Re: RFA: New pass to delete unexecutable paths in the CFG

2011-11-09 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 11/08/2011 09:24 PM, Jeff Law wrote: We don't have access to those assertions as they're removed well prior to this pass running. However, if we did, or if we had redundant PHIs in the stream which were propagated we'd be presented with something like BB0 if (p_1) goto BB1 else goto BB2 BB

Re: unordered associative containers are non-copyable in profile mode

2011-11-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 9 November 2011 01:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 9 November 2011 00:56, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> On 11/09/2011 12:51 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> The obvious fix is simply to change the argument type, but is there a >>> reason it's defined that way? >> >> Is there any reason for not havin

[PATCH] Fixup canonicalize_constructor_val some more

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
Make sure to mark decl addresses coming from constructors as addressable (otherwise early folding fails for all java testcases). Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2011-11-09 Richard Guenther * gimple-fold.c (canonicalize_constructor_val): Mark

Re: vector garbaged collected while still in use

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > Here is the revised patch. Bootstrap and regression tested on linux/x86-64. > > Honza, can you comment on the implication of this change? Jason also seems to have touched this again, so maybe it's already fixed? > thanks, > > David > > O

Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 50960: vtables not marked as constant

2011-11-09 Thread Janus Weil
2011/11/8 Tobias Burnus : >> I am asking the question :-)  Are the two equivalent?  To my mind, it >> is a matter of taste, if they are. > > I think in practice they are the same. Alright, since no one seems to have any strong preference, I'll just go ahead and commit my version of the patch (as a

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/07/11 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek >> wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof >>> of bas

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

2011-11-09 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
> From: Alan Modra > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100 > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > * function.c (bb_active_p): Delete. > (dup_block_and_redirect, active_insn_between): New functions. > (convert_jumps_to_returns, emit_return_for_exit)

Re: RFA: New pass to delete unexecutable paths in the CFG

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/07/11 15:25, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> Indeed.  We'd have to tell people that they cannot catch *(void *)0 >> = 0 with a SIGSEGV signal handler unless they compile with some >> magic fla

Re: [fortran, patch] Add DREAL simplification (last remaining elemental required for initialization expressions)

2011-11-09 Thread FX
> PS: Any chance of wrapping the long line to less than 80 characters? Committed as rev. 181198, with the long line in intrinsic.c wrapped. Thanks for reviewing, FX

Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 50960: vtables not marked as constant

2011-11-09 Thread Janus Weil
> Alright, since no one seems to have any strong preference, I'll just > go ahead and commit my version of the patch (as approved by Paul). Committed as r181199. Thanks for the comments, everyone! Cheers, Janus

Re: PING 1 [Patch Ada RFA] make sure that multilibs are built with correct s-oscons.ads

2011-11-09 Thread Thomas Quinot
* Iain Sandoe, 2011-11-07 : > Subject: PING 1 [Patch Ada RFA] make sure that multilibs are built with > correct s-oscons.ads Patch looks fine to me. -- Thomas Quinot, Ph.D. ** qui...@adacore.com ** Senior Software Engineer AdaCore -- Paris, France -- New York, USA

Re: [fortran, patches] Two short patches to review

2011-11-09 Thread FX
> Although I suspect you've been lurking in the background, > welcome back to the land of gfortran hacking. Your first > screw up is free, additional screw ups require you to > fix your screw up and fix an additional bug as your reward. Attached patch committed as revision 181200. FX convert

Re: PING 1 [Patch Ada RFA] make sure that multilibs are built with correct s-oscons.ads

2011-11-09 Thread Arnaud Charlet
> * Iain Sandoe, 2011-11-07 : > > > Subject: PING 1 [Patch Ada RFA] make sure that multilibs are built with > > correct s-oscons.ads > > Patch looks fine to me. It's an official 'OK' then.

