On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:35PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch optimizes the atomic_exchange and
> atomic_compare patterns on s390 and s390x (mostly limited to
> SImode and DImode). Among general optimizaation, the changes fix
> most of the problems reported
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:13:01AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 07:22:23PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:34:44PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > > > > +; Peephole to combine a load-an
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 07:22:23PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:34:44PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > > > +; Peephole to combine a load-and-test from volatile memory which
> > > > combine does
> > &g
actually *rely* on this change to cstorecc4 ... s390_expand_cs_tdsi only
> calls cstorecc4 on !TARGET_Z196, where the above change is a no-op, and
> in the TARGET_Z196 case it deliberates does *not* use cstorecc4.
You're right. After all the refactoring, this part of the patch
has become unused.
> Now, in general this improvement to cstorecc4 is of course valuable
> in itself. But I think at this point it might be better to separate
> this out into an independent patch (and measure its effect separately).
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:52:00PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:35PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The attached patch optimizes the atomic_exchange and
> > atomic_compare patterns on s390 and s390x (mostly limited to
> > SImode and DI
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:52:00PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:35PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The attached patch optimizes the atomic_exchange and
> > atomic_compare patterns on s390 and s390x (mostly limited to
> > SImode and DI
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:35PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch optimizes the atomic_exchange and
> atomic_compare patterns on s390 and s390x (mostly limited to
> SImode and DImode). Among general optimizaation, the changes fix
> most of the problems reported
The attached patch fixes PR 79890. Bootstrapped and regression
tested on s390x biarch and s390.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-pr79890
PR target/79890
* config/s390/s390.c (s390_register_info_gprtofpr): Return if
call_eh_return is
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 03:37:33PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/29/2017 04:23 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >The attached patch removes the XFAIL in attr-alloc_size-11.c on
> >s390. (PR 79356).
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
> >
> >Unte
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:35PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch optimizes the atomic_exchange and
> atomic_compare patterns on s390 and s390x (mostly limited to
> SImode and DImode). Among general optimizaation, the changes fix
> most of the problems reported
The attached patch removes the XFAIL in attr-alloc_size-11.c on
s390. (PR 79356).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
Untested.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog-attr-alloc-size-11
PR testsuite/79356
* gcc.dg/attr
regression tested on a zEC12 with s390 and s390x
biarch.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-dv-atomic-gcc7
* (s390_expand_cs_hqi): Removed.
(s390_expand_cs, s390_expand_atomic_exchange_tdsi): New prototypes.
(s390_cc_modes_compatible): Export
^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog-pr79356
PR 79356
* gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c: Remove xfail for aarch64, ia64*,
powerpc*, sparc* and s390*.
>From 8486df212e3284e5fbdfb3f47bff59652e1e55a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
Date:
The attached patch disables the test ifcvt-4.c on s390 and on
s390x with -31, and adds -march=z196 for s390x. It should no
longer fail on s390 and s390x.
Tested on s390x biarch.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog-pr68749
PR 68749
The attached patch fixes PR 79241 on s390x. Bootstrapped and
regression tested on s390x biarch (not tested on s390).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-pr79421
PR target/79421
* config/s390/s390
OR_UNION_TYPE_P (new_field_type)
> && !TYPE_FAT_POINTER_P (new_field_type)
> @@ -1020,24 +1022,24 @@ make_packable_type (tree type, bool in_r
> && TYPE_ADA_SIZE (new_field_type))
> new_size = TYPE_ADA_SIZE (new_field_type);
>else
> - new_size = DECL_SIZE (old_field);
> + new_size = DECL_SIZE (field);
>
>new_field
> - = create_field_decl (DECL_NAME (old_field), new_field_type, new_type,
> - new_size, bit_position (old_field),
> + = create_field_decl (DECL_NAME (field), new_field_type, new_type,
> + new_size, bit_position (field),
>TYPE_PACKED (type),
> - !DECL_NONADDRESSABLE_P (old_field));
> + !DECL_NONADDRESSABLE_P (field));
>
> - DECL_INTERNAL_P (new_field) = DECL_INTERNAL_P (old_field);
> - SET_DECL_ORIGINAL_FIELD_TO_FIELD (new_field, old_field);
> + DECL_INTERNAL_P (new_field) = DECL_INTERNAL_P (field);
