On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 11:26 PM YunQiang Su wrote:
>
> make: *** No rule to make target 'check-g++'. Stop.
>
> gcc
>
> * doc/install.texi (Testing): Correct check-g++ to
> check-gcc-c++.
Actually these targets exist in the gcc subdirectory.
Which is mentioned slightly above:
```
make: *** No rule to make target 'check-g++'. Stop.
gcc
* doc/install.texi (Testing): Correct check-g++ to
check-gcc-c++.
---
gcc/doc/install.texi | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi
index d20b43
> Right. But that's the whole point behind avoiding the narrowing subreg
> and forcing use of a truncate operation.
>
> So basically the question becomes is there a way to modify those bits in
> a way that GCC doesn't know that it needs to to truncate/extend?
>
I guess that this code may cause so
When I enable cgen rebuilding in the binutils-gdb tree, the default is
to run cgen using 'guile'. However, on my host, guile is guile 2.2,
which doesn't work for me -- I have to use guile3.0.
This patch arranges to pass "GUILE" down to subdirectories, so I can
use 'make GUILE=guile3.0'.
ChangeLo
Hi!
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This patch adds a combine pass that runs late in the pipeline.
But it is not. It is a completely new thing, and much closer to
fwprop than to combine, too.
Could you rename it to something else, please? Something less con
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023, 01:41 Hans-Peter Nilsson, wrote:
> > Or perhaps the cause is known?
>
> Not to me. It probably is a target codegen bug, since all this test really
> does is emulate a wide integer type using masks and shifts.
If so, a generic co
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 09:14:52PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/29/23 10:46, YunQiang Su wrote:
> >When we try to combine RTLs, the result may be very complex,
> >and `rtx_cost` may think that it need lots of costs. But in
> >fact, it may match a pattern in machine descriptions, which
> >may emit
This match pattern allows combination (zero_extract:DI 8, 24, QI)
with an sign-extend to 32bit INS instruction on TARGET_64BIT.
For SI mode, if the sign-bit is modified by bitops, we will need a
sign-extend operation. Since 32bit INS instruction can be sure that
result is sign-extended, and the Q
Ping^3
---
This patch adds a combine pass that runs late in the pipeline.
There are two instances: one between combine and split1, and one
after postreload.
The pass currently has a single objective: remove definitions by
substituting into all uses. The pre-RA version tries to restrict
itself t
在 2023/12/30 下午8:25, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
On Sat, 2023-12-30 at 12:15 +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This shouldn't be necessary. The test does:
for (int i = 0; i < n; i += 2)
{
x0 = __builtin_fmin (x0, ptr[i + 0]);
x1 = __builtin_fmin (x1, ptr[i + 1]);
}
res[0] = x0;
On Sat, 2023-12-30 at 20:25 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-12-30 at 12:15 +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > This shouldn't be necessary. The test does:
> >
> > for (int i = 0; i < n; i += 2)
> > {
> > x0 = __builtin_fmin (x0, ptr[i + 0]);
> > x1 = __builtin_fmin (x1, p
On Sat, 2023-12-30 at 12:15 +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This shouldn't be necessary. The test does:
>
> for (int i = 0; i < n; i += 2)
> {
> x0 = __builtin_fmin (x0, ptr[i + 0]);
> x1 = __builtin_fmin (x1, ptr[i + 1]);
> }
> res[0] = x0;
> res[1] = x1;
>
> __built
Hi,
Ping on this patch.
TIA, have a lovely day and happy holidays!
--
Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
chenxiaolong writes:
> After the detection of maximum reduction is enabled on LoongArch architecture,
> the regression test of GCC finds that vect-fmin-3.c fails. Currently, in the
> target-supports.exp file, only aarch64,arm,riscv, and LoongArch architectures
> are supported. Through analysis, th
Replying to myself...
I think this also desevers a mention in changes.html. Here is something
that I came up with. OK? Or does anybody have suggestions for a better
wording?
Or maybe this is better:
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-14/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-14/changes.html
index 4b83037a..d232f
Hi Rimvydas,
Documentation part.
The makeinfo gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi does not seem to have any new warnings.
Thanks for your work on this!
I think this also desevers a mention in changes.html. Here is something
that I came up with. OK? Or does anybody have suggestions for a better
wordin
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023, 01:41 Hans-Peter Nilsson, wrote:
> I'm not completely sure I got the intent of the "log2_limit",
> or whether "limit" is sane to decrease like this; it just
> looked like an obvious and safe reduction. Also, I verified
> the 10+ minute runtime, on this same host (clocked at
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023, 01:24 Hans-Peter Nilsson, wrote:
> Tested for mmix and observing the increased timeout in the .log
> file - and the test passing.
>
> Ok to commit? Or better suggestions?
>
OK to commit, thanks.
> -- >8 --
> Testing for mmix (a 64-bit target using Knuth's simulator). Th
18 matches
Mail list logo
