Re: [RS6000] PowerPC64 soft-float

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:15:06PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:50:27PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > This patch aims to prevent long sequences loading soft-float > > constants. For 32-bit, it makes sense to load values inline to a gpr > > with lis, addi, but not so

Re: [PING #4][PATCH] avoid warning on constant strncpy until next statement is reachable (PR 87028)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:34 PM Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 11/16/2018 02:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:12 AM Martin Sebor wrote: > >> > >> Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01818.html > >> > >> Please let me know if there is something I need to chang

Re: [RS6000] num_insns_constant ICE

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:52:34PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:49:12PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > + while (nregs-- > 0) > > +{ > > + int ins = num_insns_constant_gpr (value); > > You probably should mask "value" here so that it is only one GPR. > Alter

Re: [PATCH, libfortran] PR 88137 Initialize backtrace state once

PING! (for the GCC-7 branch, I'll commit it after the 7.4 release) On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:17 AM Janne Blomqvist wrote: > From backtrace.h for backtrace_create_state: > >Calling this function allocates resources that can not be freed. >There is no backtrace_free_state function. The

Re: [PATCH] asm non-code template parts (alternative to asm inline)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:44 PM Alexander Monakov wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > I think it's sound but also note that I think it is logically independent > > > of > > > asm inline (). While it may work for the inlining issue for some kernel > > > examples to asm i

Re: [PATCH v3] Make function clone name numbering independent.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:09 PM Michael Ploujnikov wrote: > > Continuing from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00228.html > > It took longer than expected, but I've finally rebased this on top of > the new clone_function_name* API and included the requested > optimizations. > > There

[PATCH, libstdc++, C++20] Implement P0457R2 String Prefix and Suffix Checking.

Greetings, This patch implements starts_with and ends_with for basic_string and basic_string_view for C++20. This builds and tests cleanly on x86_64-linux. Ed 2018-11-30 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> Implement P0457R2 String Prefix and Suffix Checking. * incl

Re: [PING #4][PATCH] avoid warning on constant strncpy until next statement is reachable (PR 87028)

On 11/29/18 4:43 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> The fallout on existing tests is minimal.  What's more concerning is >> that it doesn't actually pass the new test from Martin's original >> submission.  We get bogus warnings. >> >> At least part of the problem is weakness in maybe_diag_stxncpy_trunc. >>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681)

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 12:11:30AM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > So "asm const restrict" is allowed, but "asm const const restrict" isn't. > > No, asm const restrict isn't allowed. volatile is allowed; const and > restrict are allowed with war

Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681)

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > So "asm const restrict" is allowed, but "asm const const restrict" isn't. No, asm const restrict isn't allowed. volatile is allowed; const and restrict are allowed with warnings because that replicates what the old bison parser allowed; but at m

[PATCH, libstdc++] Uniform container erasure for c++20 returning number of erasures.

This version of erase_if/erase returning number erased actually build and tests cleanly on x86_64-linux. Is this what you has in mind for this?  I basically return the number of erased items for all the things Ed

Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:14:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > What's the basis for allowing duplicates for C but not for C++? > > > > It is the status quo. It would make sense to allow duplicates for C++ as > > well, sure. If that is pref

Re: [PING #4][PATCH] avoid warning on constant strncpy until next statement is reachable (PR 87028)

On 11/29/18 4:07 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 11/29/18 1:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 11/16/2018 02:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:12 AM Martin Sebor wrote: Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01818.html Please let me know if there is something I need to c

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR87496: ICE in aggregate_value_p at gcc/function.c:2046

On 11/29/18 1:31 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 11/29/18 11:26 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:27:19PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: >>> PR87496 shows a bug where we ICE if we attempt to use -mabi=ieeelongdouble >>> and -mno-popcntd. The IEEE128 support requires full ISA 2

PING [PATCH] x86: Add -mzero-caller-saved-regs=[skip|used-gpr|all-gpr|used|all]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:42 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:58 AM Richard Biener > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:16 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Szabolcs Nagy > > > wrote: > > > > On 26/09/18 19:10, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > >> > > > >>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681)