[PATCH][RFC] Inline functions even with mismatching argument/return types

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
When we transform an indirect to a direct call or when, with LTO, two incompatible function declarations are merged, we can end up with call statements that use calling conventions according to a different function type than the type of the actual function being called. Currently we try to make s

[PATCH] Fix PR51039

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
This fixes PR51039 - another case of mismatches with respect to gimple_call_cannot_inline_p and gimple_check_call_matching_types. The code in ipa-inline-analysis.c looks out-of-place and it doesn't check for a conservative setting - thus the patch removes the code and instead adds verification cod

Re: ifcvt cond_exec support rewrite

2011-11-09 Thread Bernd Schmidt
Ping^2. Better support for nested if-then-else structures: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01935.html > > > Bernd >

[C++ Patch] PR 51045

2011-11-09 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, apparently, in my -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant I forgot to check the NE_EXPR we are synthesizing upon new and delete, thus these spurious warnings (I beefed up the original testcase to exercise the vector case too). The fix seems largely obvious, just use nullptr_node more, but I would

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Inline functions even with mismatching argument/return types

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > > When we transform an indirect to a direct call or when, with LTO, > two incompatible function declarations are merged, we can end up > with call statements that use calling conventions according to > a different function type than the type of the ac

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR51039

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > > This fixes PR51039 - another case of mismatches with respect to > gimple_call_cannot_inline_p and gimple_check_call_matching_types. > The code in ipa-inline-analysis.c looks out-of-place and it doesn't > check for a conservative setting - thus the p

Re: RFT: Fix PR middle/end-40154

2011-11-09 Thread Kaz Kojima
> I'm regtesting the patch on SH, though currently many C++ tests fail > on SH with > > undefined reference to `std::atomic_thread_fence(std::memory_order)'. There are no new failures with the patch + reverting 148018 workaround on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu. Regards, kaz

[C++ Patch] PR 51047

2011-11-09 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, looks like one of the usual cases of 'complain' not propagated enough, in this case, from finish_class_member_access_expr to lookup_member. Tested x86_64-linux. Thanks, Paolo. // /cp 2011-11-09 Paolo Carlini PR c++/51047 * search.c (lookup_member):

Re: [trans-mem] fix memopt-1.c for 32bits

2011-11-09 Thread Patrick Marlier
On 11/08/2011 05:25 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: On 11/08/2011 02:08 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote: - change the match for g to _ITM_RU[48] Change the match to [248]. I have never seen a "long" type to have a size of 2 bytes but I am probably wrong. (I did not find the C specification but I fou

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR51039

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > > > This fixes PR51039 - another case of mismatches with respect to > > gimple_call_cannot_inline_p and gimple_check_call_matching_types. > > The code in ipa-inline-analysis.c looks out-of-place and i

[PATCH] Fix combine's simplify_comparison (PR rtl-optimization/51023)

2011-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! This patch essentially reverts part of Bernd's 2011-07-06 changes, which was IMHO wrong. As const_op here is a constant in wider mode than MODE (which is the inner mode of the SIGN_EXTEND), the old code (and what this patch is restoring) didn't check just that the sign bit is clear, but also

[Patch] PR 51061

2011-11-09 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, reportedly, the patchlet which plugged the memory leak reported in PR36819 can cause problems when heads[QUOTE] or tails[QUOTE]. Thus I'm finishing testing the below. Really, if we have reasons to believe that the issue is much more complex than this, I guess we can also revert PR36819, -

Re: [PATCH] Fix combine's simplify_comparison (PR rtl-optimization/51023)

2011-11-09 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 11/09/11 16:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > --- gcc/combine.c.jj 2011-11-08 23:35:12.0 +0100 > +++ gcc/combine.c 2011-11-09 10:06:27.20764 +0100 > @@ -11397,9 +11397,12 @@ simplify_comparison (enum rtx_code code, >later on, and then we wouldn't know whether to sign- or >

Re: Disable libitm if unsupported

2011-11-09 Thread Iain Sandoe
Hi Richard, On 8 Nov 2011, at 21:29, Richard Henderson wrote: On 11/08/2011 01:20 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote: is it expected for libitm to work on x86 darwin? Yes. hmmm... powerpc-darwin is not affected (doesn't auto configure because there's no powerpc directory under libitm/config). How

Re: [PATCH] Fix combine's simplify_comparison (PR rtl-optimization/51023)

2011-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 04:44:55PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 11/09/11 16:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > --- gcc/combine.c.jj2011-11-08 23:35:12.0 +0100 > > +++ gcc/combine.c 2011-11-09 10:06:27.20764 +0100 > > @@ -11397,9 +11397,12 @@ simplify_comparison (enum rtx_code co

Re: [PATCH] More improvements to sparc VIS vec_init code generation.

