Hi,
It turned out that the values for PARAM_SCHED_AUTOPREF_QUEUE_DEPTH that I
initially selected were unfortunate. The value of "-1" is special in parameter
handling code, and it can't be used on command line. This makes it impossible
to disable scheduler autoprefetcher from command line ("-1
Hi,
This patch fixes a minor issue in scheduler debug output: statistics for
rank_for_schedule autoprefetcher decisions are not being logged and printed out.
OK for stage 1? Tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf, and I will bootstrap and test
the patch on trunk before committing.
Thank you,
--
Maxim
On 01/30/2015 06:49 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ FOR_EACH_FUNCTION_WITH_GIMPLE_BODY (node)
+if (DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (node->decl))
If we do this for all functions, not just those with
DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN set...
+ /* FIXME: What does this do for templates? I think we don't want to
+
On 01/31/15 17:47, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
+/* If we are testing a single bit resulting from a binary
+ operation in precision P1 where the operands were widened
+ precision P2 and the tested bit is the sign bit for
+ precision P2. Rewrite so the binary o
I've checked in this patch to complete the changes for adopting "x86" as the
official name of that target by re-alphabetizing the relevant sections. The
patch is very large due to the amount of material being moved around, but
entirely cut-and-paste. I found that there were several other entri
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
> +/* If we are testing a single bit resulting from a binary
> + operation in precision P1 where the operands were widened
> + precision P2 and the tested bit is the sign bit for
> + precision P2. Rewrite so the binary operation is in
> + precision P2.
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015, Yoshinori Sato wrote:
> + * config/h8300/linux.h: New file.
> + * config/h8300/t-linux: New file.
These files don't appear to be included in the patch.
> +h8300-*-linux*)
> + tmake_file="t-linux h8300/t-linux t-fpbit"
> + tm_file="$tm_file h8300/h8300-lib.h"
On 01/27/2015 10:17 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
-@node i386 and x86-64 Options
-@subsection Intel 386 and AMD x86-64 Options
+@node x86 Options
+@subsection x86 Options
@cindex i386 Options
-@cindex x86-64 Options
+@cindex x86 Options
+@cindex IA-32 Options
@cindex Intel 386 Options
@cindex AMD
On January 31, 2015 10:10:27 PM GMT+01:00, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
>On January 31, 2015 9:17:57 PM GMT+01:00, Mike Stump
> wrote:
>>On Jan 31, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
>> wrote:
>>> On January 31, 2015 10:53:39 AM GMT+01:00, Uros Bizjak
>> wrote:
Hello!
>>>
>>> Re
On January 31, 2015 9:17:57 PM GMT+01:00, Mike Stump
wrote:
>On Jan 31, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> wrote:
>> On January 31, 2015 10:53:39 AM GMT+01:00, Uros Bizjak
> wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>
>> Reminds me of just auto-wiping dump files:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-1
On Jan 31, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> On January 31, 2015 10:53:39 AM GMT+01:00, Uros Bizjak
> wrote:
>> Hello!
>
> Reminds me of just auto-wiping dump files:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02506.html
> Mike, WDYT?
Ok.
My only concern of speed isn’
The attached patch removes long long support from config/pa/linux-atomic.c and
corrects some issues
found in trying to get the long long support working.
There are a number of issues. On the 4.9 branch, webkitgtk fails to build with
the current long long
support because the __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMP
On January 31, 2015 10:53:39 AM GMT+01:00, Uros Bizjak
wrote:
>Hello!
Reminds me of just auto-wiping dump files:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02506.html
Mike, WDYT?
Thanks,
>
>2015-01-31 Uros Bizjak
>
>* g++.dg/ipa/pr64146.C (dg-final): Cleanup icf ipa dump.
>* gcc.targ
On 31 January 2015 at 15:45, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> On 31 Jan 2015, at 15:38, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> The new testcases are producing new failures on AIX
>>
>> /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++1998/all_attributes.cc:29:16:
>> error: expected ')' before numer
On 31 Jan 2015, at 15:38, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> The new testcases are producing new failures on AIX
>
> /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++1998/all_attributes.cc:29:16:
> error: expected ')' before numeric constant
> /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/libstdc++-v3/te
Hello!
