Ping.
2011/8/10 Ilya Enkovich :
> Hello,
>
> Here is a new version of the patch. Changes from the previous version
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg02240.html):
> - updated to trunk
> - TODO_remove_unused_locals flag was removed from todo_flags_finish
> of reassoc pass
>
> Bootstr
"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
> As far as I know MIPS is no longer using the old SDE library and it is
> considered superseded by newlib,
Hadn't realised that.
> so perhaps that configuration (mips*-sde-elf* without newlib) should
> actually be deprecated/removed (and "mipssde" threads along with it
Sorry for the delay.
> --- a/gcc/config.gcc
> +++ b/gcc/config.gcc
> @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@
> # configure_default_options
> #Set to an initializer for configure_default_options
> #in configargs.h, based on --with-cpu et cetera.
> +#
> +# use_initfini_array
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Looking at the Ada case I believe this happens because
> > Ada has negative DECL_FIELD_OFFSET values (but that's
> > again in sizetype, not ssizetype)? Other host_integerp
> > uses in Ada operate on sizes where I hope those are
> > never negative ;)
>
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 11:39 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Turns out, C++ will allow you to specify the memory model as a variable
> of type enum memory_order... WTF? I would expect that to be pretty
> uncommon, and in order to get that right, we'd need a switch statement
> and call the appropr
It was checked in by HJ
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=177876
I am testing next patch.
Thanks, K
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hi Uros,
> Thanks for patience reviewing my English :) and for finding a bug in souces.
>
> Updated patch is attached. It
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 02:51 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Oh!, right, sorry. So, the only available option now is to mark it as
>> a constructor in libgcc.
>
> Or call it explicitly from the out-of-line tests.
>
> The thing is, if you intend to
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:04:11AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 08/18/2011 02:51 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> >> Oh!, right, sorry. So, the only available option now is to mark it as
> >> a constructor in libgcc.
> >
> > Or call
Ping! (Maybe I should have posted the follow-up patch in a separate
thread to make it more visible.)
2011/8/13 Janus Weil :
> Hi Thomas, hi all,
>
> 2011/8/7 Thomas Koenig :
>> When extending the values of gfc_dep_compare_expr, we will need to go
>> through all its uses (making sure we change =
>
> Regression test against cortex-M0/M3/M4 profile with "-mthumb" option
> doesn't show any new failures.
Please test on ARM state as well and make sure there are no
regressions before committing.
Ok if no regressions.
Ramana
>
> Thanks,
> -Jiangning
One of these patches appears to have broken bootstrap on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with Ada enabled:
In file included from ../../tm.h:19:0,
from targext.c:48:
../../options.h:3533:3: error: unknown type name 'HOST_WIDE_INT'
../../options.h:3534:3: error: unknown type name 'HOST_WID
Richard,
> Rainer, I know you're in the middle of libgcc2_extras, so I
> don't want to commit something that conflicts and may well
> be out-of-date any minute. But these c6x bits got missed
> after the soft-fp move.
yep, c6x support got in while the soft-fp patch was almost ready. I've
incorpo
On Friday 19 August 2011 12:05:02 Janus Weil wrote:
> Ping! (Maybe I should have posted the follow-up patch in a separate
> thread to make it more visible.)
I saw it, had a quick glance, thought that Thomas would jump on it, and
forgot. Sorry.
>
> 2011/8/13 Janus Weil :
> > Hi Thomas, hi all,
>
I have regstrapped several time with the patch without regression or failure on
my own tests.
Could someone review the patch?
Dominique
Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 11:35 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > + /* Reload the displacement. */
> > + push_reload (XEXP (ad, 1), NULL_RTX, &XEXP (ad, 1), NULL,
> > + BASE_REG_CLASS, GET_MODE (ad), VOIDmode, 0, 0,
> > + opnum, (enum reload_type) t
While working on PR50067, with some local changes I made them fail.
Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2011-08-19 Richard Guenther
* gcc.dg/torture/pr50067-1.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr50067-2.c: Likewise.
Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr50067-
This is a first piece of dr_analyze_indices TLC, simplifying
it (no INDIRECT_REFs anymore) and fixing one appearant bug
(but not 50067 yet), that we strip the MEM_REF offset even
if we didn't account for it (if !nest).
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Richard.
2011
On 08/19/2011 04:57 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 11:39 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
That would be quite ugly, and you get what you deserve if you do that.
I changed the builtins so that if you dont specify a compile time
constant in the memory model parameter, it will simply d
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I've prepared a patch which enables BMI2 extensions in GCC
>
> It conforms (hopefully) to Spec which can be found at [1]
>
> I am attaching following files:
> - bmi2.gcc.patch. Bunch of changes to GCC
> - ChangeLog. Entry for Cha
This is the fix for the testcase in PR50067. We strip outermost
(yes, outermost only, which makes it very inefficient) MEM_REFs
which causes the DR base objects in the PR to agree for two
conflicting DRs, but with the issues we have with how we
compose access functions they still get disambiguate
Very nice. One potential application of this in the future would be to
not only sequence the included files, but also the symbols and types.
To support the cases where a child include depends on symbols exported
by the parent before its inclusion (though I'm not sure we want to
really support tha
On 08/19/2011 01:55 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
OK from my side for the code proper.
I have one comment though about this:
+/* Compare two expressions. Return values:
+ * +1 if e1> e2
+ * 0 if e1 == e2
+ * -1 if e1< e2
+ * -2 if the relationship could not be determined
+ * -3 if e1 /= e
Uros' two new testcases were failing on Solaris (both SPARC and x86)
like this:
FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-67.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
In file included from
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtins-67.c:6:0:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtins-c
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 05:18:19PM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Thanks, it is fixed.
> Update patch is attached.
+ /* We generatin RORX instruction, freedom of register +
+flags not affected */
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>
> > The new keyword is C-only (C++0x has a different way of declaring
> > non-returning functions) and I did not try to make the header do
> > anything useful if included in C++ code.
>
>
Hi!
As the first testcase shows, if we need a temporary for array assignment,
we can't easily parallelize it (we'd have to emit the temporary allocation
into a OMP_SINGLE, then copyprivate the result to all the other threads, then
do the OMP_FOR and afterwards OMP_SINGLE again to free it).
Similar
Richard Sandiford writes:
>> so perhaps that configuration (mips*-sde-elf* without newlib) should
>> actually be deprecated/removed (and "mipssde" threads along with it).
>
> Yeah, sounds like a good plan.
Good to know :-) Could have saved me a little bit of work with the
libgcc patches.
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:48:41 -0700
> From: Richard Henderson
> The following has passed stage2-gcc on sparc64-linux host (full build still
> in progress), with --enable-checking=yes,rtl. It surely needs more than that,
> and I'm asking for help from the relevant maintainers to give this a t
No need for () in "(mode == SImode)":
+ && !optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun)
+ && ((mode == SImode) || (mode == DImode && TARGET_64BIT))
Wrong placement of '{':
+ if (can_create_pseudo_p () && mode != SImode) {
+rtx tmp = gen_rtx_REG (mode, 0);
+emit_insn (gen_extends
On 22/07/11 16:34, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 22/07/11 14:28, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Oh well, let's shelve it and do it later.
Here's an updated patch with the formatting problem you found fixed.
I've just committed an updated version of this patch (attached).
I found a number of subtle bugs whi
> "Jason" == Jason Merrill writes:
>> + LC_ENTER_MACRO
>> + /* stringize */
>> + /* paste */
Jason> What is the purpose of these comments?
That is left over from my initial hack. The new scheme doesn't (yet?)
properly handle locations arising from stringizing or token pasting.
