Hi,
This patch works on the intrinsic calls handling issue in IVOPT mentioned here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01295.html
In find_interesting_uses_stmt, it changes
arg = expr
__builtin_xxx (arg)
to
arg = expr;
tmp = addr_expr (mem_ref(arg));
__builtin_xxx (tmp, ...)
So mem_r
On 11/21/2013 02:41 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> I'm not saying we tolerate "wrong" RTL form, but rather that, it should
> be an issue of the RTL passes, not the backend. The backend should just
> be as much as possible, a "machine description".
Matching non-canonical rtl does nothing but slow dow
Would it be sufficient to
1) get rid of the 'may_increase_size' parameter' in all the unroll
interfaces (basically make it true for O2); and
2) set MAX_COMPLETELY_PEELED_INSNS parameter to be a smaller value for
O2? -- this makes O2 and O3's complete unroll behave in the same way
but with differen
> I suggest you add this to x86-tune.def and enable it for
> bdver3 and bdver4.
The macro TARGET_LOOP_UNROLL_ADJUST is not new. It is already available and is
used by target s390.
Since it is not an "x86 only" feature I didn't add that in x86-tune.def.
Regards
Ganesh
-Original Message-
On 13/11/21 7:21 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
>> On 13/11/20 1:34 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
>> +;; Integer logical Operations
>> +
>> +(define_code_iterator LOGICAL [and ior xor])
>> +(define_code_attr logical_asm [(and "and"
Hi,
Currently, tree unrolling pass(cunroll) does not allow any code
size growth in O2 mode. Code size growth is permitted only if O3 or
funroll-loops/fpeel-loops is used. I have created a patch to allow
partial code size increase in O2 mode. With funroll-loops the maximum
allowed code growth
On 11/20/13 13:59, Steven Bosscher wrote:
* jump.c (reset_insn_reg_label_operand_notes): New function,
split out from ...
(init_label_info): ... here. Reset LABEL_NUSES in cfglayout mode.
* cfgcleanup.c (delete_dead_jump_tables_between): New function,
spl
On 11/20/13 16:48, Cary Coutant wrote:
Sorry, I never saw any feedback, positive or negative, on that, and it
kind of fell off my radar. I think it should still be ready to go in
-- Stage 1 is still open for another day, right? Let me rebase the
patch, kick off a bootstrap and regression tests, a
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:41 PM
> To: Terry Guo
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Subject: Re: [Patch, ARM] New feature to minimize the literal load for
armv7-
> m target
>
> On 06/11/13 06:10, Terry Guo wrot
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:28 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/20/13 10:03, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
> > There are three places the patch doesn't touch:
> >
> > (A) cfgbuild.c (make_edges) has this comment:
> >/* By nature of the way these get numbered, ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR->next_bb
> > block
> >
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:14 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Andrew Dixie and I have been building and using GCC with this feature
> for over six months. Are the collect2 changes okay?
>
> Thanks, David
>
>
> 2013-11-20 David Edelsohn
> Andrew Dixie
>
> libgcc:
>
> * con
On 20 November 2013 23:57, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>
> Is this patch OK? Is so, please commit it because I do not have an svn
> account.
Yes, that looks OK, thanks. I'll commit it tomorrow.
The System V ABI specifies that the initialization functions are
called in depth-first dependence order. The AIX runtime loader does
not impose that ordering and generally initializes shared objects in
breadth-first order. Yeah. Moving on.
The attached patch enhances collect2 to initialize share
On 11/20/2013 02:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/20/13 12:18, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
And per Jakubs suggestion, I'll use XNEW... along with the changelog
oversite.
Assuming that all works, and no regressions, OK?
Yup.
jeff
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new regressions. The
> Let me rebase the
> patch, kick off a bootstrap and regression tests, and I think I can be
> ready to submit it if there are no objections.
Here's the rebased patch. I'm running the bootstrap and regression tests now.