> + SET_DECL_ORIGINAL_FIELD_TO_FIELD (new_field, field);
>if (TREE_CODE (new_type) == QUAL_UNION_TYPE)
> - DECL_QUALIFIER (new_field) = DECL_QUALIFIER (old_field);
> + DECL_QUALIFIER (new_field) = DECL_QUALIFIER (field);
>
> - DECL_CHAIN (new_field) = field_list;
> - field_list = new_field;
> + DECL_CHAIN (new_field) = new_field_list;
> + new_field_list = new_field;
> }
>
> - finish_record_type (new_type, nreverse (field_list), 2, false);
> + finish_record_type (new_type, nreverse (new_field_list), 2, false);
>relate_alias_sets (new_type, type, ALIAS_SET_COPY);
>if (TYPE_STUB_DECL (type))
> SET_DECL_PARALLEL_TYPE (TYPE_STUB_DECL (new_type),
> @@ -1054,8 +1056,7 @@ make_packable_type (tree type, bool in_r
>else
> {
>TYPE_SIZE (new_type) = bitsize_int (new_size);
> - TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (new_type)
> - = size_int ((new_size + BITS_PER_UNIT - 1) / BITS_PER_UNIT);
> + TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (new_type) = size_int (new_size / BITS_PER_UNIT);
> }
>
>if (!TYPE_CONTAINS_TEMPLATE_P (type))
> @@ -1069,8 +1070,8 @@ make_packable_type (tree type, bool in_r
> SET_TYPE_MODE (new_type,
> mode_for_size_tree (TYPE_SIZE (new_type), MODE_INT, 1));
>
> - /* If neither the mode nor the size has shrunk, return the old type. */
> - if (TYPE_MODE (new_type) == BLKmode && new_size >= size)
> + /* If neither mode nor size nor alignment shrunk, return the old type. */
> + if (TYPE_MODE (new_type) == BLKmode && new_size >= size && max_align == 0)
> return type;
>
>return new_type;
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 08:01:44AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:20 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > No. In fact, I'd go for something like this:
> >
> > 2017-02-07 Dominik Vogt
> > Rainer Orth
> >
> > * g++.dg/tls/th
4le-unknown-linux-gnu
powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
aarch64-suse-linux-gnu
hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
armv6-unknown-freebsd12.0
target:arm-none-linux-gnueabi, host:i686-pc-linux-gnu
target:m68k-unknown-linux-gnu; host:x86_64-suse-linux-gnu
target:sh4-unknown-linux-gnu; host:i686-pc-linux-gnu
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
The attached patch fixes the s390x test failure reported here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
Tested on s390x biarch.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog-pr78348
PR 78348
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ldist-24.c: Add "--para
*-* } }
or
// { dg-do run { xfail *-*-solaris } }
or something else? We'll probably only get this list right by
trial and error anyway.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
Pinging this for eight months now. :-/
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01587.html
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C n
Ping.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:45:23PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch uses macros from hwint.h in the s390 backend
> where possible.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested on a zEC12 with s390x biarch
> and s390.
>
> Ciao
>
> Dominik ^_^ ^_^
>
The attached patch uses macros from hwint.h in the s390 backend
where possible.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on a zEC12 with s390x biarch
and s390.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-macros
* config/s390/predicates.md ("larl_operand"):
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:45:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:43:13PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > If the predicates are supposed to ensure it, then I think the assert is
> > > fine.
> >
> > Is it guaranteed that the predicate co
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:33:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:11:27PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The patch fixes the s390x crash reported in PR 79240:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79240
> > Regression tested and bootstrappe
The patch fixes the s390x crash reported in PR 79240:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79240
Regression tested and bootstrapped on s390x biarch and s390.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-pr79240
PR target/79240
* config/s390/s390.c
The attached patch reactivates the setmem_long_and* patterns on
S/390 that have not been generated for a while. Regression tested
and bootstrapped on s390x biarch and s390.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-setmem_long_and
* config/s390/s390.md
ead end.
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/combine.c
> > +++ b/gcc/combine.c
> > @@ -11372,6 +11372,16 @@ change_zero_ext_src (subrtx_ptr_iterator *piter)
> >else if (GET_CODE (x) == ZERO_EXTEND
> >&&am
icf" } */
>
> #pragma GCC target("htm")
> void p1(void)
> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ void p0(void)
> #ifdef __HTM__
> #error __HTM__ is defined
> #endif
> - __builtin_tend ();
> + __builtin_tend (); /* { dg-error "is not supported without -mhtm" } */
> }
> #pragma GCC reset_options
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
error: Builtin ‘__builtin_tend’ is not supported without -mhtm
(default with -march=zEC12 and higher).
