Hi,
any comments regarding this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00993.html
Bye,
-Andreas-
Hi,
add missing documentation for the mnemonic attribute.
Ok?
Bye,
-Andreas-
2013-05-24 Andreas Krebbel
* doc/md.texi: Document the mnemonic attribute.
---
gcc/doc/md.texi | 67 +++!
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 20 modif
This patch breaks bootstrap on AIX when building libstdc++. I now
receive the following error message:
/tmp/20130524/gcc/include-fixed/math.h: In function 'long double
fmal(long double, long double, long double)':
/tmp/20130524/gcc/include-fixed/math.h:879:135: internal compiler
error: unexpected
Hi,
For this simple case, compiled with option -march=iwmmxt -O,
#define N 64
signed int b[N];
signed long long j[N], d[N];
void foo (void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
j[i] = d[i] << b[i];
}
An internal compiler error occurs,
error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 112 7
This is another orphan PowerPC patch from our backlog.
On native PowerPC, GCC supports -mcpu=native, to generate code for the
same processor flavor that GCC itself is running on. This patch makes
it also possible to configure GCC to default to that option. Tested by
building GCC with this configur
Quoting Joern Rennecke :
Looking into sharing the code with sites that perform essentially the same
function but look somewhat different, I see there's a problem with using
only reg_set_luid to indicate the consistency of a multi-hard-reg-value
in these other contexts.
For values that are use a
[I included Jeff Law also in this conversation]
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Aldy Hernandez
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:23 PM
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. My
This is another orphan PowerPC patch from our backlog.
On native PowerPC, GCC supports -mcpu=native, to generate code for the
same processor flavor that GCC itself is running on. This patch makes
it also possible to configure GCC to default to that option.
Tested by building GCC with this co
On 05/23/2013 10:01 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Some feedback regarding this patch ?
Two quick ones: what if the hint is wrong? I suppose the insertion
succeeds anyway, it's only a little waste of time, right? Is it possible
that for instance something throws in that case and would not now (when
On May 23, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Iyer, Balaji V" wrote:
> If I put things in c-c++-common, how do I test the code with different flags
> (I didn't see any .exp file there)? For example, how can I test if it works
> with "-O2" and then have another test for "-O2 -g" etc.? Do I just use
> multiple "
Hi,
The following patch fixes PR57385
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385)
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 51e7b9e..cca61e7 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2013-05-24 Alexander Ivchenko
+
+ PR tree-ssa/57385
+ * tree-s
Rainer Orth writes:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:56:25PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> >> I think std::chrono::steady_clock::now() needs to be protected with
>>> >> !(__sun__ && __svr4__) in GLIBCXX_3.4.17 since it only became available
>>> >> by default with Jonathan'
On 05/23/2013 02:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:44:48PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/23/2013 02:31 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
I think we need more weigh in from other maintainers on this, rather than
iterating a 5th time today...
This seems like an awful lot of pain.
Ping, for review of ipa-inline.c change.
Sri
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:00:21PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> --- ipa-inline.c (revision 198950)
>>> +++ ipa-inline.c
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Mike Stump wrote:
> This is a smaller patch than maybe it should be. Arguably not recursing
> is a better approach, but then we need to split into two functions, so
> that I can add the REFERENCE_TYPE back to the top. Let me know if you
> prefer it split.
>
> A user actu
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:56:25PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> >> I think std::chrono::steady_clock::now() needs to be protected with
>> >> !(__sun__ && __svr4__) in GLIBCXX_3.4.17 since it only became available
>> >> by default with Jonathan's patch.
>> >
>> > Ah, I see,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:52 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez';
> 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:56:25PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> >> I think std::chrono::steady_clock::now() needs to be protected with
> >> !(__sun__ && __svr4__) in GLIBCXX_3.4.17 since it only became available
> >> by default with Jonathan's patch.
> >
> > Ah, I see, gnu.ver has some
> > #ifdef HA
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 03:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >
> > Regarding commonality between OpenMP and Cilk, note also the new C
> > Parallel Language Extensions WG14 study group chaired by Clark Nelson and
> > aiming to propose a standard set of C extensions for p
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:44:48PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 02:31 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >I think we need more weigh in from other maintainers on this, rather than
> >iterating a 5th time today...