-cary
commit 2d50b3878cd8e96e31b92a5f1d261cbcea6ce0e5
Author: Cary Coutant
D
On 11/20/13, 1:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 20 November 2013 21:44, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 29 October 2013 15:37, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>>> This patch addresses two issues with the libstdc++ testsuite:
>>>
>>> * duplicate "-g -O2" CXXFLAGS
>>> * missing "-g -O2" for remote target
>> Sorry, I never saw any feedback, positive or negative, on that, and it
>> kind of fell off my radar. I think it should still be ready to go in
>> -- Stage 1 is still open for another day, right? Let me rebase the
>> patch, kick off a bootstrap and regression tests, and I think I can be
>> ready
Ping.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> gcov-dump tool does raw dump of profile data. In the long run, we
> should have only one gcov profile manipulation tool, so it might be
> better to incorporate gcov-dump into gcov-tool and get rid of
> 'gcov-dump'.
>
> David
>
> O
On 11/20/13 16:30, Cary Coutant wrote:
Here, finally, is that patch again, reworked to generate line tables
at -g1. I plan to commit this when Stage 1 reopens, but I'd like to
verify that earlier consensus. I also plan to commit this to the
google/main branch, and future merges will go more smoot
On 11/13/2013 04:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
On 11/12/2013 11:27 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Richi,
i am having a little trouble putting this back the way that you want.
The
issue is rem.
what
>> Here, finally, is that patch again, reworked to generate line tables
>> at -g1. I plan to commit this when Stage 1 reopens, but I'd like to
>> verify that earlier consensus. I also plan to commit this to the
>> google/main branch, and future merges will go more smoothly if what I
>> put in googl
Hello Everyone,
This patch was originally submitted October and then I refreshed it
with trunk and submitted again last week. Did anyone get a chance to review
this? Most of the changes are just in parsing and almost all of the processing
is done in the middle part, which is already appr
Chung-Lin Tang writes:
> On 13/11/20 1:34 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
> +;; Integer logical Operations
> +
> +(define_code_iterator LOGICAL [and ior xor])
> +(define_code_attr logical_asm [(and "and") (ior "or") (xor "xor")])
> +
> +(define_insn
Hello Everyone,
Attached, please find a patch that will implement SIMD-enabled
functions for C++ targeting the gomp-4_0-branch. Here are the Changelog
entries. Is this OK to install?
gcc/cp/ChangeLog
2013-11-20 Balaji V. Iyer
* parser.c (cp_parser_direct_declarator): When Cil
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
> A long time ago, I proposed a -gmlt option to generate "minimal line
> tables" (basically -g1 + line tables):
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg02075.html
>
> The consensus from that thread was that instead of a new option, we
>
Oleg Endo wrote:
> * config.gcc (SH extra_objs): Add sh_optimize_sett_clrt pass.o.
The usual way would be
* config.gcc (sh[123456789lbe]*-*-* | sh-*-*): Add
sh_optimize_sett_clrt.o to extra_objs.
OK with that change. Thanks!
Regards,
kaz
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
>
> The attached patch adds another SH specific RTL pass which is supposed
> to optimize clrt and sett instruction usage. As a start, it currently
> just eliminates redundant clrt and sett instructions in cases where the
> T bit value is known. Ho
Hi,
I am not sure where we converged concerning the fork trick. I am using it in my
tree for months and it does save my waiting time for WPA compilations, so I am
re-attaching the patch.
Does it seem resonable for mainline?
As for other plans mentioned on this thread
> >
> > I still have some i
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Gaius Mulley wrote:
> Thanks for all the comments regarding the set of patches. Perhaps the
> statement "use its own linker" is misleading. When gm2 is asked to link
> a module hello.mod it does the following:
Thanks for the explanation. I think this is sufficiently compli
OK. Sorry for miss-reading the message.
In that case, linking in libatomic becomes a separate issue. We don't
need to touch gcc.c in this patch.
Thanks,
-Rong
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rong Xu wrote:
>> Joseph and Andrew, thanks fo
> So, yeah, you're correct. My suggestion was based on the not
> so careful mistake of replacing x*x by x+x and dropping log(2).
> That is, I had x+x = -emax --> x = - emax / 2.
Committed as rev. 205151, thanks for the review!
FX
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rong Xu wrote:
> Joseph and Andrew, thanks for the suggestion. That's really helpful.
>
> Here is the new patch for gcc.c.
> Basically, it's just what you have suggested: enclosing -latomic with
> --as-needed, and using macros.
