric's problem). I can't test the patch for Dominique's problem, since it
> needs a non-linux system to show up. I verified the debug problem:
>
> Eric and Dominique could you try it on your respective systems? Thanks
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch adds new intrinsics for fxsave, fxsave64, xsave, xsave64,
> xsaveopt and xsaveopt64 instructions
>
> Bootstrapped on x86-64
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
>
> Changelog entry:
> 2012-10-16 Alexander Ivchenko
>
> *
gfortran was ignoring the TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT and thus searched in
/usr/include for files specified with "#include"/"include" files and for
.mod files.
The solution is to do in gcc/fortran/cpp.c the same as it is done in
gcc/c-family/c-opts.c.
However, the TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT also has to be a
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED
> with
> the new functions tree_int_cst_lts_p and tree_int_cst_ltu_p. With the new
> implementation of int_cst these functions will be too big to do inline.
These ne
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This patch changes folding in fold_sign_changed_comparison in a way
> that when we have pointer/non-pointer comparison, we give up folding
> here. The issue is e.g. when we have (intptr_t) &MEM[(void *)&x + 4B]
> == (intptr_t) &y and forwpro
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> you know richi, i did not know who i was actually talking to. i said who
> is this richard beiner person and then i saw the email address.
;)
> On 10/18/2012 08:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Kenneth
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:40:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> The following is small bug fix caught during testing. The shadow value
> for redzone can be negative, so the shadow type must be signed for the
> check to succeed.
>
> Ok for the branch?
Yes (with a proper ChangeLog.asan entry ;
75 matches
Mail list logo