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > What's the basis for allowing duplicates for C but not for C++? > > It is the status quo. It would make sense to allow duplicates for C++ as > well, sure. If that is preferred I can make a patch for it? Duplicate qualifiers are allowed *in dec

[SPARC] Fix PR target/87807

-fpcc-struct-return. (sparc_struct_value_rtx): Return NULL_RTX instead of 0. (sparc_function_value_1): Rework handling of vector types. Change size from HOST_WIDE_INT to int. 2018-11-29 Eric Botcazou * gcc.target/sparc/20181129-1.c: New test

Re: [PING #4][PATCH] avoid warning on constant strncpy until next statement is reachable (PR 87028)

On 11/29/18 1:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 11/16/2018 02:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:12 AM Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01818.html >>> >>> Please let me know if there is something I need to change here >>> to make

Re: [PING^3] Re: [PATCH 1/3] Support instrumenting returns of instrumented functions

> > I don't think it is because the instrumentation only adds calls, and > calls don't get annotated in DWARF. The only issue I could think of > if is something patches in push instructions through the nops, > but there is really nothing the compiler could do about that. > > I tested gdb and it

Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:13:13PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > I'd expect testcases to be added for the new syntax variants (duplicate > qualifiers / goto and new orderings thereof). Okay. > There's a description of the syntax in extend.texi: > > @example > asm @r{[}volatile@r{]} ( @var{Assemb

Re: [PATCH] Improve combiner's find_split_point (PR target/54589)

Hi Jakub, On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:49:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > The following patch attempts to improve find_split_point inside of > complex MEM addresses, if the target supports REG + REG + const > addressing, but doesn't support more_complex_rtx + REG + const, > try to split it at mor

Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler

Pedro Alves writes: > Hi Nick, > > On 11/29/2018 03:01 PM, Nick Clifton wrote: >> static struct demangle_component * >> d_function_type (struct d_info *di) >> { >> - struct demangle_component *ret; >> + static unsigned long recursion_level = 0; > > Did you consider making this be a part of s

Re: [PATCH] Optimize integer vector comparison followed by movmsk (PR target/88152, take 2)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:42 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:26:41PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:36 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > Like blend, movmsk also only cares about the most significant bit, > > > so prior < 0 comparisons or (happens also

Re: [PATCH] Optimize integral lt + blend into just blend (PR target/54700)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:40 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:41:59PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:28 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > > * g++.target/i386/avx2-check

[C++ PATCH] Fix xvalue COND_EXPR handling (PR c++/88103)

Hi! On the following testcase, build_conditional_expr_1 tries hard to make sure that if both arguments are xvalue_p (or one is and the other throw) the result is still xvalue_p. But, later on we call unary_complex_lvalue, which does rationalize_conditional_expr which changes it from cond ? x : y

[PATCH] Improve combiner's find_split_point (PR target/54589)

Hi! The following patch attempts to improve find_split_point inside of complex MEM addresses, if the target supports REG + REG + const addressing, but doesn't support more_complex_rtx + REG + const, try to split it at more_complex_rtx rather than more_complex_rtx + REG. On the original testcase f

Re: [patch,openacc] use existing local variable in cp_parser_oacc_enter_exit_data

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Julian Brown wrote: > So, OK, or shall we just drop this? (Joseph?) I've no comment on this patch; it seems to be in Thomas's area. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

[PATCH] Optimize integer vector comparison followed by movmsk (PR target/88152, take 2)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:26:41PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:36 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Like blend, movmsk also only cares about the most significant bit, > > so prior < 0 comparisons or (happens also on the testcase below in some > > cases) arithmetic shift right (

Re: [PATCH] Optimize integral lt + blend into just blend (PR target/54700)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:41:59PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:28 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > * g++.target/i386/avx2-check.h: New file. > > > > > * g++.target/i386/m128-check.h: New

Re: [patch,openacc] use existing local variable in cp_parser_oacc_enter_exit_data

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:21:33 -0700 Cesar Philippidis wrote: > This is an old gomp4 patch that updates the location of the clause for > acc enter/exit data. Apparently, it didn't impact any test cases. Is > this OK for trunk or should we drop it from OG8? > > I bootstrapped and regtested it for x