> For the case of no --as-needed supp
Joseph and Andrew, thanks for the suggestion. That's really helpful.
Here is the new patch for gcc.c.
Basically, it's just what you have suggested: enclosing -latomic with
--as-needed, and using macros.
For the case of no --as-needed support, I use static link. (just found
that some code already u
"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Gaius Mulley wrote:
>
>> As an example of why this is required - the Modula-2 compiler driver
>> uses its own linker. So it needs to both suppress the default linker
>> and also get a list of objects generated from a compiler invocation.
>
> I thi
On 20 November 2013 21:44, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 29 October 2013 15:37, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> This patch addresses two issues with the libstdc++ testsuite:
>>
>> * duplicate "-g -O2" CXXFLAGS
>> * missing "-g -O2" for remote targets
>>
>> The duplicate "-g -O2" flags is a result of
On 29 October 2013 15:37, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> This patch addresses two issues with the libstdc++ testsuite:
>
> * duplicate "-g -O2" CXXFLAGS
> * missing "-g -O2" for remote targets
>
> The duplicate "-g -O2" flags is a result of testsuite_flags.in using
> build-time CXXFLAGS and proc li
On 11/20/2013 07:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:31:38AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Aww ;) Nice improvement. Generally when I see this I always wonder
>> whether we want to do this kind of stuff pre RTL expansion.
>> 1st to not rely on being able to TER, 2nd to final
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
This patch removes real_sqrt. (I rather hope that in general little
if any floating-point constant folding is happening on RTL - it
doesn't seem like the sort of t
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch corrects the various vsx_set_* and vsx_extract_* patterns to
> work correctly with little endian. For the most part this requires the
> usual "subtract from N-1" modification, where N is the number of
> elements.
>
> Extrac
On 20 November 2013 21:14, François Dumont wrote:
>
> Ok to commit ?
>
> François
Yes, thanks.
Please just add something to the ChangeLog about the bit below removed
from safe_local_iterator.h
e.g.
(operator==): Remove duplicate check.
@@ -294,10 +289,6 @@
_M_message(__
Hi
At the time of writing unordered container debug mode, local
iterator didn't have the bucket information. Now they have so I would
like debug mode to use it rather than duplicating the information.
2013-11-21 François Dumont
* include/debug/safe_local_iterator.h (_Safe_local_it
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > This patch removes real_sqrt. (I rather hope that in general little
> > if any floating-point constant folding is happening on RTL - it
> > doesn't seem like the sort of thing for which RTL expansion shou
2013/11/21 Jeff Law :
> On 11/18/13 03:54, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is a patch to support BUILT_IN_CHKP_BNDRET and
>> BUILT_IN_CHKP_BIND_BOUNDS in BUILT_IN_STACK_SAVE result uses.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ilya
>> --
>> 2013-11-15 Ilya Enkovich
>>
>> * tree-ssa-ccp.c (insert_clob
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Rong Xu wrote:
> I could do this in the SPEC
> -Wl,-Bstatic -latomic -Wl,-Bdynamic
> which would link libatomic statically.
> I works for me. But it looks a little weird in gcc driver.
I think we should generally link libatomic with --as-needed by default on
platforms supp
Hello,
With the attached patch, dead jump tables are deleted if a
CLEANUP_EXPENSIVE is performed in cfglayout mode. This helps remove
labels and merge basic blocks, and brings the CFG out of cfglayout
mode more cleanly. It also fixes bugs in LABEL_NUSES updating, which
was broken for cfglayout, an
This implements a missing std::async feature and also implements LWG 2100.
The State_base and Async_state_common types are replaced (but still
exported from libstdc++.so for compatibility) with new versions with
an extra virtual function.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
2013-11-20 Jona
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 09:13:14PM +0100, FX wrote:
> > There is a missed optimization in
> >
> > + if (x < 12)
> > +{
> > + /* Compute directly as ERFC_SCALED(x) = ERFC(x) * EXP(X**2).
> > +This is not perfect, but much better than netlib. */
> > + return erfcq(x) * expq(x
The following patch fixes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59133
The problem was in creation a new additional pseudo by RTL
infrastructure and assigning it a wrong class.
The patch was bootstrapped and tested on x86/x86-64 and ppc64.