2011-11-09 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Eric, the testsuite target tests for vis2 and vi3 capable hardware > work well in my own testing but if you find some problem with how > it's done just let me know and I'll try to fix it up. There are many failures in 64-bit mode with VIS1 because of the use of the high part to expand vec_init,

Re: [PATCH] Fix combine's simplify_comparison (PR rtl-optimization/51023)

2011-11-09 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 11/09/11 17:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > --- gcc/combine.c.jj 2011-11-08 23:35:12.0 +0100 > +++ gcc/combine.c 2011-11-09 10:06:27.20764 +0100 > @@ -11397,13 +11397,20 @@ simplify_comparison (enum rtx_code code, >later on, and then we wouldn't know whether to sign- or >

Re: Disable libitm if unsupported

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/09/2011 08:14 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > On i686-darwin9 it fails with "target only supports weak alias" > (I need to understand better where that comes from - but the machine is tied > up right now). This is fixed. I removed the alias in favor of a plain function for portability. I also ad

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 51047

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
On 11/09/2011 09:17 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: looks like one of the usual cases of 'complain' not propagated enough, in this case, from finish_class_member_access_expr to lookup_member. Hmm, the function already has a "protect" parameter that overlaps somewhat with the functionality we're looki

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 51045

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
OK. Jason

[PATCH] Fix combine's simplify_comparison (PR rtl-optimization/51023, take 3)

2011-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 05:47:02PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > Yes, I think I prefer this. So here is hopefully last iteration of that. Negative constants that trunc_int_for_mode to the same value are IMHO just fine too, similarly for ZERO_EXTEND 0x for HImode should be fine too. On the ot

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 51047

2011-11-09 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 11/09/2011 06:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/09/2011 09:17 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: looks like one of the usual cases of 'complain' not propagated enough, in this case, from finish_class_member_access_expr to lookup_member. Hmm, the function already has a "protect" parameter that overlap

Re: Disable libitm if unsupported

2011-11-09 Thread Iain Sandoe
On 9 Nov 2011, at 17:01, Richard Henderson wrote: On 11/09/2011 08:14 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: On i686-darwin9 it fails with "target only supports weak alias" (I need to understand better where that comes from - but the machine is tied up right now). This is fixed. I removed the alias in fa

Re: [rs6000] Fix PR 50906, eh_frame and other woes

2011-11-09 Thread Olivier Hainque
On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:37:57AM +0100, Olivier Hainque wrote: >> Joseph resorted to mem:scratch to impose a strong barrier. That's certainly >> safe and I don't think the performance impact can be significant, so this >> looks like a good way out

Re: [Patch] PR 51061

2011-11-09 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > reportedly, the patchlet which plugged the memory leak reported in PR36819 can > cause problems when heads[QUOTE] or tails[QUOTE]. Thus I'm finishing testing > the below. Really, if we have reasons to believe that the issue is much more > complex

Re: [Patch] PR 51061

2011-11-09 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 11/09/2011 06:21 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, reportedly, the patchlet which plugged the memory leak reported in PR36819 can cause problems when heads[QUOTE] or tails[QUOTE]. Thus I'm finishing testing the below. Really, if we have reasons to belie

Re: RFA: New pass to delete unexecutable paths in the CFG

2011-11-09 Thread Jeff Law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/09/11 02:00, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> So the question is do we want to proceed with any of this work? >> If so I can update the patch, if not I'll go back to my warning >> work :-) > > I think we do want to continue with this work - probabl