Re: [patch,openacc] C, C++ OpenACC wait diagnostic change

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Julian Brown wrote: > > But for C, it does not appear that c_parser_expr_list has a code path > > that can return a zero-length list at all. So, we can elide the > > diagnostic with no change to compiler behaviour. This patch does that, > > and also changes the C++ diagnostic,

Re: [patch,openacc] Fix infinite recursion in OMP clause pretty-printing, default label

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Julian Brown wrote: > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:08:51 -0700 > Cesar Philippidis wrote: > > > Apparently, Tom ran into an ICE when we were adding support for new > > clauses back in the gomp-4_0-branch days. This patch shouldn't be > > necessary because all of the clauses are f

Re: [patch,openacc] C, C++ OpenACC wait diagnostic change

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:17:42 +0100 Julian Brown wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:08:37 -0700 > Cesar Philippidis wrote: > > > On 09/26/2018 12:50 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > > > > > >> Attached is an old patch which updated the C and C++ F

Re: [patch,openacc] Fix infinite recursion in OMP clause pretty-printing, default label

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:08:51 -0700 Cesar Philippidis wrote: > Apparently, Tom ran into an ICE when we were adding support for new > clauses back in the gomp-4_0-branch days. This patch shouldn't be > necessary because all of the clauses are fully implemented now, but > it may prevent similar bug

Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681)

I'd expect testcases to be added for the new syntax variants (duplicate qualifiers / goto and new orderings thereof). There's a description of the syntax in extend.texi: @example asm @r{[}volatile@r{]} ( @var{AssemblerTemplate} : @var{OutputOperands} @r{[} : @

Re: [PATCH] v2: C++: show namespaces for enum values (PR c++/88121)

On 11/29/18 2:29 PM, David Malcolm wrote: On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 13:41 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/21/18 8:35 AM, David Malcolm wrote: Consider this test case: namespace json { enum { JSON_OBJECT }; } void test () { JSON_OBJECT; } which erroneously accesses an enum value in anot

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/88184, ICE when treating name as template-name

On 11/29/18 1:28 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:34:11PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/28/18 10:48 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: Since P0846R0 was implemented, a name will be treated as a template-name when it is an unqualified-id followed by a < and name lookup finds either

Re: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:20:03PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:10:33PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > Maybe a combine splitter can be used here? Please see documentation > > from paragraph 17.16 onward: > > > > --quote-- > > The insn combiner phase also splits putative

Re: [PING #4][PATCH] avoid warning on constant strncpy until next statement is reachable (PR 87028)

On 11/16/2018 02:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:12 AM Martin Sebor wrote: Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01818.html Please let me know if there is something I need to change here to make the fix acceptable or if I should stop trying. I have one m

Re: [C++ Patch] Improve compute_array_index_type locations

On 11/29/18 2:09 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, On 29/11/18 17:13, Jason Merrill wrote: + error_at (cp_expr_loc_or_loc (osize, loc), +    error_at (cp_expr_loc_or_loc (osize, input_location), Let's compute the location we want to use once at the top of the function.  And maybe rename

Re: [RS6000] num_insns_constant ICE

Hi! On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:49:12PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > This patch came about from investigating an ICE that appeared when I > was retesting an old half-baked patch of mine to rs6000_rtx_costs. > If a const_double is fed to rs6000_is_valid_and_mask and from there to > rs6000_is_valid_mas

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR87496: ICE in aggregate_value_p at gcc/function.c:2046

On 11/29/18 11:26 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:27:19PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: >> PR87496 shows a bug where we ICE if we attempt to use -mabi=ieeelongdouble >> and -mno-popcntd. The IEEE128 support requires full ISA 2.06 (aka POWER7) >> support, so we really shoul

[PATCH] Fix PR64242

Fix PR64242 - the middle end expansion for long jmp updates the hard frame pointer before it reads the new stack pointer. This results in a corrupted stack pointer if the jmp buffer is a local. The obvious fix is to insert a temporary. AArch64 bootstrap & regress pass. OK to commit? ChangeLog: 2