> This seems like an awful lot of pain.
>
> I don't think we should be looking
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:45:32PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >> So, here is an untested 4.8 branch patch. The @GLIBCXX_3.4.17 +
>> >> @@GLIBCXX_3.4.19 stuff gets ugly, I a
Ping**2
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Ping
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> While working on a sched-deps based delay slot scheduler, I've come to
>> the conclusion that the dependencies themselves must indicate whether
>> the
On 05/23/2013 12:06 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Another thing I should mention while you're doing all of these static function
> to class member conversions is that as written we're losing target-specific
> optimizations that can be done on purely local functions. This is trivially
> fixed by p
On 05/23/2013 02:38 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hi Jakub & Aldy, There are a couple reasons why I picked this
hierarchy. I looked at gcc-c-torture directory and it has compile,
execute etc. This is why I had execute, compile and errors directory.
Also, we are planning to have some hybrid tests tha
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 13:31 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > /* The Ith entry is the number of objects on a page or order I. */
> >
> > -static unsigned objects_per_page_table[NUM_ORDERS];
> > +DEFINE_STATIC_STATE_ARRAY(unsigned, objects_per_page_table, NUM_ORDERS)
> >
> > /* The Ith entr
This is a simple oversight in the ref-qualifier code.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. Jakub, is this OK for 4.8.1?
commit 0914d39b7335966f5d828c1b4225beb2e5448755
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Thu May 23 14:01:27 2013 -0400
PR c++/57388
* tree.c (build_ref_qualified_ty
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:45:32PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> So, here is an untested 4.8 branch patch. The @GLIBCXX_3.4.17 +
> >> @@GLIBCXX_3.4.19 stuff gets ugly, I admit, but don't have other solu
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> So, here is an untested 4.8 branch patch. The @GLIBCXX_3.4.17 +
>> @@GLIBCXX_3.4.19 stuff gets ugly, I admit, but don't have other solution.
>> Tested just that it compiles/links, abi list looks good and ab
On 05/23/2013 02:31 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
I think we need more weigh in from other maintainers on this, rather than
iterating a 5th time today...
This seems like an awful lot of pain.
I don't think we should be looking to generate different code for
library vs executable GCC.
I thin
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:04 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On Thu, M
Quoting Eric Botcazou :
The patch is OK on principle, but can you factor out the common code? The
endings of move2add_use_add2_insn and move2add_use_add3_insn are identical so
it would be nice to have e.g. a record_reg_value helper function and call it
from there. Similarly, the 3 new checks l
> /* The Ith entry is the number of objects on a page or order I. */
>
> -static unsigned objects_per_page_table[NUM_ORDERS];
> +DEFINE_STATIC_STATE_ARRAY(unsigned, objects_per_page_table, NUM_ORDERS)
>
> /* The Ith entry is the size of an object on a page of order I. */
>
> -static size_
Hi Rainer,
Rainer Orth wrote:
how should we proceed with this patch now, given the questions above?
Install as is, although it doesn't seem really beneficial, or drop it?
I would install it. Actually, did you get a libquadmath dependence on
Solaris or not?
On Linux - or to be more precise:
Some feedback regarding this patch ?
Thanks
On 05/15/2013 09:49 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a patch to consider the hint that users can give to
enhancement insertion performances. As you can see I only use it for
unordered_multi* containers to potentially avoid research within
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 11:59 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 06:56 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 07:14 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:45:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > I'm attempting to eliminate global state from th
Hello,
this is a simple patch to reduce a bit the noise in PR57324 (undefined
behavior flagged by clang). I only handled some of the most obvious ones.
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-24 Marc Glisse
PR other/57324
* expmed.c (expand_smod_pow2): Use
Thanks to Kai for tracking down the root cause (detailed in the block comment),
and double-checking the testing.
Tested on x86_64-w64-mingw32 and a sanity build for werror on x86_64-linux.