[PATCH] PR c++/51043 - ICE in LTO

2011-11-09 Thread Dodji Seketeli
Hello, LTO crashes during debug info generation while seamlessly trying to see if an anonymous union type has template info, using the TYPE_TEMPLATE_INFO accessor. That type's TYPE_NAME is NULL and we TYPE_TEMPLATE_INFO shouldn't crash on that. The first hunk (the change to TYPE_ALIAS_P) is what

C++ PATCH to improve C++11 diagnostic on inherit/using5.C

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
I've been working on improving the running of the testsuite in C++11 mode; one of the failures it found was an odd error on g++.dg/inherit/using5.C due to the compiler trying to parse 'using B::f' as an alias-declaration. Fixed by bailing out early if parsing fails. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

C++ PATCH for various template non-type argument tests in C++11 mode

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
I'm improving the C++11 coverage of the testsuite, which resulted in several failures on non-type argument tests in the current testsuite. Fixed by folding constant expressions in fewer cases. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit b1ec006abd6e4dbf45fca99160b09dab0827a10c Author:

Re: [PATCH] PR c++/51043 - ICE in LTO

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
OK. Jason

Re: [Patch - vms]: Add support of pragma __extern_prefix

2011-11-09 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote: > Hi, > > DEC-C for vms has '#pragma __extern_prefix' which is not unlike '#pragma > extern_prefix' supported by DEC-C for Tru64. > > This patch adds supports for the VMS version (which can save and restore > the current prefix). It reuses most of th

C++ testsuite PATCH to overhaul running of tests in C++11 mode

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
While working on an earlier PR I noticed that make check-c++0x wasn't actually running a lot of tests in C++11 mode because the -std=c++11 that it added came before the default arguments, so any test without a { dg-options } line would still be run in C++98 mode. So I've reworked the C++ tests

Re: RFA: New pass to delete unexecutable paths in the CFG

2011-11-09 Thread Jeff Law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/09/11 01:09, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 11/08/2011 09:24 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> We don't have access to those assertions as they're removed well >> prior to this pass running. However, if we did, or if we had >> redundant PHIs in the stream which

Re: C++ testsuite PATCH to overhaul running of tests in C++11 mode

2011-11-09 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Jason Merrill wrote: > While working on an earlier PR I noticed that make check-c++0x wasn't actually > running a lot of tests in C++11 mode because the -std=c++11 that it added came > before the default arguments, so any test without a { dg-options } line would > still be run

Re: RFA: New pass to delete unexecutable paths in the CFG

2011-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:53:34AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > which is only different on undefined paths. But I'm not sure that > > more complicated cases, where there are other instructions between > > the "if" and "*p = 0", would also be allowed by the C standard. > > For example, I think a func

Re: C++ testsuite PATCH to overhaul running of tests in C++11 mode

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
On 11/09/2011 01:02 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: To confirm: what do the PASS or FAIL lines look like? For tests run in both modes, they look like PASS: g++.dg/whatever -std=c++98 PASS: g++.dg/whatever -std=c++11 Jason

[libitm] Configure for gas cfi pseudos

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
Tested on x86_64-linux. This *ought* to fix RO's Solaris problem. Committed. r~ commit 67ba1f57ef6bafdcc0d5e43dbe5793367622977b Author: rth Date: Wed Nov 9 18:09:53 2011 + libitm: Configure for gas cfi pseudo ops. * asmcfi.m4: New file. * configure.ac (GCC_

[Patch] Move Objective-C runtime flags to modern options system.