Re: [C++ Patch] Improve compute_array_index_type locations

Hi, On 29/11/18 17:13, Jason Merrill wrote: + error_at (cp_expr_loc_or_loc (osize, loc), +    error_at (cp_expr_loc_or_loc (osize, input_location), Let's compute the location we want to use once at the top of the function.  And maybe rename the 'loc' parameter to name_loc. Makes s

[PATCH] v2: C++: show namespaces for enum values (PR c++/88121)

On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 13:41 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 11/21/18 8:35 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > > Consider this test case: > > > > namespace json > > { > >enum { JSON_OBJECT }; > > } > > > > void test () > > { > >JSON_OBJECT; > > } > > > > which erroneously accesses an enum value in a

Re: [PATCH 4/4][libbacktrace] Add tests for unused formats

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: > > When building libbacktrace, we typically use elf.c, and don't build pecoff.c, > xcoff.c or unknown.c > > Add testcases that use unused format to ensure that we also build and > test those on a typical development setup. > > Bootstrapped and

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/88184, ICE when treating name as template-name

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:34:11PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 11/28/18 10:48 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > Since P0846R0 was implemented, a name will be treated as a template-name > > when > > it is an unqualified-id followed by a < and name lookup finds either one or > > more functions or fi

Re: [PATCH 1/4][libbacktrace] Test check_PROGRAMS without mmap

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: > [ was: [PATCH 1/2][libbacktrace] Handle realloc returning NULL if size == 0 ] > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:35:43PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Build and tested on x86_64, with mmap.c replaced by alloc.c to ensure that >> backtra

[PATCH, i386]: Fix two small MMX glitches

2018-11-29 Uros Bizjak * config/i386/i386.c (inline_memory_move_cost): Check "in" for 2 in MMX_CLASS_P case. * config/i386/mmx.md (*mov_internal): Correct TARGET_INTER_UNIT_MOVES_FROM_VEC and TARGET_INTER_UNIT_MOVES_TO_VEC alternatives in preferred_for_speed attribute calcul

Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler

Hi Nick, On 11/29/2018 03:01 PM, Nick Clifton wrote: > static struct demangle_component * > d_function_type (struct d_info *di) > { > - struct demangle_component *ret; > + static unsigned long recursion_level = 0; Did you consider making this be a part of struct d_info instead? IIRC, d_info

Re: [PATCH 1/5][libbacktrace] Factor out backtrace_vector_free

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:33 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 29-11-18 00:26, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: >>> >>> this patch factors out new function backtrace_vector_free. >>> >>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. >>> >>> OK for trunk? >> >> W

Re: [RS6000] PowerPC64 soft-float

Hi! On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:50:27PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > This patch aims to prevent long sequences loading soft-float > constants. For 32-bit, it makes sense to load values inline to a gpr > with lis, addi, but not so much for 64-bit where a 5 insn sequence > might be needed for each gpr

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR87496: ICE in aggregate_value_p at gcc/function.c:2046

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:27:19PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > PR87496 shows a bug where we ICE if we attempt to use -mabi=ieeelongdouble > and -mno-popcntd. The IEEE128 support requires full ISA 2.06 (aka POWER7) > support, so we really should throw an error when using those options > together.

[PATCH][OBVIOUS] Fix thinko in transition to memop_ret type (PR middle-end/88246).

Hi. One obvious thinko I did when I convert the endp into a new enum. The patch survives tests and bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and fixes the ICE in s390x bootstrap. I'm going to install it. Martin gcc/ChangeLog: 2018-11-29 Martin Liska PR middle-end/88246 * builtins.c (exp

Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler

Thank you for looking into this Nick. I've been staring at a few of these CVEs off-and-on for a few days, and the following CVEs all look like duplicates: CVE-2018-17985: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87335 CVE-2018-18484: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87636 CVE-2018-

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Uniform container erasure for c++20.

On 11/26/18 6:18 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 24/11/18 13:54 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: All, I's very late but uniform container erasure is, I think, the last little tidbit to graduate from fundamentals/v2 to std at the last meeting.  I think it would be a shame not to nudge this into gc

Re: [PATCH, GCC, AARCH64, 3/6] Restrict indirect tail calls to x16 and x17

Hi On 02/11/18 18:37, Sudakshina Das wrote: > Hi > > This patch is part of a series that enables ARMv8.5-A in GCC and > adds Branch Target Identification Mechanism. > (https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/cpu-architecture/a-profile/exploration-tools) > > This patch changes the registe

Re: [PATCH, GCC, AARCH64, 5/6] Enable BTI : Add new pass for BTI.