But function a0 is actually in lines 37 to 43. It looks like the
message has used the same line number as the previous message.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:02:36AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Dominik,
>
> Thanks for the example. ROSBG, what a weird instruction.
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/combine.c
> > +++ b/gcc/combine.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:02:40PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The attached patch deals with another type of zero_extend that is
> > not yet handled in change_zero_ext, i.e. (zero_extend
> > (pseudoreg
The attached patch deals with another type of zero_extend that is
not yet handled in change_zero_ext, i.e. (zero_extend
(pseudoreg)), without a "subreg" in between. What do you think?
(Mostly untested yet.)
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Ger
_then_else)), with different
> representations if the sign bit is involved or if the source
> bit position is the same or lower or higher than the destination's
> bit position.
I'm working on patches to get more sensible simplify results in
some of these cases, like extracting the sign bit. Not really
canonical, but rather that dealing with every odd combination it's
better to suppress them.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
build_int_cst (boolean_type_node, 1);
> - boolean_false_node = build_int_cst (boolean_type_node, 0);
> -
>/* ??? Shouldn't this be based on gfc_index_integer_kind or so? */
>gfc_charlen_int_kind = 4;
>gfc_charlen_type_node = gfc_get_int_type (gfc_charlen_int_kind);
> --
> 2.7.4
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
==
> --- testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr78883.c (nonexistent)
> +++ testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr78883.c (working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +
> +int foo (int *p)
> +{
> + int i;
> + for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
> +{
> + if (p[i] & 1)
> +return i;
> +}
> + return -1;
> +}
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
then it would be preferred to avoid HI altogether and just use QImode.
> avr.md has a similar insn for QI, so that would really give a
> reasonable match.
The purpose of the change_zero_ext function is: If combine cannot
match an expression that contains a zero_{extend,extract}, then
call the function to rephrase such subexpression in a more generic
form using logical operations and try to find a match for them.
The patch adds a rule to rewrite mode expanding zero_extracts,
which helps with some s390 patterns. Before the patch, combine
doesn't find a match for 55+56->57. With the patch it combines
55+56->57->58, eventually leading to the fault.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no bugs in the combined
expressions.
I think the patch only triggers something that is already broken,
but well hidden. Somehow the register allocator seems to miss
some important information about
(subreg:HI (mem:QI (reg/v/f:HI 75 ...
and looks for a register that is suitable for QImode while it
actually needs an HImode register. Maybe there's some place in
common code or the avr backend) where HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK should be
used but isn't?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> On 12.12.2016 17:54, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 05:46:02PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >>Patch with these changes and a fix because of not handling
> >>VOIDmode attached.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:32:26PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:26:13PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:57:52AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> > > On Dec 20, 2016, at 6:10 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > > Right, it ge
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:57:52AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2016, at 6:10 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Right, it gets called even more often than one would think, and
> > even with empty torture_current_options. The attached new patch
> > (v3) removes -Ox o
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:32:58AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:22:47AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 06:00:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 05:50:40PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > &
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 06:00:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 05:50:40PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > * config/s390/s390-c.c (s390_cpu_cpp_builtins_internal): Define
> > __S390_ARCH_LEVEL__.
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog-setmem
> >
&
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:42:40AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:18:31AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > IMHO you want something like x86 avx_runtime effective target
> > > (z13_runtime?), which would stand for running on z13 capable hw and
>
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 03:28:06PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch is specific to S/390 but contains a small
> common code change in gcc-dg.exp. It fixes the notorious problem
> of md tests running on an S/390 machine that does not support the
> z13 ins
The attached patch is specific to S/390 but contains a small
common code change in gcc-dg.exp. It fixes the notorious problem
of md tests running on an S/390 machine that does not support the
z13 instruction set.
Bootstrapped and tested on s390x biarch.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:32:34AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 01:39:13PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > There may be a slight imprecision in expand_compound_operation.
> > When it encounters a SIGN_EXTEND where it's already known that the
>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 01:32:48PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:01:47AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > This is another micro-optimisation in change_zero_ext. If an
> >
> > (and (lshiftrt ... (N)) (M))
> >
> > generated by chan
led recursively.
The patch has been bootstrapped and regression tested on s390 and
s390x and has no noticeably bad side effects so far.
P.S.: Is it necessary to pass PITER by pointer or could it be
passed simply by value?
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:21:35PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> I guess
patterns.)
--
The patch hasn't got a lot of testing yet as I'd like to hear your
opinion on the patch first.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-signextend-1
* combine.c (expand_compound_operation): Substitute ZERO_EXTEND for
SIGN_EXTEND i
x and s390. (Targets
with risbg-like instructions (Power, others?) may need some
tuning.)