Attached patch fixes PR64882, where special predicate
address_no_seg_operand allowed operands in DImode, as well as SImode.
This resulted in invalid RTX, produced by *lea:
(insn 60 59 61 3 (set (reg:SI 2 cx [orig:103 D.1909 ] [103])
(plus:DI (reg:DI 0 ax [106])
(reg:DI
On 01/30/2015 04:10 AM, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
Hi all,
I fear this fix is not so obvious in one location, I therefore ask for a
review. The attached patch fixes:
- a duplicate code fragment (possibly due to merged twice),
- the indentation in the trans-expr.c block (in my first patch), and
-
Jonathan,
The new testcases are producing new failures on AIX
/nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++1998/all_attributes.cc:29:16:
error: expected ')' before numeric constant
/nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++1998/all_attributes.cc:
Updated.
copyright assignment process in progress.
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 0e1e8bb..5fd857c 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+2015-01-31 Yoshinori Sato
+
+ * config.gcc: Add target h8300-linux.
+ * config/h8300/linux.h: New fi
The related warning (cross compile tile with --disable-threads):
../../../../gcc-tile-new/libgcc/libgcov-interface.c: In function
'__gcov_fork':
../../../../gcc-tile-new/libgcc/libgcov-interface.c:182:53: warning: suggest
braces around empty body in an 'if' statement [-Wempty-body]
__
On 1/31/15 19:49, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 05:13:53PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 31 January 2015 at 15:30, Chen Gang S wrote:
>>> On 1/31/15 16:53, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Chen Gang S writes:
> * gthr-single.h (__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION): Us
Robert Suchanek writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/loongson-simd.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/loongson-simd.c
> index 160da6b..949632e 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/loongson-simd.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/loongson-simd.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ al
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 05:13:53PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 31 January 2015 at 15:30, Chen Gang S wrote:
> > On 1/31/15 16:53, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Chen Gang S writes:
> >>
> >>> * gthr-single.h (__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION): Use braces
> >>> instead of macro's emp
e, I am not quite clear gcc version merging working flow. Now,
> for gcc master branch (20150131), __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION is still
> as empty.
>
> Could you provide more details about it?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Chen Gang
>
> Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
Vladimir Makarov writes:
>The following patch fixes
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
>
>The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 and ppc64 and
> tested on x86-64.
>
>Committed as rev.220060.
Sorry for picking on this again, because I realise it isn't
yo
Hello!
2015-01-31 Uros Bizjak
* g++.dg/ipa/pr64146.C (dg-final): Cleanup icf ipa dump.
* gcc.target/i386/chkp-builtins-1.c (dg-final): Cleanup chkp tree dump.
* gcc.target/i386/chkp-builtins-2.c (dg-final): Ditto.
* gcc.target/i386/chkp-builtins-3.c (dg-final): Ditto.
* gcc
ite clear gcc version merging working flow. Now,
for gcc master branch (20150131), __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION is still
as empty.
Could you provide more details about it?
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang
Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
Chen Gang S writes:
> * gthr-single.h (__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION): Use braces
> instead of macro's empty body to avoid xgcc warnings.
It's actually an empty loop now.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 21
On January 31, 2015 4:07:23 AM CET, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:50:01PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> >> Jakub, the current formation includes both a use and a set of all
>> >> memory. Your
>> >> clobber form would not imply a use.
>> >
>> > What do you need the u
On January 31, 2015 9:01:02 AM CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov
wrote:
>On Jan 31, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 01/22/15 12:01, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
On 01/19/15 06:07, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>
> The underlying problem is that t
On Jan 31, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/22/15 12:01, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/19/15 06:07, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
The underlying problem is that the order in which elements of
ready_list are compared matters t
31 matches
Mail list logo