Hi On 13/11/18 14:47, Sudakshina Das wrote: > Hi > > On 02/11/18 18:38, Sudakshina Das wrote: >> Hi >> >> This patch is part of a series that enables ARMv8.5-A in GCC and >> adds Branch Target Identification Mechanism. >> (https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/cpu-architecture/a-profile

Re: [PATCH] Come up with --param asan-stack-small-redzone (PR sanitizer/81715).

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:37:11PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > 0x10007fff7b00: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 > 0x10007fff7b10: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 > 0x10007fff7b20: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 > 0x10007fff7b30: 00 00 00 00 0

Re: [PATCH] asm non-code template parts (alternative to asm inline)

> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > I think it's sound but also note that I think it is logically independent of > > asm inline (). While it may work for the inlining issue for some kernel > > examples to asm inline () is sth similar to always_inline for functions, > > that is, even t

Re: [PATCH] Optimize integral lt + blend into just blend (PR target/54700)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:28 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > * g++.target/i386/avx2-check.h: New file. > > > > * g++.target/i386/m128-check.h: New file. > > > > * g++.target/i386/m256-check.h: New file. > > >

Re: [PATCH] PR880088 Enable -Wtrampolines for no-exec-stack targets with -Wall.

Hi Mark, On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:57:03PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 15:00 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:54:07PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 12:37 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/co

Re: [PATCH] Come up with --param asan-stack-small-redzone (PR sanitizer/81715).

On 11/29/18 4:17 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:03:42PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: >>> Two problems, it uses unconditionally unaligned stores, without >>> checking if the target supports them at all (in this case it does). >>> And, it doesn't check if it wouldn't be more effi

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Uniform container erasure for c++20.

On 29/11/18 10:18 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: On 11/29/18 9:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 29/11/18 08:47 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: Fixed with 266616. Thanks! Index: include/std/deque === --- include/std/deque    (rev

Re: [PATCH] Optimize integral lt + blend into just blend (PR target/54700)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > * g++.target/i386/avx2-check.h: New file. > > > * g++.target/i386/m128-check.h: New file. > > > * g++.target/i386/m256-check.h: New file. > > > * g++.target/i386/avx-os-support.h: New file. > > > > OK

Re: [PATCH] Optimize integer vector comparison followed by movmsk (PR target/88152)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:36 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > Like blend, movmsk also only cares about the most significant bit, > so prior < 0 comparisons or (happens also on the testcase below in some > cases) arithmetic shift right (by any value) isn't needed before the movmsk. > > Bootstrap

Re: [PATCH] Optimize integral lt + blend into just blend (PR target/54700)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:54 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:00 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > The following patch optimizes > > - pxor%xmm3, %xmm3 > > - pcmpgtb %xmm0, %xmm3 > > - movdqa %xmm3, %xmm0 > > pblendvb%xmm0, %xmm

Re: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:10:33PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Maybe a combine splitter can be used here? Please see documentation > from paragraph 17.16 onward: > > --quote-- > The insn combiner phase also splits putative insns. If three insns are > merged into one insn with a complex expressio

Re: [PATCH][Version 3]Come up with -flive-patching master option.

the patch has been committed today as: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=266627 I will try to update the gcc9 change page soon. thanks. Qing > On Nov 28, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: > >> >> On Nov 2

Re: [C++ Patch] Improve compute_array_index_type locations

On 11/29/18 10:22 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, On 29/11/18 03:01, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/6/18 4:01 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: when I improved create_array_type_for_decl I didn't notice that it calls compute_array_index_type as helper, which simply needs to have the location information prop

Re: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:09 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:13:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote: > > We are able to fix the subjected issue with the peephole patterns > > (target specific) in the md file (attached the patch pr54589.patch). > > While testing the fix ,we end

