Vladimir Makarov writes:
> I am thinking that pseudo assignment (reg_renumber) could be used to
> differ base and index registers too. Although I am not sure it is worth
> to do as it creates strange dependencies and that it can help probably
> in very rare cases or only for some weird targets
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Vladimir Makarov writes:
>> On 10/25/2012 05:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Hi Vlad,
>>>
>>> As discussed in the reviews, one of the things that worried me was the
>>> combination of:
>>>
>>> 1) the displacement fixup code in process_address assumes that the addre
Both jump threading and loop induction variable optimizations were
dropping useful debug information, and it took improvements in both for
debug info about relevant variables in the enclosed testcase to survive
all the way to the end.
The first problem was that jump threading could bypass blocks c
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
>> removed? It will be useful to investiage IRA regressions.
>
> You mean -fno-lra, and s/IRA/LRA/, right? I think the reas
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This patch is an attempt at the rou
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
> removed? It will be useful to investiage IRA regressions.
You mean -fno-lra, and s/IRA/LRA/, right? I think the reason for no
compiler switch is that while returning false from ix
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "H.J. Lu"
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:58 -0700
>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov
>>> wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It
From: "H.J. Lu"
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:58 -0700
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov
>> wrote:
>>> Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
>>> LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by imp
On 10/26/2012 06:48 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Ralf Corsepius schrieb:
I've applied the patch below to trunk and gcc-4.7-branch.
It contains 2 RTEMS specific cleanups which have been in use for
avr-rtems for quite a while.
Ralf
2012-10-26 Ralf Corsépius
* config/avr/rtems.h (TARGET
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
>> LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals
>> which resulted in a lot of new
With Richard Sandiford's address decomposition patch, Sparc
looks really good on the 32-bit side. This is the patch I
am using.
2012-10-25 David S. Miller
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_lra_p): New function.
(sparc_spill_class): New function.
(TARGET_LRA_P): Define.
Ralf Corsepius schrieb:
I've applied the patch below to trunk and gcc-4.7-branch.
It contains 2 RTEMS specific cleanups which have been in use for
avr-rtems for quite a while.
Ralf
2012-10-26 Ralf Corsépius
* config/avr/rtems.h (TARGET_OS_CPP_BUILTINS): Remove
__USE_INIT_
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:57:38PM -0700, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> for most others. This patch disables all lwa insns in 32-bit mode.
> We can later re-enable it if the assembler used handles it properly,
Well, you can now do that. Mainline gas and ld are now fixed.
--
Alan Modra
Australia
Jack Howarth writes:
> 2012-10-25 Jack Howarth
>
> target/PR55061
> * configure.ac: Check for _Unwind_GetIPInfo function declaration.
> * configure: Regenerate.
>
> Index: libbacktrace/configure.ac
> ===
> --- li
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch adds several sanity checks that inline summaries are up to date and
> makes sense; it also fixes several minor updating bugs and two perhaps
> important
> integer overflows.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, will commi
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
The following patch fixes reported bootstrap failure when
--disable-checking is used.
The patch was successfully bootstrapped with and without
--disable-checking.
2012-10-25 Vladimir Makarov
* lra-int.h (lra_assert): Redefine it gcc_checking_assert.
* lra-constraints.c (chec
On 12-10-25 4:35 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This seems to fix it, is it correct? (Untested as I'm still waiting
for a bootstrap to finish)
I'd do it the other way around:
--- lra-constraints.c 2012-10-24 13:39:19.830019609 -0700
+++
On 12-10-25 11:04 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 12-10-25 3:57 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
It is ok for me to commit the patch. I have no power to approve
changes for files outside LRA although I think the place is not
important for approval as LRA now only use it and with the point of
LRA
Currently gcc trunk fails to bootstrap on powerpc-apple-darwin9, using the
default
system compiler, in libbacktrace due to the absence of _Unwind_GetIPInfo() in
the
unwind.h header of Apple gcc 4.0.1 compiler. The attached patch eliminates this
failure by enhancing the configure.ac test for th
On 12-10-25 3:57 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
for decomposing addresses into constituent parts. It applies
on top of the patches I sent out earlier today. To summarise
that mess
On 12-10-25 4:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
On 10/25/2012 05:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
When testing other patches, I was misled by:
/* Addresses were legitimate before LRA. So if the address has
two registers than it can have two of them.