Tom
On 14/07/11 15:15, Richard Guenther wrote:
Is this version OK?
Ok.
I've just committed this slightly updated patch.
I found some bugs while testing, now fixed. Most of the changes in this
patch are context changes, and using widened_mode to handle VOIDmode
constants.
Andrew
2011-08-19 An
It is hard to tell. Can you double check indentation on
+ if (can_create_pseudo_p () && mode != SImode)
+ {
+rtx tmp = gen_rtx_REG (mode, 0);
+emit_insn (gen_extendsidi2 (tmp, operands[2]));
+operands[2] = tmp;
+ }
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Thanks,
On 12/07/11 11:52, Richard Guenther wrote:
Is this one ok?
Ok.
I've just committed this slightly modified patch.
The changes are mainly in the context and the testcase.
Andrew
2011-08-19 Andrew Stubbs
gcc/
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (convert_plusminus_to_widen): Permit a single
conversion
On 14/07/11 15:25, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ok.
Committed, with no real changes. I just updated the testcase a little.
Andrew
2011-08-19 Andrew Stubbs
gcc/
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (convert_mult_to_widen): Convert
unsupported unsigned multiplies to signed.
(convert_plusminus_to_widen): Li
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> This is the fix for the testcase in PR50067. We strip outermost
> (yes, outermost only, which makes it very inefficient) MEM_REFs
> which causes the DR base objects in the PR to agree for two
> conflicting DRs, but with the issues we have with how
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >
> > This is the fix for the testcase in PR50067. We strip outermost
> > (yes, outermost only, which makes it very inefficient) MEM_REFs
> > which causes the DR base objects in the PR to agree for t
On 14/07/11 15:31, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ok.
I've just committed this patch with no real changes. I've just updated
the testcase.
Andrew
2011-08-19 Andrew Stubbs
gcc/
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (is_widening_mult_p): Remove FIXME.
Ensure the the larger type is the first operand.
gcc/te
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 22/07/11 16:34, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>>
>> On 22/07/11 14:28, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh well, let's shelve it and do it later.
>>
>> Here's an updated patch with the formatting problem you found fixed.
>
> I've just committed an upda
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Sorry for the delay.
>
>> --- a/gcc/config.gcc
>> +++ b/gcc/config.gcc
>> @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@
>> # configure_default_options
>> # Set to an initializer for configure_default_options
>> # in configargs
On 14/07/11 15:35, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ok.
I've just committed this updated patch.
I found bugs with VOIDmode constants that have caused me to recast my
patches to is_widening_mult_rhs_p. They should be logically the same for
non VOIDmode cases, but work correctly for constants. I think
On 19/08/11 15:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
Seems one in the series has broken bootstrap on x86_64 when building
the 32bit libgcc multilib in stage1.
Oh? Hopefully that'll be fixed when I complete the patchset. Patches 8
and 9 (of 7) did fix issues with the earlier patches.
Andrew
Done. Patch attached in previous mail
K
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> It is hard to tell. Can you double check indentation on
>>
>> + if (can_create_pseudo_p () && mode != SImode)
>> + {
>> + rtx tmp = gen_rtx_RE
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Hi, I had the problem with passing information about single variable
> from expand_vec_cond_expr optab into ix86_expand_*_vcond.
>
> I looked into it this problem for quite a while and found a solution.
> Now the question if it could be don
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 07:47:40AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 2011-08-19 H.J. Lu
>
> PR target/46770
> * config.gcc (tm_file): Add initfini-array.h if
> .init_arary/.fini_array supported.
s/arary/array/
Ok if nobody objects within 24 hours, but please watch for any fallouts.
On 14/07/11 15:41, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ok.
Committed, unchanged apart from the test case.
Andrew
2011-08-19 Andrew Stubbs
gcc/
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (convert_mult_to_widen): Better handle
unsigned inputs of different modes.