2011-11-09 Thread Iain Sandoe
As discussed in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg00927.html This puts "flag_next_runtime" into the global options structure -- hopefully this will pave the way for extracting the information from objects when doing LTO and making sure that it is (a) consistent - and (b) that

C++ PATCH for c++/51029 (C++11 ICE with virtual base)

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
With this test, build_base_path was crashing because it (reasonably) assumed that if we're in a constructor with virtual bases, we can look at current_in_charge_parm. But we can't in a template, even when we've cleared processing_template_decl for the sake of fold_non_dependent_expr. So don't

Re: [libitm] Configure for gas cfi pseudos

2011-11-09 Thread Rainer Orth
Richard Henderson writes: > Tested on x86_64-linux. This *ought* to fix RO's Solaris problem. Right, that's equivalent to, though cleaner than, what I've done. There are a few outstanding issues on Solaris/x86 with Sun as: * as doesn't grok the GNU-stack note in config/x86/sjlj.S (likewise os

[Patch, libfortran] Trivial cleanup committed

2011-11-09 Thread Janne Blomqvist
Hi, I committed the trivial patch below as obvious to trunk: 2011-11-09 Janne Blomqvist * intrinsics/time_1.h (gf_gettime): Simplify time() usage. Index: libgfortran/intrinsics/time_1.h === --- libgfortran/intrinsics/ti

Re: [libitm] Configure for gas cfi pseudos

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/09/2011 10:23 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > * as doesn't grok the GNU-stack note in config/x86/sjlj.S (likewise osf > as in config/alpha/sjlj.S): > > +#if defined __ELF__ && defined __linux__ > .section .note.GNU-stack, "", @progbits > +#endif I'll include that in another __ELF__ patch I'm pr

Re: [patch tree-optimization 1/2]: Branch-cost optimizations

2011-11-09 Thread Jeff Law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/07/11 15:36, Richard Guenther wrote: > > Yes. tree-affine does this for a sum of expressions of the form a > + b * c. It collects such sum, optimizes it (and you can > add/subtract or scale these things) and re-emit the new simplified > form.

Re: [top-level patch] Do proper target tool checks for readelf

2011-11-09 Thread Roland McGrath
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Roland McGrath wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:55 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: >> The patch looks OK to me. > > Thanks!  As I'm still not a GCC committer, someone please check it in for me. > If people would like me to handle the merge over to src/ myself, I'd be > gl

Re: Disable libitm if unsupported

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
> I'll hang on .. and test stuff ;-) Try now. I've committed the following. r~ commit f29a2041f32773464e226a83f41762c2e9cf658e Author: rth Date: Wed Nov 9 18:38:21 2011 + libitm: de-ELF-ize x86/sjlj.S. * config/x86/sjlj.S: Protect elf directives with __ELF__.

Re: Disable libitm if unsupported

2011-11-09 Thread Iain Sandoe
On 9 Nov 2011, at 18:39, Richard Henderson wrote: I'll hang on .. and test stuff ;-) Try now. I've committed the following. sjlj.S now builds ... ... similar issues are showing in x86_sse.S (I will try and look at those, if you have not already started). Iain

Re: [libitm] Configure for gas cfi pseudos

2011-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:33:12AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > > If the code ensures at runtime that AVX insns (or SSE for that matter) > > are only used if hardware and OS are capable of executing them, one > > can deal with this with the equivalent of > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i3

Re: [PATCH] More improvements to sparc VIS vec_init code generation.

2011-11-09 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Botcazou Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:41:36 +0100 > There isn't an equivalent for 32-bit, is it? That is, you can load 8, 16 and > 64 bits in the upper FP regs, but not 32 bits? Indeed, you need to use normal 32-bit loads and thus the lower 32 float regs. BTW, I suspect the paradoxical

Re: [libitm] Configure for gas cfi pseudos

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/09/2011 10:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Aren't the symbol versions part of the ABI discussed with Intel and others > though? Ug. Probably. Though they never actually responded wrt the symbol versions when we talked; none of the guys on the conference call undersood that bit about how ELF

Re: [top-level patch] Do proper target tool checks for readelf

2011-11-09 Thread DJ Delorie
> Ping. Anybody going to do this commit for me? (If insteaed someone would > like to add me to the gcc group so I can do "write after approval", that > would be fine too.) Done.