Committed as rev. 205141.
2013-11-20 Vladimir
On 11/18/13 03:54, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch to support BUILT_IN_CHKP_BNDRET and BUILT_IN_CHKP_BIND_BOUNDS
in BUILT_IN_STACK_SAVE result uses.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
2013-11-15 Ilya Enkovich
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (insert_clobber_before_stack_restore): Handle
BUILT_IN_CHK
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 12:58 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/20/13 12:18, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > On 11/20/2013 01:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 11/20/13 09:47, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>> * gimplify.h (gimplify_hasher : typed_free_remove, struct
> >>> gimplify_ctx):
> >>> Move to gimplify
> There is a missed optimization in
>
> + if (x < 12)
> +{
> + /* Compute directly as ERFC_SCALED(x) = ERFC(x) * EXP(X**2).
> +This is not perfect, but much better than netlib. */
> + return erfcq(x) * expq(x*x);
> +}
>
> If x is less than approximately -8192, then erf
On 11/19/13 15:41, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 19 Nov 12:02, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/18/13 14:03, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2013/11/19 Jeff Law :
On 11/18/13 12:16, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
With current recursion elimination we will have:
test (int *param1)
{
:
:
_7 = PHI
bounds2 = __builtin_arg_
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
This patch removes real_sqrt. (I rather hope that in general little
if any floating-point constant folding is happening on RTL - it
doesn't seem like the sort of thing for which RTL expansion should be
expected to introduce new folding opportunities,
r205086's implementation of prettyprinting vec<>* didn't check for NULL
before attempting to walk the elements of the vec, leading to noise
within gdb:
(gdb) p cfun->cfg->x_entry_block_ptr->preds
$12 = 0x0
The attached patch fixes this issue, giving this output:
(gdb) p cfun->cfg->x_entry_bl
On 11/20/13 12:18, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/20/2013 01:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/20/13 09:47, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
* gimplify.h (gimplify_hasher : typed_free_remove, struct
gimplify_ctx):
Move to gimplify.c.
* gimplify.c (gimplify_hasher:typed_free_remove): Relocate here.
First,
Sergey Ostanevich wrote:
+ if (LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo)->force_vect)
+warning_at (vect_location, OPT_Wopenmp_simd, "vectorization "
+"did not happen for a simd loop");
+
When I understand the patch correctly, the warning is shown in two cases:
a) Whe
Hi,
The attached patch adds another SH specific RTL pass which is supposed
to optimize clrt and sett instruction usage. As a start, it currently
just eliminates redundant clrt and sett instructions in cases where the
T bit value is known. However, I'm planning on extending it a little in
order t
On 11/20/2013 01:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/20/13 09:47, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
* gimplify.h (gimplify_hasher : typed_free_remove, struct
gimplify_ctx):
Move to gimplify.c.
* gimplify.c (gimplify_hasher:typed_free_remove): Relocate here.
(struct gimplify_ctx): Relocate here and
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 13:00 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Extracting element zero for big endian V2DI or V2DF mode is optimized
> using the scalar register equivalence. Since we can similarly optimize
> extraction of element one for big endian V2DI or V2DF mode, I added a
On 11/19/13 07:04, Marcos Díaz wrote:
My employer is working on the signature of the papers. Could someone
please do the review meanwhile?
I'd prefer to wait until the assignment process is complete. If
something were to happen and we can't use your code the review time
would have been wasted
On 11/19/13 13:18, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Root of all problems if implicit data flow hidden in arg_bounds and
bind_bounds. Calls consume bounds and compiler does not know it. And
input bounds are always expressed via arg_bounds calls and never
expressed via formal args. Obviously optimizers have
On 11/20/13 06:49, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 20 Nov 10:59, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 19 Nov 12:33, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/19/13 05:13, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 19 Nov 13:00, Richard Biener wrote:
I'd say not in the gimplifier either but in va
On 11/20/13 11:59, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Do our coding standards allow using default arguments:
extern void push_gimplify_context (bool in_ssa = false,
bool rhs_cond_ok = false);
Yes, as long as they are not
On 11/20/13 03:55, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
But it looks incredibly fragile if you ICE once something you don't like
happens. You should be able to easily detect the case and "punt",
that is, drop to non-instrumented aka invalidating bounds.