Committed to mainline; I'll wait til 4.8.1 is out for application to that
branch.
r~
PR target/56
On 05/23/2013 11:27 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello Richard et al.,
> Attached, please find a fixed patch. I have done the following changes:
>
> 1. Used the c_finish_loop (...) function instead of building the loop myself
> 2. Got rid of ARRAY_NOTATION_TYPE and just used TREE_TYPE ().
>
On 05/23/2013 12:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:06:01PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> struct foo_c_state
>>> {
>>> some_type bar;
>>> };
>>> # define bar ctxt->x_foo_c_bar;
>>> /* there's a"context *ctxt;" variable somewhere, possibly
>>>using TLS */
>>
>
Hello,
This patch mentions Address Sanitizer on ARM in the gcc-4.9/changes.html pages.
(and re-enables the "General Optimizer Improvements" section)
Is it OK to commit?
Thanks,
Christophe.
Index: gcc-4.9/changes.html
===
RCS file:
On 05/23/13 14:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:27:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2013-05-23 Balaji V. Iyer
* gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test2.c: New test.
I have concerns about the test locations, to me this looks w
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:06:01PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > struct foo_c_state
> > {
> > some_type bar;
> > };
> > # define bar ctxt->x_foo_c_bar;
> > /* there's a"context *ctxt;" variable somewhere, possibly
> >using TLS */
>
> I've an idea that this will perform very badly
On 05/23/2013 03:56 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> The idea is to use (and then not use) C++'s "static" syntax for class
> methods and fields. By making that optional with a big configure-time
> switch, it gives us a way of making state be either global vs on-stack,
> with minimal syntax changes.
Pla
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:27:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> 2013-05-23 Balaji V. Iyer
>
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test2.c: New test.
I have concerns about the test locations, to me this looks way too deep
tree, whether something i
Hello Richard et al.,
Attached, please find a fixed patch. I have done the following changes:
1. Used the c_finish_loop (...) function instead of building the loop myself
2. Got rid of ARRAY_NOTATION_TYPE and just used TREE_TYPE ().
It is passing all the regression tests and not breaking/
On May 23, 2013, at 9:17 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> I want to have a version of the patch committed. The only question now
> is how much of the patch can be committed without exposing potential
> incompatibilities between different object files.
The hard part is to know when for certain, the dat
> - What about define_insn_and_split? Currently, we can define "predicable"
> for a define_insn_and_split,
Yes, you're right. Currently define_subst cannot be applied to
define_insn_and_split. That's not implemented yet because I didn't see
a real usages of define_substs with these (though I'm not
Hi,
this isn't really valid Ada semantics, but some people enable traps-on-fp-
exceptions in the FPU on Solaris and expect the Ada exception to be caught.
There is a glitch with the x87 and the SPARC FPUs: the SIGFPE is delivered
after the faulting instruction by Solaris, so the unwinder is foole
This addresses the case where UID alone is not sufficient to figure
out which statement appears earlier in a BB. Bootstraps and no test
regressions in x86_64 on linux. Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2013-05-23 Easwaran Raman
PR tree-optimization/57337
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (appears_later_in_
So, memory spaces and references are interacting badly in C. The standard
allows conversions during assignment that can change qualifiers. The good
news, all that code is already written and appears to work just fine. The sad
part, we don't use it. The code that needs fixing is in convert_fo
On 05/23/2013 12:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> 2013-05-23 Uros Bizjak
>
> * config/alpha/alpha.md (unspec): Add UNSPEC_XFLT_COMPARE.
> * config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_emit_xfloating_compare): Construct
> REG_EQUAL note as UNSPEC_XFLT_COMPARE unspec.
>
> Patch was bootstrapped and regre
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I was wondering the other day whether we should put these checks on
> trunk and enable them automatically when !defined(__OPTIMIZE__)
FWIW, we keep this under a separate macro so we can turn it on or off
independent of other build options
On 23/05/13 14:40, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
On 22 May 2013 12:47, Vidya Praveen wrote:
Hello,
This patch adds support to AdvSIMD CLZ instruction and adds tests for the
same.
Regression test done for aarch64-none-elf with no issues.
OK?