Binary search shows that the culprit for the recent gdb regression is
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=192719, it failed
the following tests:
gdb.base/store.exp
gdb.base/restore.exp
The block_location patch also breaks the following tests:
gdb.cp/method.exp
But the error is fix
Hi,
in this very old regression, which AFAICS dates back to when we started
using VECs, in templates we wrongly handle:
new char[size]
like
new char[size]()
Turns out the issue is simple: in build_new, when *init is null we
wrongly turn it into a pointer to an empty vector when we
Hi,
I've applied the patch below to trunk and gcc-4.7-branch.
It contains 2 RTEMS specific cleanups which have been in use for
avr-rtems for quite a while.
Ralf
2012-10-26 Ralf Corsépius
* config/avr/rtems.h (TARGET_OS_CPP_BUILTINS): Remove
__USE_INIT_FINI__.
* config/avr/t-rtems (LIB
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> 2012-10-25 Segher Boessenkool
>
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.md (sign_extend:SI patterns): Split
> the memory case off. Merge the two register cases. Change
> the condition for the memory case to require
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> This fixes the ICE with -m32 -mpowerpc64 on many of the testcases that
> use atomics:
> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-linux, -m64,-m32,-m32/-mpowerpc64;
> no new failures, and the above improvements.
>
> Okay to apply?
> 2012-10
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> And PR bootstrap/55068 due to assert failure in push_reload() .
GCC bootstrapped on AIX with your patches. Thanks for fixing the
problems so quickly.
- David
Many (most? all?) assemblers (and really the 32-bit ABIs) do not handle
lwa and ld properly. Those instructions have a 14-bit offset field, and
the low two bits of the instruction are the extended opcode. But the
32-bit toolchains use a 16-bit offset relocation, clobbering the low
two bits. See
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:48:07PM -0700, Wei Mi wrote:
> Thanks for all the comments. Fixed. Ok to checkin?
>
> 2012-10-25 Wei Mi
>
> * varasm.c (assemble_variable): Set asan_protected even
> for decls that are already ASAN_RED_ZONE_SIZE or more
> bytes aligned.
Yes,
This fixes the ICE with -m32 -mpowerpc64 on many of the testcases that
use atomics:
gcc:
-# of expected passes 108465
-# of unexpected failures 365
+# of expected passes 108499
+# of unexpected failures 303
libgomp:
-# of expected passes 8664
-# of unexpe
Hi,
Thanks for all the comments. Fixed. Ok to checkin?
2012-10-25 Wei Mi
* varasm.c (assemble_variable): Set asan_protected even
for decls that are already ASAN_RED_ZONE_SIZE or more
bytes aligned.
Index: varasm.c
==
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:23:41AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> +/* Instrument the strlen builtin call pointed to by ITER.
> +
> + This function instruments the access to the first byte of the
> + argument, right before the call. After the call it instruments the
> + access to the last byt
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
>>>
>>> for decomposing ad
Jakub Jelinek writes:
>> +instrument_derefs (iter, dest, location, is_store);
>
> BUILTIN_ATOMIC_LOAD* are just loads and so should clear is_store.
Done.
>
>> + if (len != NULL_TREE)
>> +{
>> + is_store = (dest != NULL_TREE);
>> +
>> + if (source0 != NULL_TREE)
>> +instru
This was discovered while playing around with LRA, but of course
I regstrapped this using the existing reload pass.
Constraint "U" is a register constraint, that accepts either a
pseudo or an even numbered hard register. But it is bogus, and
in fact unnecessary.
First, it isn't marked as a "def
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
>>
>> for decomposing addresses into constituent parts. It applies
>> on top of the patches
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
>
> for decomposing addresses into constituent parts. It applies
> on top of the patches I sent out earlier today. T
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:32:58PM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> + tree source0 = NULL_TREE, source1 = NULL_TREE,
> +dest = NULL_TREE, len = NULL_TREE;
> + bool is_store = true;
...
nothing sets is_store here.
...
> +
> + instrument_derefs (iter, dest, location, is_store);
BUILTIN_ATOMI
Why not relaxing the check even more to allow for instance 128 byte
alignment which may be common?
David
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:46:47PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> The change looks fine to me, but why not just move the alignment chec
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:46:47PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> The change looks fine to me, but why not just move the alignment check
> into asan_protect_global? I'll defer to David or Jakub in this.
asan_protect_global has
|| DECL_ALIGN_UNIT (decl) > 2 * ASAN_RED_ZONE_SIZE
check among other th
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:32:33PM -0700, Wei Mi wrote:
> A small patch to remove the bogus error reports exposed in the
> spec2000 testing. In varasm.c, asan_protected should be equivalent
> with asan_protect_global (decl) all the time, or else compiler will
> not insert redzones for some globals
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A small patch to remove the bogus error reports exposed in the
> spec2000 testing. In varasm.c, asan_protected should be equivalent
> with asan_protect_global (decl) all the time, or else compiler will
> not insert redzones for some globals
Should the alignment check be moved into 'asan_protect_global' method?
