Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 01/06/15 13:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
So for my two cents, or perhaps three:
Any progress on this PR?
A P1 bug that affects several packages stalled for a month isn't a very good
thing... (not to mention b
On 01/06/15 13:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>> So for my two cents, or perhaps three:
>
> Any progress on this PR?
> A P1 bug that affects several packages stalled for a month isn't a very good
> thing... (not to mention broken profiledb
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> So for my two cents, or perhaps three:
Any progress on this PR?
A P1 bug that affects several packages stalled for a month isn't a very good
thing... (not to mention broken profiledbootstrap on ARM due to the same
issue).
I've checke
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> So for my two cents, or perhaps three:
>
> (1) It'd be great to have something in the documentation for
> TARGET_FUNCTION_ARG that explains what the contract for the type information
> provided is. Even/especially if some of this is
Richard Biener wrote:
On May 5, 2015 4:33:58 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For the middle-end
On 05/05/15 19:07, Richard Biener wrote:
> On May 5, 2015 4:33:58 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>> On 05/05/15 15:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub
On May 5, 2015 4:33:58 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>On 05/05/15 15:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:0
On 05/05/15 15:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> In a literal sense, yes.
On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
In a literal sense, yes. However, even K&R & stdarg have standard
p
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >> In a literal sense, yes. However, even K&R & stdarg have standard
> >> promotion and conversion rules (size < int =
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:32:28AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2015-05-05 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR target/65956
> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_needs_doubleword_align): For non-aggregate
> types check TYPE_ALIGN of TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT rather than type itself.
>
> * gcc.c-torture/
On 05/05/15 15:06, Richard Biener wrote:
> On May 5, 2015 2:49:55 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>> On 05/05/15 13:46, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 05/05/15 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
>> wrote:
> On 05/05/15 11:54, Richa
On May 5, 2015 2:49:55 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>On 05/05/15 13:46, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 05/05/15 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Je
On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> In a literal sense, yes. However, even K&R & stdarg have standard
>> promotion and conversion rules (size < int => int, floats promoted to
>> double, etc). What are those rules for GCC's
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> In a literal sense, yes. However, even K&R & stdarg have standard
> promotion and conversion rules (size < int => int, floats promoted to
> double, etc). What are those rules for GCC's overaligned types (ie
> where in the docs do
On 05/05/15 13:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:49:55PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> The real question here is why is TYPE the type of the value, rather than
>> the type of the formal as expressed by the prototype (or implicit
>> prototype in the case of variadics or K&R)?
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:49:55PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> The real question here is why is TYPE the type of the value, rather than
> the type of the formal as expressed by the prototype (or implicit
> prototype in the case of variadics or K&R)? Surely this is the mid-end
> passing the wr
On 05/05/15 13:46, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/05/15 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jaku
On 05/05/15 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>> On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So at least changing arm_ne
On 05/05/15 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>> On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So at least changing arm_ne
On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So at least changing arm_needs_doubleword_align for non-aggregates
>would
>>>
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:01:59PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > Either way, this would need careful cross-testing against an existing
> > compiler.
> >
>
> It looks as though either patch would cause ABI incompatibility for
>
> typedef int alignedint __attribute__((aligned((8;
>
> int
On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> So at least changing arm_needs_doubleword_align for non-aggregates would
>>> likely not break anything that hasn't been broken already and would
On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> So at least changing arm_needs_doubleword_align for non-aggregates would
>> likely not break anything that hasn't been broken already and would unbreak
>> the majority of cases.
>
> Attached
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So at least changing arm_needs_doubleword_align for non-aggregates would
> likely not break anything that hasn't been broken already and would unbreak
> the majority of cases.
Attached (untested so far). It indeed changes code gener
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 10:11:13AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Not sure how this helps when SRA tears apart the parameter. That is,
> isn't the important thing that both the IPA modified function argument
> types/decls have the same type as the types of the parameters SRA ends
> up passing? (a
On Sat, 2 May 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is an attempt to fix the following testcase (reduced from gsoap)
> similarly how you've fixed another issue with r221795 other AAPCS
> regressions introduced with r221348 change.
> This patch passed bootstrap/regtest on
> {x86_64,i686,armv7h
27 matches
Mail list logo