Regards
VP
---
gcc/ChangeLog
2013-05-22 Vidya Praveen
Hi Michael,
> Hi Kyrylo, Richard,
>
> > What would be the function of (set_attr "ds_predicable" "yes") ?
> > Doesn't the use of already trigger the
> substitution?
> To use define subst one doesn't need to write (set_attr
> "ds_predicable" "yes") - it's triggered by mentioning any of connected
>
On 05/23/2013 10:05 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The PR is about missed simplifications for __builtin_swap. IIUC Andrew has
patches for them at the Tree level, but I think having basic simplifications
at the RTL level for BSWAP is also worthwhile, hence the attached patch.
Tested on x86_64-suse-lin
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> This is patch #3 of our power8 changes. It adds support for vectorizing
> 64-bit
> integer types (V2DI) for plus, subtract, absolute value, minimum, maximum,
> shift, rotate, and comparison. Like the other patches, I have bootstraped
>
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, here is an untested 4.8 branch patch. The @GLIBCXX_3.4.17 +
> @@GLIBCXX_3.4.19 stuff gets ugly, I admit, but don't have other solution.
> Tested just that it compiles/links, abi list looks good and abi.exp testing,
> haven't actu
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 08:54 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 05/23/2013 06:29 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> >
>> > Sandra and David,
>> >
>> > The array-alignment patch is performance-neutral with respect to
>> > CPU2006. All variations wer
On 23 May 2013 16:56, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
>>
>> This patch adds (relatively) cheap bounds and dangling checks to
>> vector, similar to the checks I added to vector in r195373,
>> r195356, etc.
I was wondering the other day whether we should put these checks on
trunk and enable them automaticall
The PR is about missed simplifications for __builtin_swap. IIUC Andrew has
patches for them at the Tree level, but I think having basic simplifications
at the RTL level for BSWAP is also worthwhile, hence the attached patch.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux. Comments?
2013-05-23 Eric Botcazou
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 06:56 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 07:14 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:45:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > I'm attempting to eliminate global state from the insides of gcc.
> > >
> > > gcc/tracer.c has various global v
+cc libstd...@gcc.gnu.org
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> This patch adds (relatively) cheap bounds and dangling checks to
> vector, similar to the checks I added to vector in r195373,
> r195356, etc.
>
> Ok for google branches (gcc-4_7, gcc-4_8, integrati
Greetings,
This patch adds (relatively) cheap bounds and dangling checks to
vector, similar to the checks I added to vector in r195373,
r195356, etc.
Ok for google branches (gcc-4_7, gcc-4_8, integration) ?
Thanks,
--
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_bvector.h
> Sadly no. Most of these (the *agu* ones) are also reached from final.
> For example:
>
> movdi_internal -> ix86_use_lea_for_mov -> ix86_lea_outperforms ->
> distance_non_agu_define -> distance_non_agu_define_in_bb
>
> Likewise for movsi_internal, and zero_extendsidi2. For the
> mov?i_internal d
On 05/22/2013 11:20 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/22/2013 04:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
The problem here is two things:
1. Many GCC developers still don't fully grasp the difference between
cfglayout mode and the older cfgrtl mode.
Abs
Hi Kyrylo, Richard,
> What would be the function of (set_attr "ds_predicable" "yes") ?
> Doesn't the use of already trigger the substitution?
To use define subst one doesn't need to write (set_attr
"ds_predicable" "yes") - it's triggered by mentioning any of connected
subst-attributes in the patt
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 08:54 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 06:29 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > Sandra and David,
> >
> > The array-alignment patch is performance-neutral with respect to
> > CPU2006. All variations were in the noise range.
>
> Well, that settles it; I don't see a
> But I can see that there could be a problem with an earlier value
> that used to be valid in a multi-hard-register sub register to be
> considered to be still valid.
> Setting the mode of every constituent register but the first one
> (which has the new value recorded) to VOIDmode at the same tim
On 05/23/2013 06:29 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Sandra and David,
The array-alignment patch is performance-neutral with respect to
CPU2006. All variations were in the noise range.
Well, that settles it; I don't see any reason to pursue the patch any
further if it's not a performance win after a
Hi, This patch switches the only use of the "Usa" constraint to use "S"
instead and removes the definition and documentation for "Usa".