David
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A small patch to remove the bogus error reports exposed in the
> spec2000 testing. In varasm.c, asan_protected should be equivalent
> with asan_protect_global (d
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> case BUILT_IN_ATOMIC_ALWAYS_LOCK_FREE:
> case BUILT_IN_ATOMIC_IS_LOCK_FREE:
> I think don't touch the memory at all (or not necessarily),
> and IMHO you don't want to handle the BUILT_IN_*_N variants either,
> those are just FE builtins that are lowered to the corr
Hi,
A small patch to remove the bogus error reports exposed in the
spec2000 testing. In varasm.c, asan_protected should be equivalent
with asan_protect_global (decl) all the time, or else compiler will
not insert redzones for some globals planned to be protected.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2012-10-25 Wei M
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Change hash_table to support a comparator type different from the
> value type stored in the hash table. The 'find' functions now may
> take a different type from the value type. This requires introducing
> a second typedef into the Descri
Change hash_table to support a comparator type different from the
value type stored in the hash table. The 'find' functions now may
take a different type from the value type. This requires introducing
a second typedef into the Descriptor conceptual type. Change the
Descriptor concept to use type
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:28:32PM -0700, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> > 2012-10-18 Teresa Johnson
> >
> > * ree.c (add_removable_extension): Remove unnecessary
> > mode check with other extension.
> >
> > 2012-10-18 Teresa Johnson
> >
> > * gcc.c-torture/execute/20111227-2
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Ping.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > This patch fixes bugs introduced by my previous patch to propagate
>> > profiles during switch expansion. Bootstrap and profiledbootstrap
>> > successfu
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> This seems to fix it, is it correct? (Untested as I'm still waiting
> for a bootstrap to finish)
I'd do it the other way around:
--- lra-constraints.c 2012-10-24 13:39:19.830019609 -0700
+++ lra-constraints.c 2012-10-25 13:32:39.99001
ping.
Teresa
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>
> The attached patch implements avoids conservative behavior in REE by allowing
> removal of redundant extends when the def feeds another extend with a
> different
> mode. This works because in merge_def_and_ext only calls com
This seems to fix it, is it correct? (Untested as I'm still waiting
for a bootstrap to finish)
diff --git a/gcc/lra-constraints.c b/gcc/lra-constraints.c
index 4b35726..827fd4d 100644
--- a/gcc/lra-constraints.c
+++ b/gcc/lra-constraints.c
@@ -1216,11 +1216,13 @@ check_and_process_move (bool *cha
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 10/25/2012 05:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Hi Vlad,
>>
>> When testing other patches, I was misled by:
>>
>>/* Addresses were legitimate before LRA. So if the address has
>> two registers than it can have two of them. We should also
>> not worr
From: Richard Sandiford
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:57:05 +0100
> I'm hoping this will help with the x32 problems that HJ is seeing.
> Like Vlad, I don't have a set-up to try for certain, but I tried
> compiling a set of non-x32 gcc .ii files with -mx32 -maddress-mode=long
> and it fixed all but on
On 10/25/2012 04:06 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
On 10/25/2012 05:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I see a potential bug here. We should not reject new equiv values for
base and index here. After we decided to use equiv it should be changed
everywhere as we remove ini
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 10/25/2012 05:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Hi Vlad,
>>
>> As discussed in the reviews, one of the things that worried me was the
>> combination of:
>>
>> 1) the displacement fixup code in process_address assumes that the address
>> is exactly equal to BASE_L
This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
for decomposing addresses into constituent parts. It applies
on top of the patches I sent out earlier today. To summarise
that message, the main point is to have an address descrip
On 10/25/2012 05:50 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
As promised a while ago, here's a patch to make process_address
create canonical rtl. It also fixes the base_reg_class for the
index + disp => base + index case.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. Also tested by making sure that there
were no
On 10/25/2012 05:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
As discussed in the reviews, one of the things that worried me was the
combination of:
1) the displacement fixup code in process_address assumes that the address
is exactly equal to BASE_LOC + INDEX_LOC + DISP (with null values
b
On 10/25/2012 05:21 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
This patch splits out the code to verify an address, so that it's
easier to experiment with different approaches. See the next patch
for one example where this might be useful in future.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install?