(convert_plusminus_to_widen): Likewise.
gcc/testsuite/
On 21/07/11 14:14, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
Here is the patch I plan to commit, when patch 1 is approved, and my
testing is complete.
Committed, unchanged.
Andrew
On 22/07/11 16:38, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
Fixed in the attached. I'll commit this version when the rest of my
testing is complete.
Now committed. Here's the patch with updated context.
Andrew
2011-08-19 Andrew Stubbs
gcc/
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (is_widening_mult_rhs_p): Handle constants
b
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Hi, I had the problem with passing information about single variable
>> from expand_vec_cond_expr optab into ix86_expand_*_vcond.
>>
>> I looked into it this problem for quite a
On 19/08/11 15:51, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 19/08/11 15:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
Seems one in the series has broken bootstrap on x86_64 when building
the 32bit libgcc multilib in stage1.
Oh? Hopefully that'll be fixed when I complete the patchset. Patches 8
and 9 (of 7) did fix issues with t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/11 15:59, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/17/2011 12:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> The patch itself looks sensible, though I am surprised ifcvt
>> doesn't run in cfglayout mode (so you have to use reg notes to find
>> probabilities ...)
>
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 22/07/11 16:38, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>>
>> Fixed in the attached. I'll commit this version when the rest of my
>> testing is complete.
>
> Now committed. Here's the patch with updated context.
>
I think one of your patches caused:
http:/
This patch adds __builtin_complex to support generating values with
arbitrary real and imaginary parts, including in static initializers,
despite the absence of imaginary types. (Recall that X + I * Y, in
the absence of imaginary types, is really X + Y * (0.0 + 1.0I),
resulting in a real part X +
> "Gabriel" == Gabriel Charette writes:
Gabriel> It nows exposes two libcpp functions to force the
Gabriel> source_location for tokens when desired.
I am not really a fan of this approach, but I see why you did it this
way -- anything else would be very invasive.
I can only approve the libc
On 07/17/2011 08:33 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Updated version.
>
> On 06/08/2011 11:45 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 06/08/2011 11:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> I'll send the patch with the testcases in a separate email.
>>
>
2 extra testcases added.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
- Tom
2011-08-19
> "Dimitrios" == Dimitrios Apostolou writes:
Richard> Note that sparsely populated hashes come at the cost of increased
Richard> cache footprint. Not sure what is more important here though, memory
Richard> access or hash computation.
Tom> I was only approving the change to the dumping.
Tom
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 08:44 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 08/19/2011 04:57 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 11:39 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >> That would be quite ugly, and you get what you deserve if you do that.
> >> I changed the builtins so that if you dont specify a
Hi Ian,
In the following 2 messages I have posted a gimple level duplicate block cleanup
pass.
Implementation: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01602.html
Test cases: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01603.html
The pass reduces x864_64-stage3-cc1 text size with 1.7%,
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Tom Tromey wrote:
I think you are the most likely person to do this sort of testing.
You can use machines on the GCC compile farm for this.
Your patch to change the symbol table's load factor is fine technically.
I think the argument for putting it in is lacking; what I wou
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Xinyu Qi wrote:
> At 2011-08-19 12:18:10,"Matt Turner" wrote:> Subject: Re:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Attached is a patch based on gcc-4.6.1 that wires-up missing ARM
>> > iwmmxt intrinsics. Without it, gcc is c
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 03:55:12PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Bootstrapped with no regressions on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Applied
> to mainline.
The new tests ICE on i686-linux:
FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-complex-err-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-complex-err-2.c (internal co
On 08/19/2011 12:48 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
The problem with issuing a warning is that anytime the compiler creates
a C++ atomic class and you use a method with a memory order, it usually
leaves an externally call-able method which has to take a runtime
value... so you'd see the warning on ba
Hi!
If some variable is optimized from TREE_ADDRESSABLE into a gimple var
during execute_update_addresses_taken while in loop closed SSA form,
it might not be rewritten into loop closed SSA form, thus either fail
verification, or following loop passes might miscompile something.