Regressed for aarch64-none-elf. Applied.
/Marcus
2013-05-23 Chris Schlumberger-Socha
Marcus Shawcroft
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (*
This patch refactors the current implementation of the
aarch64_mov_operand predicate in preparation for the addition of further
memory models. Regressed for aarch64-none-elf. Applied.
/Marcus
2013-05-23 Chris Schlumberger-Socha
Marcus Shawcroft
* config/aarch64/aarch6
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 01:04:36PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I mean something like completely untested following patch, then it would
> > be pretty much enabled for all non-prehistoric Linux builds (there is a risk
> > of it returning garbage on 2.4.x and earlier kernels, if you compile it
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when looking for user defined "mnemonic" attribute definitions the
> code so far only handles (set_attr ...).
>
> Fixed with the attached patch.
Can you also please document this attribute? It's missing from the
gccint manual, AFAIC
Hi,
when looking for user defined "mnemonic" attribute definitions the
code so far only handles (set_attr ...).
Fixed with the attached patch.
Tested on s390x.
Ok?
Bye,
-Andreas-
2013-05-23 Andreas Krebbel
PR target/57377
* gensupport.c (gen_mnemonic_attr): Handle (set (a
On 22 May 2013 12:47, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch adds support to AdvSIMD CLZ instruction and adds tests for the
> same.
> Regression test done for aarch64-none-elf with no issues.
>
> OK?
>
> Regards
> VP
>
> ---
>
> gcc/ChangeLog
>
> 2013-05-22 Vidya Praveen
>
> * conf
Hi Tobias,
>> Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> As requested by Tobias, this patch supports -z ignore with Solaris ld
>>> instead of GNU ld's --as-needed.
>>
>> For reference, my request was motivated by
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00425.html
>> (The patch has been approved, but it does n
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Revised patch included below. The spacing of my pasted in patch text
> looks funky again, let me know if you want the patch as an attachment
> instead.
>
> I addressed all of Steven's comments, except for the suggestion to use
> gcc_assert
>
On 2013-05-23 08:43 , Evgeniy Stepanov wrote:
Hi,
r194664 in google/gcc-4_7 lost one line in
libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/Makefile.am and did not regenerate Makefile.in
(it seems to have been edited manually).
Now re-running automake in libstdc++ results in a non-trivial diff.
The attached patch upd
Checked into trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-05/msg00770.html
Thanks, K
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> 2013/4/29 Mike Stump :
>> On Jan 9, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>>> We have test fail for gcc.dg/cpp/trad/include.c on Android. The
>>
Hi,
r194664 in google/gcc-4_7 lost one line in
libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/Makefile.am and did not regenerate Makefile.in
(it seems to have been edited manually).
Now re-running automake in libstdc++ results in a non-trivial diff.
The attached patch updates Makefile.am. With this patch the difference
On 05/23/2013 01:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Is this sufficient though?
No, but it handles the most common case and is safer than the version on
the trunk, which already required me to fix a couple of holes in the
constexpr code. If no more holes turn up, we could move the trunk
version to
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:57 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Sandra Loosemore
> wrote:
> > On 05/21/2013 04:04 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> There are three issues here:
> >>
> >> 1) Someone in the LTC toolchain team needs to benchmark this patch on
> >> P
On 23 May 2013 11:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:35:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> non-steady clock instead. Or, have you also considered just using
>> for this routine
>> #if _GLIBCXX_HAS_SYS_SYSCALL_H
>> #include
>> #endif
>>
>> #if defined (SYS_clock_gettime) && def
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh
wrote:
> The patch enables FP Reassociation pass AMD bdver1 and bdver2 architectures.
> We note a performance uplift of around ~8% on calculix.
>
> "make -k check" passes.
>
> Is it OK for upstream?
OK.
Thanks,
Uros.
Hi
The patch enables FP Reassociation pass AMD bdver1 and bdver2 architectures.
We note a performance uplift of around ~8% on calculix.
"make -k check" passes.
Is it OK for upstream?