Actually, it is easy detect such cases and invalidate bo
On Nov 20, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> cst_fits_shwi_p replaces cst_and_fits_in_hwi, but if cst_fits_uhwi_p
> goes away then I think we might as well stick with the original name.
So the entire patch seems fine, except for one hunk I'll punt to Kenny to weigh
in and those are t
Hi,
This patch corrects the various vsx_set_* and vsx_extract_* patterns to
work correctly with little endian. For the most part this requires the
usual "subtract from N-1" modification, where N is the number of
elements.
Extracting element zero for big endian V2DI or V2DF mode is optimized
usin
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Rong Xu wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rong Xu wrote:
Hi all,
I merged this old patch with current trunk. I also make t
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Do our coding standards allow using default arguments:
>
> extern void push_gimplify_context (bool in_ssa = false,
>bool rhs_cond_ok = false);
Yes, as long as they are not expensive to construct (so, PODs most
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:29:50AM +0100, FX wrote:
> This patch fixes libgfortran?s binary128 [aka real(kind=16)] variant of
> ERFC_SCALED. The original code, which I had lifted from netlib, gives only 18
> significant decimal digits, which is not enough for binary128 (33 decimal
> digits).
>
On 11/20/13 03:02, Richard Biener wrote:
Note that this, the intrusiveness of the feature and the questionable
gain makes me question whether GCC should have support for this
feature (and whether we really should rush this in this late).
Thus, I hereby formally ask to push back this feature to
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Rong Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rong Xu wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I merged this old patch with current trunk. I also make the following
>>> changes
>>> (1) not using weak references. No
On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:58 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> I've committed a patch upstream to convert TREE_INT_CST_LOW to tree_to_[su]hwi
> if there is an obvious tree_fits_[su]hwi_p guard.
So, in general, I like putting them on trunk, and then merging them into the
branch. When that is done, the
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rong Xu wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I merged this old patch with current trunk. I also make the following changes
>> (1) not using weak references. Now every *profile_atomic() has it's
>> own .o so that none of t
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:47:42AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> + static inline struct gimplify_ctx *
> + ctx_alloc (void)
> + {
> + struct gimplify_ctx * c = ctx_pool;
> +
> + if (c)
> + ctx_pool = c->prev_context;
> + else
> + c = (struct gimplify_ctx *) xmalloc (sizeof (struct g
Am 20.11.2013 16:45, schrieb Philippe Baril Lecavalier:
Embarrassing typos, my apologies. I was told to specify that I don't
have commit access, but since this mention is irrelevant, I modified
my suggested notice in about.html to reflect that. See attached.
Well, stating that one doesn't have
On 11/20/13 09:47, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
* gimplify.h (gimplify_hasher : typed_free_remove, struct gimplify_ctx):
Move to gimplify.c.
* gimplify.c (gimplify_hasher:typed_free_remove): Relocate here.
(struct gimplify_ctx): Relocate here and add 'malloced' field.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Gaius Mulley wrote:
> As an example of why this is required - the Modula-2 compiler driver
> uses its own linker. So it needs to both suppress the default linker
> and also get a list of objects generated from a compiler invocation.
I think you'll need to explain that a lot
On 20-11-2013 14:23, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Adhemerval Zanella
> wrote:
>
>> libgcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2013-11-20 Adhemerval Zanella
>>
>> * config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble.c (__gcc_qadd): Fix add
>> of normal number and qNaN to not raise an inexact exc
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Steamroller processors contain a loop predictor and a loop buffer, which may
> make unrolling small loops less important.
> When unrolling small loops for steamroller, making the unrolled loop fit in
> the loop buffer s
On 11/20/13 10:03, David Malcolm wrote:
I went through the comment lines, rewording the ones where the meaning
was obvious to me. Attached is a patch that does so; successfully
compiled stage1; OK for trunk? (these are just changes to comments, so
not sure a full bootstrap is necessary).
Yea, i
Hi,
Steamroller processors contain a loop predictor and a loop buffer, which may
make unrolling small loops less important.
When unrolling small loops for steamroller, making the unrolled loop fit in the
loop buffer should be a priority.