Re: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589

Hi! Note, in other cases combine is sucessful. E.g. consider: struct S { int a, b, c, d; }; struct T { struct S e[16]; struct S f[1024]; } t; int foo (unsigned long x) { return t.f[x + 5].a; } int bar (struct T *x, unsigned long y) { return x->f[y + 5].b; } On x86_64-linux with -O2, we hav

Re: [PATCH] PR libstdc++/67843 set shared_ptr lock policy at build-time

On 28/11/2018 12:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 28/11/18 10:54 +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote: This resolves a longstanding issue where the lock policy for shared_ptr reference counting depends on compilation options when the header is include

Re: [PATCH v4] Add sinh(atanh(x)) and cosh(atanh(x)) optimizations

On 11/27/18 12:38 PM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote: > Only do this optimization if funsafe-math and -fno-math-errno are > enabled, as pointed in the previous iteration. > > Also added one more test case to ensure that fno-math-errno is > required for the optimization. > > Special thank

Re: [PATCH v4] Add sinh(atanh(x)) and cosh(atanh(x)) optimizations

On 11/29/18 3:34 AM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote: > Hi, > > Please check line 4102 in match.pd. Notice that > > (if (flag_unsafe_math_optimizations) > > And my code is inside that if :-) Ugh. I went backwards looking for something like that and missed it :-) I may have not gone

Re: [C++ Patch] Improve compute_array_index_type locations

Hi, On 29/11/18 03:01, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/6/18 4:01 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: when I improved create_array_type_for_decl I didn't notice that it calls compute_array_index_type as helper, which simply needs to have the location information propagated. Tested x86_64-linux. This looks li

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Uniform container erasure for c++20.

On 11/29/18 9:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 29/11/18 08:47 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: Fixed with 266616. Thanks! Index: include/std/deque === --- include/std/deque    (revision 266567) +++ include/std/deque    (working co

Re: [PATCH] Come up with --param asan-stack-small-redzone (PR sanitizer/81715).

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:03:42PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > > Two problems, it uses unconditionally unaligned stores, without > > checking if the target supports them at all (in this case it does). > > And, it doesn't check if it wouldn't be more efficient to use > > 32-bit stores. > > Ok, so

Re: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:13:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote: > We are able to fix the subjected issue with the peephole patterns > (target specific) in the md file (attached the patch pr54589.patch). > While testing the fix ,we end up with some of the C constructs like The right thing for this

Re: [PATCH] Come up with --param asan-stack-small-redzone (PR sanitizer/81715).

On 11/28/18 12:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:33:25AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: >> 2018-09-26 Martin Liska >> >> PR sanitizer/81715 >> * asan.c (asan_shadow_cst): Remove. >> (asan_emit_redzone_payload): New. >> (asan_emit_stack_protection): Make it

RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler

Hi Ian, Libiberty's demangler seems to be a favourite target of people looking to file new CVEs by fuzzing strings and I have finally gotten tired of reviewing them all. So I would like to propose a patch to add support for placing a recursion limit on the demangling functions. The pat

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Error out when -mfpu set and targeting Thumb-1

On 29/11/2018 10:51, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > Hi, > > FP instructions are only enabled for TARGET_32BIT and TARGET_HARD_FLOAT > but GCC only gives an error when TARGET_HARD_FLOAT is true and -mfpu is > not set. Among other things, it makes some of the cmse tests (eg. > gcc.target/arm/cmse/baseli

Re: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589

Hi All, We are able to fix the subjected issue with the peephole patterns (target specific) in the md file (attached the patch pr54589.patch). While testing the fix ,we end up with some of the C constructs like Testcase 1: #include struct param { int a, b, c, d; __m128i array[256]; }; void fun

[PATCH] Optimize integer vector comparison followed by movmsk (PR target/88152)

Hi! Like blend, movmsk also only cares about the most significant bit, so prior < 0 comparisons or (happens also on the testcase below in some cases) arithmetic shift right (by any value) isn't needed before the movmsk. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? 2018-11

Re: [PATCH] Fix vec_{add,sub} rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin folding (PR target/88234)

Hi Jakub, On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:00:22PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > vec_add/sub of with vector unsigned args is lowered to a builtin which > has vector signed args and therefore if not -fwrapv it is undefined if > signed integer overflow occurs in those vectors. > > The following patch fix

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Uniform container erasure for c++20.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:47:15AM -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: > --- include/std/deque (revision 266567) > +++ include/std/deque (working copy) > @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ > #pragma GCC system_header > > #include > +#include // For remove and remove_if Isn't that too expensive, especially in non-

Re: [PATCH v3] Make function clone name numbering independent.