Regards
Ganesh
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
===
--- gc
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 07:14 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:45:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > I'm attempting to eliminate global state from the insides of gcc.
> >
> > gcc/tracer.c has various global variables, which are only used during
> > the lifetime of the execu
This fixes a missed vectorization (missed MAX_EXPR detection
actually). At some point I made the phiprop pass not transform
a load if it wasn't obvious that the loads would be "direct"
at the end. But this pessimizes the case in question as it's
not easy to verify if forwprop will later combine
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:35:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> non-steady clock instead. Or, have you also considered just using
> for this routine
> #if _GLIBCXX_HAS_SYS_SYSCALL_H
> #include
> #endif
>
> #if defined (SYS_clock_gettime) && defined (CLOCK_MONOTONIC)
> syscall (SYS_clock_gettime
Rainer Orth writes:
> Jonathan Wakely writes:
>
>> This alters the configure script to enable C++11 thread library
>> features based on targets that are known to support the features,
>> rather than based on link tests which are disabled by default. With
>> Glibc 2.17 this enables a nanosecond
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have not intended aggregate jump functions to work with bit-fields
> but apparently forgot to include the test to ignore them. PR 57347
> testcase gives a good example why they need to be avoided. If we ever
> decide to optimize f
On 23/05/13 09:17, James Greenhalgh wrote:
Hi,
With the aarch64_cmdi patterns a bug was introduced. While the
unsplit versions of these patterns, which operate in the
SIMD register set, do not clobber CC_REGNUM, the split versions, which
operate in the general purpose register set, do clobber C
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > earlier this week I asked on IRC whether we could have non-top-level
> > BIT_FIELD_REFs and Richi said that we could. However, when I later
> > looked at SRA code, quite apparently it is not designed to handle
> > non-top-level BIT_FIELD_REFs, IMAGPAR
> earlier this week I asked on IRC whether we could have non-top-level
> BIT_FIELD_REFs and Richi said that we could. However, when I later
> looked at SRA code, quite apparently it is not designed to handle
> non-top-level BIT_FIELD_REFs, IMAGPART_EXPRs or REALPART_EXPRs. So in
> order to test w
Hi Richard,
> No, define_subst works across patterns, keyed by attributes. Exactly
> like
> cond_exec, really.
>
> But what you ought to be able to do right now is
>
> (define_subst "ds_predicable"
> [(match_operand 0)]
> ""
> [(cond_exec (blah) (match_dup 0))])
>
> (define_subst_attr "d
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> My PR52979 patch introduced following regression in store_split_bit_field.
> If op0 is a REG or SUBREG, then the code was assuming that unit is still
> BITS_PER_WORD, which isn't the case after PR52979. This patch changes
> those spots to no lo
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This is another case of ADDR_EXPRs not comparing equal from
> operand_equal_p if they contain volatile field references.
> The issue is that we should compare the FIELD_DECLs with
> retaining OEP_CONSTANT_ADDRESS_OF (or maybe not set TREE_
Hi!
My PR52979 patch introduced following regression in store_split_bit_field.
If op0 is a REG or SUBREG, then the code was assuming that unit is still
BITS_PER_WORD, which isn't the case after PR52979. This patch changes
those spots to no longer assume that (second and third hunks).
The first hu
This is another case of ADDR_EXPRs not comparing equal from
operand_equal_p if they contain volatile field references.
The issue is that we should compare the FIELD_DECLs with
retaining OEP_CONSTANT_ADDRESS_OF (or maybe not set TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS
on them - but that's a bigger change).
Bootstrap /
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:58:50AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> 2013-05-23 Richard Biener
>
> PR rtl-optimization/57341
> * ira.c (validate_equiv_mem_from_store): Use anti_dependence
> instead of true_dependence.
>
> * gcc.dg/torture/pr57341.c: New testcase.
Ok, than
Hi,
With the aarch64_cmdi patterns a bug was introduced. While the
unsplit versions of these patterns, which operate in the
SIMD register set, do not clobber CC_REGNUM, the split versions, which
operate in the general purpose register set, do clobber CC_REGNUM.
This causes a problem if schedulin
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