Yes
On 10/25/2012 05:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
When testing other patches, I was misled by:
/* Addresses were legitimate before LRA. So if the address has
two registers than it can have two of them. We should also
not worry about scale for the same reason. */
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Dehao" == Dehao Chen writes:
>
> Dehao> This patch fixes debug info for expr and jump stmt.
> Dehao> Bootstrapped and passed gcc regression tests.
> Dehao> Is it okay for trunk?
>
> I wonder whether this affects the gdb test suite result
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> This patch fixes debug info for expr and jump stmt.
>
> It would be nice to have testcases...
Sure, I'll try to forge some testcases for this.
>
>> * cfgexpand.c (set_expr_location_r): New callback function.
>> (gimple_assign_rhs_to_tree)
I've committed the following fix for PR 55063:
-cary
2012-10-25 Cary Coutant
PR debug/55063
* dwarf2out.c (prune_unused_types_prune): Check whether DIE is
already a declaration.
Index: dwarf2out.c
===
-
On 10/24/12 21:02, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The following patch fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55055
In this case, operand was an address containing subreg. LRA before
the patch processed only operands which are subregs of regs.
The patch was successfully bootstrapp
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
>> There is a decent change that this will break something on non-x86
>> systems. I will do what testing I am able to do after the commit.
>
> As expected, it did break the Solaris libgo build:
>
> * udpsock_posix.g
From: David Miller
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:39:23 -0400 (EDT)
> Eric and Rainer, I think that functionally this patch is fully ready
> to go into the tree except for the Solaris aspects which I do not have
> the means to work on. Have either of you made any progress in this
> area?
Just wonder
From: Richard Sandiford
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:34:00 +0100
> David Miller writes:
>> I'll add the straightforward check to sparc's legitimate_address_p,
>> but I'm really surprised you never hit this case in your testing.
>
> Adding the check sounds like the right thing to do. And remember
> "Dehao" == Dehao Chen writes:
Dehao> This patch fixes debug info for expr and jump stmt.
Dehao> Bootstrapped and passed gcc regression tests.
Dehao> Is it okay for trunk?
I wonder whether this affects the gdb test suite results.
I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but there's been
> This patch fixes debug info for expr and jump stmt.
It would be nice to have testcases...
> * cfgexpand.c (set_expr_location_r): New callback function.
> (gimple_assign_rhs_to_tree): Walk the expr recursively.
> (expand_call_stmt): Likewise.
> (expand_gimple_stmt_1): Likewise.
This cannot be r
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> I don't know why you think so (It seems that the points mentioned in
> http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html mainly apply to
> release binaries, not sanitized ones), but for now let's drop the
> static link request.
Yeah
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:00:03AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> How about statically linking just for executables, not shared library buid?
>
> That is IMHO still a bad idea.
I don't know why you think so (It seems that the points men
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:00:03AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> How about statically linking just for executables, not shared library buid?
That is IMHO still a bad idea.
Jakub
Hi,
this patch adds several sanity checks that inline summaries are up to date and
makes sense; it also fixes several minor updating bugs and two perhaps important
integer overflows.
Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, will commit it shortly.
Honza
* ipa-cp.c (ipcp_discover_new_direct_e
Hi,
This patch fixes debug info for expr and jump stmt.
Bootstrapped and passed gcc regression tests.
Is it okay for trunk?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2012-10-25 Dehao Chen
* tree-eh.c (do_return_redirection): Set location for jump statement.
(do_goto_redirection): Likewise.
(frob_into_b
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:48:54AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> > Why should be libasan linked statically by default?
>
>> There are a couple of reasons:
>>
>> 1) it makes running sanitized binary on remote machines which does not
>> ha
On 10/23/2012 07:38 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
Hi All,
This fix is aimed to remove stability issues with using pre-reload
scheduler for x86 targets caused by cross-block motion of function
arguments passed in likely-spilled HW registers. We found one more
issue in a process of more detail testin
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:48:54AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> > Why should be libasan linked statically by default?
> There are a couple of reasons:
>
> 1) it makes running sanitized binary on remote machines which does not
> have libasan installed easier;
> 2) There is no guarantee that l
The following patch fixes a crash in lra.c::check_rtl on a big
spec2000 test. Unfortunately, I can not extract a small test. The
crash occurs exactly in complicated processing of a big function. The
reason for the crash was in ignoring insn for reload processing after a
hard reg assignment
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> librt is a very bad name, that clashes with glibc librt, would only create
>>> confusion.