Re: [libitm] Configure for gas cfi pseudos

2011-11-09 Thread Torvald Riegel
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 19:50 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:33:12AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > > > If the code ensures at runtime that AVX insns (or SSE for that matter) > > > are only used if hardware and OS are capable of executing them, one > > > can deal wi

Re: [libitm] Configure for gas cfi pseudos

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/09/2011 10:58 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > This ABI is explicitly for x86 on Linux (we've ignored the Windows > version of it so far). We thus can define it differently (or just offer > a subset of the symbols) on other architectures/platforms. Subsets are dangerous. For any platform that ha

Re: [libitm] Configure for gas cfi pseudos

2011-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:55:53AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 11/09/2011 10:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Aren't the symbol versions part of the ABI discussed with Intel and others > > though? > > Ug. Probably. Though they never actually responded wrt the symbol versions > when we ta

Re: [Patch,Fortran] Fix tree-walking issue

2011-11-09 Thread Janne Blomqvist
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 09:33, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Dear all, > > attached is an updated version of Patch 2. The change is that I removed the > global variable for fill_st_vector and updated the comment for > do_traverse_symtree to make assumptions clearer. > > This version of the patch was build

Re: [libitm] Configure for gas cfi pseudos

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/09/2011 11:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:55:53AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 11/09/2011 10:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> Aren't the symbol versions part of the ABI discussed with Intel and others >>> though? >> >> Ug. Probably. Though they never actual

[Bug rtl-optimization/51040] atomic_fetch_nand issue

2011-11-09 Thread Andrew MacLeod
NAND patchup arithmetic was missing the 2 stage AND then NOT operation. Instead it was falling into the same sequence as every other operation and trying to perform a binary operation on a NOT. I managed to modify and existing testcase to trigger the bug without requiring a configuration with RTL

Re: [PATCH] Avoid frame pointer and stack realignment in AVX/AVX2 using fns if they don't touch sp/fp

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/07/2011 01:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > * function.h (requires_stack_frame_p): New prototype. > * function.c (requires_stack_frame_p): No longer static. > * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_finalize_stack_realign_flags): If > stack_realign_fp was just a conservative guess for

Re: [Build, libgfortran, Patch] Make libgfortran's configure more cross-compile friendly

2011-11-09 Thread Tobias Burnus
On 02 Nov 2011 21:52, Janne Blomqvist wrote: On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 22:25, Tobias Burnus wrote: at the GSoC Mentor summit, I had a chat with Joel, who asked me whether he should try to crosscompile also Fortran. Well, at the end I created the attached patch (based on what one had to do for libq

Re: [Patch] Move Objective-C runtime flags to modern options system.

2011-11-09 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Iain Sandoe wrote: > I am probably missing something > - but there doesn't seem to be a ready way to set the Init() value of a flag > depending on the target The way that is done is to use an expression inside Init() that uses a target macro (it needs to be a macro, not a hoo

[libitm] avoid non-portable branch mnemonics

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
I said elsewhere that I would convert this to __atomic, but then I re-read my commentary about using cmpxchg *without* a lock prefix. What we're looking for here is more or less non-interruptible, rather than atomic. And apparently I benchmarked this a while back as a 10x performance improvement.

Re: [patch]: support of VMS module include files

2011-11-09 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote: > With this patch, these two directories are search in the include path > and added if found. This is mostly a VMS specific patch, except I > needed to add a function to get include pathes. > > Tested by cross compiling for alpha-vms and ia64-vms. >

Re: Patch RFA: Add context switching splitstack routines

2011-11-09 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Ian Lance Taylor writes: > libgcc/ChangeLog: > > 2011-11-07 Ian Lance Taylor > > * generic-morestack.c: Include . > (uintptr_type): Define. > (struct initial_sp): Add dont_block_signals field. Reduce size of > extra array by 1. > (allocate_segment): Set prev fiel

Re: [trans-mem] fix memopt-1.c for 32bits

2011-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 09:32:28AM -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote: > > * gcc.dg/tm/memopt-1.c: Adjust regexp. This results in ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "248" does not exist. - [] is tcl procedure invocation. Testing following, will commit soon if it succeeds: 2011-11-09 Jakub Jelinek