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-change_zero_ext-2
* combine.c (change_zero_ext): Skip generation of redundant AND.
>From bbd2cfc122c74d1e50894222a7998915848b5ec6
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:42:37AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:28:29AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The attached patch fixes an md test execution problem on S/390.
> > The tests would be built with -march=z13 but executed even on
> > older
tested.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-s390exp
* gcc.target/s390/s390.exp: Run md tests with -march=native instead of
-march=z13.
>From 3d7b78393a1e1859b4f453f01194ed0ff8fa57c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:54:12AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 05:46:02PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Patch with these changes and a fix because of not handling
> > VOIDmode attached. Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390 and
> > s390x
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 10:37:38AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > 0001-*
> >
> > Deal with mode expanding zero_extracts in change_zero_ext. The
> > patch looks good to me, but not sure whether
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 03:50:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 03:36:01PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr78748.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr78748.c
> > new file mode 100644
>
The attached patch fixes PR/78748. Bootstrapped and regression
tested on s390 and s390x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78748
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-pr78748
PR target/78748
* config/s390/s390.md ("*andc_split_&quo
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 10:37:38AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > 0001-*
> >
> > Deal with mode expanding zero_extracts in change_zero_ext. The
> > patch looks good to me, but not sure whether
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 12:25:04PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Dominik,
>
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > 0001-*
> >
> > Deal with mode expanding zero_extracts in change_zero_ext. The
> > patch looks good to me
ot clear to me whether this is a valid approach I'd
appreciate any advice on the patch or alternative ways of doing
that.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
>From 600ed3dadd5bc2568ab53be8466686abaf27ff3f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 20
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 07:56:46AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:22:13AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Sorry for breaking this. With the constant changes in the
> > patterns this is supposed to fix it seems I've lost track of the
> > st
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:00:25AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:22:13AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:19:13PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > [ I did not see this patch before, sorry. ]
> > >
> >
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:19:13PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> [ I did not see this patch before, sorry. ]
>
> This causes the second half of PR78638.
>
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:30:08PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/combine.c
> > +++ b/gcc/combin
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:26:16PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The following patch series adds some patterns for enhanced use of
> the r[ixo]sbg instructions on S/390.
>
> - 0001-* fixes some test regressions with the existing risbg
>patterns that are broken because of recent
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:26:16PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The following patch series adds some patterns for enhanced use of
> the r[ixo]sbg instructions on S/390.
>
> - 0001-* fixes some test regressions with the existing risbg
>patterns that are broken because of recent
SI mode variant of "extzv".
For details, please chech the commit comments of the patches. All
patches have been bootstrapped on s390x biarch and regression
tested on s390x biarch and s390.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 01:33:17PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 01:36 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
> >index b22a274..457fe8a 100644
> >--- a/gcc/combine.c
> >+++ b/gcc/combine.c
> >@@ -5575,10 +5575,
The attached patch fixes the setmem_long-1.c S/390 backend test.
Adding a " in the scan-assembler pattern is necessary because of a
recent change in print-rtl.c.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog-setmem-long-test
* gcc.target/s3
Ping.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:36:47PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:10:28PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:29:26PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > On 10/31/2016 08:56 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >
> > &
" \"%s\":%i", xloc.file, xloc.line);
> + else
> + fprintf (m_outfile, " %s:%i", xloc.file, xloc.line);
> }
> #endif
> }
> --
> 1.8.5.3
I'd like to get our test failure fixed, either by changing
print-rtl.c or our test case. Is the above patch good for trunk?
It does fix the s390 test failure.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
or ])
(ior:SI (reg:SI 70 [ v_and1 ])
(subreg:SI (reg:DI 69) 4)))
(clobber (reg:CC 33 %cc))
])
A while ago combine handled the situation well, resulting in the
new "risbg" instruction, but for a while it's not been working.
It's a bit difficult to track that down to a specific commit
because of the broken "combine"-patch that took a while to fix.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
:SI (reg:DI) (16) (0)))
...
?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
if (m_compact)
> + fprintf (m_outfile, " \"%s\":%i", xloc.file, xloc.line);
> + else
> + fprintf (m_outfile, " %s:%i", xloc.file, xloc.line);
Looks sensible to me.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:33:32AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/24/2016 02:59 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 01:22:31PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>> PR target/77822
> >>> * system.h (SIZE_POS_IN_RANGE): New.