>>
>> Ok, then we shoul
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> librt is a very bad name, that clashes with glibc librt, would only create
>> confusion.
>
> Ok, then we should pick something that is not confusing but reflect
> the fact the
On 10/25/2012 04:38 PM, Michael Eager wrote:
On 10/25/2012 06:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Hi,
And another RTEMS-patch, I'd like to apply to GCC trunk and
GCC-4_7-branch: Adding
microblaze*-rtems* target.
This patch has been in use as part of the RTEMS gcc-4.7 patches for
ca. 1/2 a year.
OK
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:24:51AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> To accommodate tsan (and msan in the future), the directory structure
>> needs to be changed. The top level directory can be called something
>> like librt with the followi
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:24:51AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> To accommodate tsan (and msan in the future), the directory structure
> needs to be changed. The top level directory can be called something
> like librt with the following subdirs: asan, tsan, sanitizer_common,
> and interception
To accommodate tsan (and msan in the future), the directory structure
needs to be changed. The top level directory can be called something
like librt with the following subdirs: asan, tsan, sanitizer_common,
and interception. Also the libasan should be linked in statically by
default.
thanks,
Da
The specification of C++11 inheriting constructors doesn't seem to
handle C-style variadic functions, so we just drop the ... when
declaring the constructor in the derived class. This patch adds a
warning about that, on by default.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit e38315
Threadprivate was complaining about a template-id being an incomplete
type, because we weren't calling complete_type to instantiate it.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 055a6956282763467ce0b84776dbb49e89c5a347
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mon Oct 15 11:06:25 2012 -0700
In Portland we decided that we should allow defaulted move ctors/op=
even if they could throw or might move a virtual base more than once,
and that overload resolution should ignore an implicitly deleted move
ctor/op=. This patch implements that resolution.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applyin
David Miller writes:
> From: David Miller
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:06:55 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> From: David Miller
>> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>> The first issue sparc runs into is that it does not define it's
>>> extra constraints properly. In particular 'T' and 'W' must u
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Gunther Nikl writes:
>
>> While working with GCC 4.7, I noticed that the -m68020-40 and -m68020-60
>> options are broken.
>
> Broken in which way?
These compound options are supposed to cause m68k.c/m68k_option_override
to set m68k_cpu_entry and m68k_tune_entry. However
On 10/25/2012 06:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Hi,
And another RTEMS-patch, I'd like to apply to GCC trunk and GCC-4_7-branch:
Adding
microblaze*-rtems* target.
This patch has been in use as part of the RTEMS gcc-4.7 patches for ca. 1/2 a
year.
OK to apply.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagerc
On 10/24/2012 04:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Essentially, what really matters is that the first field must be a pointer.
In this case, yes. Let's just say what the issue is: the type of the
first field has a different ABI from the class overall.
Jason
> + /* If we have a basic-block with no successors that does not
> + end with a control statement or a noreturn call connect it
> + to itself. This situation can occur when inlining a noreturn
> + call that does in fact return. */
The '-' is superfluous in basic-block. And
Hi,
And another RTEMS-patch, I'd like to apply to GCC trunk and
GCC-4_7-branch: Adding microblaze*-rtems* target.
This patch has been in use as part of the RTEMS gcc-4.7 patches for ca.
1/2 a year.
Ralf
2012-04-19 Ralf Corsépius
* config.gcc (microblaze*-*-rtems*): New target.
* confi
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> +
> + /* If we have a basic-block with no successors that does not
> +end with a control statement or a noreturn call connect it
> +to itself. This situation can occur when inlining a noreturn
> +call that does
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:58:26PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > So the bug here is really in find_many_sub_basic_blocks then
> > > and your patch would certainly avoid triggering its bug
> > > (or i
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> while looking into cunroll issues I noticed that we miss quite lot of
> important unrolling
> at -O2 for EON because we think it will increase code size. This is because
> we do not
> account the fact that making array index constant is good thing
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Hmm, also in ASM/call/return? It will definitely make quite a fuzz into
> > the cost metric
> > by making a=b+c to have cost of 3 instead of 1 as it have now. I am not
> > 100% sure if
> > a+b should be more expensive than a+1.
> > I can give that a
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > +/* For operands of load/stores estimate cost of the address computations
> > > + involved. */
> > > +
> > > +static int
> > > +estimate_operand_cost (tree op)
> > > +{
> > > + int cost = 0;
> > > + while (handled_component_p (op))
> > > +{
>
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