On 2018-11-28 5:49 p.m., Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:09:14PM -0500, Michael Ploujnikov wrote: >> I've also included a small change to rs6000 which I'm pretty sure is >> safe, but I have no way of testing. > > Do you have an account on the GCC Compile Farm? > htt

Re: [testsuite] Require ucn support in gdc.test/compilable/ddoc12.d (PR d/88039)

Hi Iain, > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 20:32, Rainer Orth > wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> > On Nov 27, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Rainer Orth >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Some assemblers, including the Solaris one, don't support UTF-8 >> >> identifiers, which breaks the gdc.test/compilable/ddoc12.d testcase as >> >

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Uniform container erasure for c++20.

On 29/11/18 08:47 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: Fixed with 266616. Thanks! Index: include/std/deque === --- include/std/deque (revision 266567) +++ include/std/deque (working copy) @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ #pragma GCC system_header

[PATCH] Fix vec_{add,sub} rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin folding (PR target/88234)

Hi! vec_add/sub of with vector unsigned args is lowered to a builtin which has vector signed args and therefore if not -fwrapv it is undefined if signed integer overflow occurs in those vectors. The following patch fixes it to make sure that those builtins are folded to PLUS/MINUS_EXPR done on un

Re: [PATCH] PR libstdc++/67843 set shared_ptr lock policy at build-time

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 28/11/18 14:46 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:30 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> > >> On 28/11/18 11:11 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> >On 28/11/18 11:46 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >> >>On Wed, Nov 28,

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Uniform container erasure for c++20.

On 11/28/18 7:25 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 28/11/18 12:12 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: Index: testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/erasure.cc === --- testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/erasure.cc (nonexistent) +++ testsuite/21_str

Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681)

+cc: C and C++ maintainers. Sorry I forgot before :-/ On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:30:33PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for > inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also > okay (with a warning), but "con

[PATCH] Fix PR88243

The following adjusts the pattern def-seq generation to give all stmts in the def-seq vect_internal_def type and not retain the vect_nested_cycle_def or similar def type from the main stmt. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. >From b2ff48c042f116ea2f0dd84da48

[PATCH] S/390: Add support for section anchors

Bootstrapped and regtested on s390x-redhat-linux and x86_64-redhat-linux. gcc/ChangeLog: 2018-09-12 Ilya Leoshkevich * common/config/s390/s390-common.c (s390_option_init_struct): Use section anchors by default. * config/s390/s390.c (s390_check_symref_alignment): Handle

[PATCH] PR libstdc++/88119 use alignof in std::alignment_of, not __alignof__

Now that __alignof__ and alignof sometimes disagree it matters which one we use. The standard says that std::alignment_of::value equals alignof(T), so we need to use that. Change the only uses of alignment_of to use __alignof__ to avoid a change in alignment. PR libstdc++/88119 *

Re: [PATCH 1/5][libbacktrace] Factor out backtrace_vector_free

On 29-11-18 00:26, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: >> >> this patch factors out new function backtrace_vector_free. >> >> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. >> >> OK for trunk? > > We should only add new files if we really absolutely must, as thi

[ping x3] Re: [PATCH 0/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681) and asm inline

Ping x3. On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 08:52:58AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Ping x2. > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 06:33:37PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Ping. > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:30:32PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > This is the same "asm input

Re: The GCC 7 branch is now frozen

> Thanks for your support. You're campaigning for something? ;-) -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [PATCH] PR880088 Enable -Wtrampolines for no-exec-stack targets with -Wall.

Hi Segher, On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 15:00 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:54:07PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 12:37 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > Define a new target macro TARGET_HAS_DEFAULT_NOEXEC_STACK for > > > > those > > > > targ

  1   2   >