Re: [trans-mem] fix memopt-1.c for 32bits

2011-11-09 Thread Patrick Marlier
On 11/09/2011 03:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 09:32:28AM -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote: * gcc.dg/tm/memopt-1.c: Adjust regexp. This results in ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "248" does not exist. - [] is tcl procedure invocation. Testing following, will commit soon if

Re: C++ testsuite PATCH to overhaul running of tests in C++11 mode

2011-11-09 Thread Fabien Chêne
Hi, 2011/11/9 Jason Merrill : > On 11/09/2011 01:02 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> >> To confirm: what do the PASS or FAIL lines look like? > > For tests run in both modes, they look like > > PASS: g++.dg/whatever -std=c++98 > PASS: g++.dg/whatever -std=c++11 Nice, but ... is there a way to launch

Re: [patch tree-optimization 1/2]: Branch-cost optimizations

2011-11-09 Thread Kai Tietz
2011/11/9 Jeff Law : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/07/11 15:36, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> >> Yes.  tree-affine does this for a sum of expressions of the form a >> + b * c. It collects such sum, optimizes it (and you can >> add/subtract or scale these things) and re-

Re: [v3] C++11 allocator reqs for vector in debug & profile mode

2011-11-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 9 November 2011 10:19, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi >> >> I checked, and it's currently broken :) >> >> We do the wrong thing for allocators with >> propagate_on_container_swap==true. >> >> I think the fix might be as simple as constructing the new container >> with a copy of the old one's allocato

Re: [PATCH] More improvements to sparc VIS vec_init code generation.

2011-11-09 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Thanks for looking into the 64-bit failures, and actually if you want > I can work on fixing them myself this afternoon. Yes, you probably have a better grasp on the code than me. -- Eric Botcazou

[PATCH] Fix fallout from bool store pattern recognition (PR tree-optimization/51000)

2011-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! When a bool store gets a pattern stmt, we need to update DR_STMT (otherwise the original rather than replaced stmts are used e.g. for interleaving etc.). Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, testcase tested on powerpc64-linux, ok for trunk? 2011-11-09 Jakub Jelinek

[PATCH] Handle -msse -mno-sse2 in expand_vec_perm_interleave2 (PR target/50911)

2011-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! We don't have a V4SImode vec_interleave_{low,high}v4si patterns for TARGET_SSE, the following patch works around that by using what TARGET_SSE has (vec_interleave_{low,high}v4sf) instead of ICEing. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? 2011-11-09 Jakub Jelinek

Re: [PATCH] Handle -msse -mno-sse2 in expand_vec_perm_interleave2 (PR target/50911)

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/09/2011 01:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > PR target/50911 > * config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_perm_interleave2): If d->vmode is > V4SImode, !TARGET_SSE2 and punpck[lh]* is needed, change dremap.vmode > to V4SFmode. > > * gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-16.inc: Add interleave

[CRIS] Hookize FUNCTION_VALUE_REGNO_P

2011-11-09 Thread Anatoly Sokolov
Hello. This patch removes obsolete FUNCTION_VALUE_REGNO_P macro from CRIS back end in the GCC and introduces equivalent TARGET_FUNCTION_VALUE_REGNO_P target hook. Regression tested on cris-axis-elf. OK to install? * config/cris/cris.c (cris_function_value_regno_p): Make static.

Re: C++ testsuite PATCH to overhaul running of tests in C++11 mode

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
On 11/09/2011 04:01 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote: Nice, but ... is there a way to launch the testsuite with only one mode at a time ? Not currently. Jason

Re: [Patch] Move Objective-C runtime flags to modern options system.