This patch uses a heuristic approach (number of memory re
Here are some proposed patches which allow front end compiler drivers to
add command line arguments, add their own spec functions and also to
disable the default linker.
It does mean that each language front end compiler driver will need an
additional stub function, which at the very least does
On 11/20/13 10:27, Robert Suchanek wrote:
Hi,
I'm pinging for the review of a patch.
Original post: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01608.html
The attached patch is slightly modified as the indentation was incorrect
and realised that after sending the email last time.
If the patc
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> I suggest to remove real_sqrt and the only use in simplify-rtx.c instead
> (or fix it to use MPFR as well - your choice).
This patch removes real_sqrt. (I rather hope that in general little
if any floating-point constant folding is happening on RTL -
"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> > Index: gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt/gcc/config/mips/mips.h
>> > ===
>> > --- gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt.orig/gcc/config/mips/mips.h2013-11-12
>> > 15:31:46.75
Ping...
thanks,
Cong
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Cong Hou wrote:
> Any more comments?
>
>
>
> thanks,
> Cong
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Cong Hou wrote:
>> Ping?
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Cong
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Cong Hou wrote:
>>> Hi James
>>>
>>> Sorry for
On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:38 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> One simple switch to wi::add and one simplification that became possible
> after Kenny's patch to remove the other real_from_integer.
>
> Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu and applied as obvious (I hope).
Look good.
Richi,
We noticed three problems with the place_field on the wide-int
branch.They come from problems on the trunk. So i assume you want
me to fix the trunk and push back into the branch. The question is how
do you want them fixed?
1) at line 1198, rli->offset is tested as an unsigned
Hi,
I'm pinging for the review of a patch.
Original post: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01608.html
The attached patch is slightly modified as the indentation was incorrect
and realised that after sending the email last time.
If the patch is OK, could someone commit the patch? I d
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> So the reasoning is that, after your RECIP.fmt patch, the only direct uses
> of ISA_HAS_FP4 for instruction selection are indexed loads and stores.
> That's why extending them to ISA_MIPS32R2 && !TARGET_FLOAT64 allows
> ISA_HAS_FP4 to be simplified.
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Index: gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt/gcc/config/mips/mips.h
> > ===
> > --- gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt.orig/gcc/config/mips/mips.h 2013-11-12
> > 15:31:46.758734464 +
> > +++ gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt/g
This patch inserts a #if 0 around existing code, which looks suspicious,
and appears to be missing documentation in invoke.texi for the new
command-line options, and extend.texi for the new built-in functions.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
> > I would like to see a clear description of what happens with all eight
> > combinations of (glibc version does or doesn't support this, GCC building
> > glibc does or doesn't support this, GCC building user program does or
> > doesn't support th
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:07 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-20 10:08:45 +0100, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
> [...]
> > I wonder if there are any more cases like this missed... Could you
> > please check that? Something like:
> >
> > egrep -w "ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR|EXIT_BLOCK_PTR" gcc/*.
This fixes an uninitialized variable introduced by the double_int rewrite.
Tested on SPARC/Solaris, applied on the mainline and 4.8 branch.
2013-11-20 Eric Botcazou
PR target/59207
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_fold_builtin) :
Make sure neg2_ovf is set before being use
On 11/20/13 06:56, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/20/2013 08:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:35:28AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I also hacked up the compiler to report what the 'top' of the stack
was for a compilation unit. I then ran it through a bootstrap and
full testsu
On 11/20/13 06:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:35:28AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I also hacked up the compiler to report what the 'top' of the stack
was for a compilation unit. I then ran it through a bootstrap and
full testsuite run of all languages, and looked for the ma
On 11/20/2013 11:30 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/20/2013 10:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Trevor Saunders
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:18:07PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 0
On 13/11/20 1:34 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
+;; Integer logical Operations
+
+(define_code_iterator LOGICAL [and ior xor])
+(define_code_attr logical_asm [(and "and") (ior "or") (xor "xor")])
+
+(define_insn "si3"
+ [(set (match_opera
2013/11/20 Ilya Enkovich :
> 2013/11/20 Uros Bizjak :
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> 2013/11/20 Uros Bizjak :
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ilya Enkovich
wrote:
>> >> > Here is a patch to add size relocation and instruction to obtain
>
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