Fixed thusly, boo
86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-include
-L/var/gcc/gcc-4.7.0-20110819/2.6.18-gcc-gas-gld-no-libada/gcc/../ld -c
a-assert.adb -o a-assert.o
a-assert.adb:32:01: user-defined descendents of package Ada are not allowed
make[2]: *** [a-assert.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/var/gcc/gcc-4.7.0-20
Hello,
I'm going to commit the following (to trunk and 4.6) once the regression test
finishes.
Mikael
2011-08-19 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/50129
* parse.c (parse_where): Undo changes after emitting an error.
2011-08-19 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/50129
* wher
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Here is next patch, which adds support of code generation and intrinsics.
> Patch and ChangeLog are attached.
>
> Bootstrap and make check are passed
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
The patch looks good to me. If there are any other macroization
op
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Michael Matz wrote:
>
>> > > .LFB0:
>> > > .cfi_startproc
>> > > movsd .LC0(%rip), %xmm2
>> > > movapd %xmm0, %xmm1
>> > > andpd %xmm2, %xmm1
>> > > andnpd %xmm0, %xmm2
>> > >
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> Note that if you did
> allow such initializers for C, it wouldn't provide *expressions*
> usable in static initializers, since to make a braced initializer into
> an expression you need a compound literal and compound literals can't
> be
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch is needed for x32 and only affects x32. Any comments/objections
> to apply this to finish x32 support?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> H.J.
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:25 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is the last patch needed f
Richard Henderson wrote:
> The following has passed stage2-gcc on sparc64-linux host (full build still
> in progress), with --enable-checking=yes,rtl. It surely needs more than that,
> and I'm asking for help from the relevant maintainers to give this a try.
There are no regressions for sh4-unkn
>> > 2011/8/7 Thomas Koenig :
>> >> When extending the values of gfc_dep_compare_expr, we will need to go
>> >> through all its uses (making sure we change == -2 to <= -2).
>> >
>> > attached is a patch which makes a start with this.
>> >
>> > For now, it changes the return value to "-3" for two ca
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 03:55:12PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Bootstrapped with no regressions on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Applied
> > to mainline.
>
> The new tests ICE on i686-linux:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-complex-err-1.c (internal compiler e
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
> > Note that if you did
> > allow such initializers for C, it wouldn't provide *expressions*
> > usable in static initializers, since to make a braced initializer into
> > an expression you
The following patch makes gcc4.7 behaving as gcc4.6 for the case
described on http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49936.
The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86_64 and ppc64.
Committed as rev 177916.
2011-08-19 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/49936
* ira.
On Friday 19 August 2011 23:54:45 Janus Weil wrote:
> > I have one comment though about this:
> > +/* Compare two expressions. Return values:
> > + * +1 if e1 > e2
> > + * 0 if e1 == e2
> > + * -1 if e1 < e2
> > + * -2 if the relationship could not be determined
> > + * -3 if e1 /= e2, b
Applied requested changes.
Tested on x64 with bootstrap and pph regression testing.
Committing to pph branch, if any other changes are needed to this patch, I'm
writting a clean up patch for the line_table implementation now and will add
whatever else is needed to it.
One thing I wasn't sure i
> OK, thanks. Dmitry G. also commented that the patch does not work "for
> `_Z3fooi.1988' or `_Z3fooi.part.9.165493.constprop.775.31805'."
> Apparently, there can be multiple numeric suffixes, and a cloned
> function can be cloned again. Is it worth trying to identify the kinds
> of cloning in the
On Aug 15, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> This letter describes the recently created GCC branch called "cilkplus"
> that ports the Intel(R) Cilk(TM) Plus language extensions to the C and C++
> front-ends of gcc-4.7. We are looking for collaborators and advice as we
> proceed
Enhanc
78 matches
Mail list logo