2011-11-09 Thread Mike Stump
On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > This puts "flag_next_runtime" into the global options structure > I needed to deal with '-fobjc-sjlj-exceptions' and elected to remove it - > - this is because there is only one valid exception model for each > permutation of runtime and ABI - t

Re: building trunk fails due to C++

2011-11-09 Thread Tobias Burnus
Steve Kargl wrote: With top of tree, I'm seeing % ../gcc4x/configure --prefix=$HOME/work --enable-languages=c,fortran \ --disable-libmudflap --disable-bootstrap % gmake I think the issue is that by default the trunk is build (stage 1) by the system C compiler and the next stages (Stage 2 and

Re: RFA: New pass to delete unexecutable paths in the CFG

2011-11-09 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 11/09/2011 06:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote: My patch totally ignores the other code on the unexecutable path. So we can miss externally visible side effects, if we were to somehow get on the unexecutable path. But that's the whole point, in a conforming program we can't ever get on the unexecutable

C++ PATCH for c++/51046 (ICE with unexpanded parameter pack)

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
Missing a call to check_for_bare_parameter_packs. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit 3d2892d25a37984099611c02614fc9788e14d4c4 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Wed Nov 9 14:25:21 2011 -0500 PR c++/51046 * parser.c (cp_parser_range_for): check_for_bare_parameter_packs.

Re: building trunk fails due to C++

2011-11-09 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:10:05PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Steve Kargl wrote: > >With top of tree, I'm seeing > > > >% ../gcc4x/configure --prefix=$HOME/work --enable-languages=c,fortran \ > >--disable-libmudflap --disable-bootstrap > >% gmake > > I think the issue is that by default the tru

C++ PATCH for c++/50972 (ice-on-invalid with noexcept)

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
In this testcase we weren't watching the return value of push_tinst_level, so we crashed trying to pop the level we didn't push. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit b7eabaa932f7f309630fc7163e64d61b1aba17c8 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Wed Nov 9 16:39:25 2011 -0500 PR c+

[RFC] PR 50837

2011-11-09 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, I'm trying to make progress on this issue which I find rather embarrassing in terms of simple uses of constexpr functions and static_assert. We reject, at instantiation time: template struct z { static constexpr bool test_constexpr() { return true; } static void test() { static_assert(te

[patch] Flag-controlled type conversions/promotions

2011-11-09 Thread Andreas Kloeckner
Hi there, please find attached the patch and the Changelog entry for our work on the fortran bug #48426. The attached patch implements the options -finteger-4-integer-8 -freal-4-real-8 -freal-4-real-10 -freal-4-real-16 -freal-8-real-4 -freal-8-real-10 -freal-8-real-16 to implement a variety of

Re: building trunk fails due to C++

2011-11-09 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Steve Kargl wrote: > > With top of tree, I'm seeing > > > > % ../gcc4x/configure --prefix=$HOME/work --enable-languages=c,fortran \ > > --disable-libmudflap --disable-bootstrap > > % gmake > > I think the issue is that by default the trunk is build (sta

[libitm] Work around missing AVX support

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Henderson
Not pretty at all. But given the corresponding irritation in writing assembler wrapper functions, it seems like it's about a wash. Tested with and without HAVE_AS_AVX on x86_64-linux. r~ commit 856dd9f4777fbafce3038e889e9a9bf4815d Author: Richard Henderson Date: Wed Nov 9 16:28:45 2011 -

Re: [RFC] PR 50837

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
On 11/09/2011 05:45 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: finish_id_expression is called from cp_parser_primary_expression with a true allow_non_integral_constant_expression_p and the error doesn't occur. Yes, allow_non_integral_constant_expression_p should always be true in C++11. Jason

Re: [RFC] PR 50837

2011-11-09 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 11/10/2011 01:43 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/09/2011 05:45 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: finish_id_expression is called from cp_parser_primary_expression with a true allow_non_integral_constant_expression_p and the error doesn't occur. Yes, allow_non_integral_constant_expression_p should alwa

Re: [RFC] PR 50837

2011-11-09 Thread Jason Merrill
On 11/09/2011 07:56 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: - /*allow_non_integral_constant_expression_p=*/false, + /*allow_non_integral_constant_expression_p=*/true, This should be (cxx_dialect >= cxx0x) rather than true. Jason

  1   2   >