> >>OK. Though system
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:05:42PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:54:17PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > The following two patches fix PR 77822 on s390x for gcc-7. As the
> > &g
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 03:01:02PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> > On s390 (31-Bit) we get two (easily fixable) test regression
> > supposedly because of the original path (+ this fix), and I don't
> > know
han the zero_extract.
While this seems to be all right on s390, it may still indicate a
case that should be handled differently?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 01:22:31PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 04:03 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 08:02:08AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>> > O
The attached patch fixes a bad regexp in the s390 specific test
lipool-r2-1.c.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-lp1
* gcc.target/s390/litpool-r3-1.c: Fix label number test.
>From a4fff946a0158cf5a9c3da838d5fc2e8cc80ef31 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
F
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:25:03AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 14:37 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:32:39PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > On 11/22/2016 02:18 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >
sn))
> {
> expanded_location xloc = insn_location (in_insn);
> - fprintf (outfile, " %s:%i", xloc.file, xloc.line);
> + fprintf (outfile, " \"%s\":%i", xloc.file, xloc.line);
Was this change intentional? We've got to update a scan-assembler
statement in an s390 test to reflect the additional double quotes
in the output string. Not a big deal, just wanted to make sure
this is not an accident.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:10:28PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:29:26PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 10/31/2016 08:56 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > >combine_simplify_rtx() tries to replace rtx expressions with just two
> > >po
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:54:17PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The following two patches fix PR 77822 on s390x for gcc-7. As the
> > macro doing the argument range checks can be used on other targets
> > as
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 08:02:08AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:09:24PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > IN_RANGE(POS...) makes sure that POS is a non-negative number
> >
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 08:02:08AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:09:24PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > IN_RANGE(POS...) makes sure that POS is a non-negative number
> > smaller than UPPER, so (UPPER) - (POS) does not wrap. Or is there
> > s
The attached patch makes the htm tests on s390 less sensitive to
spurious abort. Please check the commit comment for details. The
modified tests have been run once on a zEC12.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.target/s390/htm-builtins-1
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:31:40AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Dominik,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:53:47PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > +/* A convenience macro to determine whether a SIZE lies inclusively
> > + within [1, RANGE], POS lies inclusively with
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The following two patches fix PR 77822 on s390x for gcc-7. As the
> macro doing the argument range checks can be used on other targets
> as well, I've put it in system.h (couldn't think of a better
&
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The following two patches fix PR 77822 on s390x for gcc-7. As the
> macro doing the argument range checks can be used on other targets
> as well, I've put it in system.h (couldn't think of a better
&
90, all on a zEC12 with -march=zEC12.
Please check the commit messages for details.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
_operand" "r")
> - (match_operand:SI 2 "const_int_M_operand" "M")
> - (match_operand:SI 3 "const_int_M_operand" "M")))]
> - "arm_arch_thumb2"
> + (match_operand:SI 2 "const_int_operand" "n")
> + (match_operand:SI 3 "const_int_operand" "n")))]
> + "arm_arch_thumb2
> + && IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[3]), 0, 31)
> + && IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[2]), 1, 32 - INTVAL (operands[3]))"
>"ubfx%?\t%0, %1, %3, %2"
>[(set_attr "length" "4")
> (set_attr "predicable" "yes")
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 02:17:58PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:58:21AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > You say it needs more testing -- what testing?
> >
> > Regression testing on AIX (David has done this in reply to the
> > origi
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:29:26PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/31/2016 08:56 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> >combine_simplify_rtx() tries to replace rtx expressions with just two
> >possible values with an experession that uses if_then_else:
> >
> > (if
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:11:49AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 11:40:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >> The attached patch fixes the stack layout problems on AIX and
> >&
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01587.html
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C no longer fail with Glibc-2.18 or
> >
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 06:17:57PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:47:02AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 11:40:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > The attached patch fixes the stack layout problems on AIX and
> > &
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 11:40:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch fixes the stack layout problems on AIX and
> Power as described here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
>
> The patch has been bootstrapped on AIX (32 Bit) and bootstrappen
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:53:07PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:46:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Dominik Vogt
> >>wrote:
> >>>Something l
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:46:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Something like the attached patch? Robin and me have spent quite
> > some time to figure out the new pattern. Two questions:
> >
> > 1) In the
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:43:58PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:54:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>&g
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:46:04PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08.11.2016 15:38, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The attached patch fixes PR/77822 on s390/s390x dor gcc-6 *only*.
> > See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
> >
> > Bootstrapped and regressi
1 - 100 of 373 matches
Mail list logo
