Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR51879 - Missed tail merging with non-const/pure calls

On 27/01/12 21:37, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 24/01/12 11:40, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Tom de Vries >> wrote: >>> Richard, >>> Jakub, >>> >>> the following patch fixes PR51879. >>> >>> Consider the following test-case: >>> ... >>> int bar (int); >>> void baz (int

Re: [PATCH] Remove dead labels to increase superblock scope

On 09/12/11 14:59, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> 2011-12-07 Tom de Vries >> >> * cfgcleanup.c (try_optimize_cfg): Replace call to delete_isns_chain by > > delete_insn_chain > >> call to delete_insn. Remove code to reorder BASIC_BLOCK note and >> DELETED_LABEL note, and move it to ...

Re: [PATCH][ARM] NEON DImode neg

On 12/04/12 16:48, Richard Earnshaw wrote: If negation in Neon needs a scratch register, it seems to me to be somewhat odd that we're disparaging the ARM version. Also, wouldn't it be sensible to support a variant that was early-clobber on operand 0, but loaded immediate zero into that value fir

Re: [PATCH][ARM] NEON DImode neg

And now with the patch. :( On 14/04/12 13:48, Andrew Stubbs wrote: On 12/04/12 16:48, Richard Earnshaw wrote: If negation in Neon needs a scratch register, it seems to me to be somewhat odd that we're disparaging the ARM version. Also, wouldn't it be sensible to support a variant that was earl

Re: _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS too coarse

This patch partially reverts the change made on 2012-02-10 that partially disabled builtin atomics on powerpc, resulting in inconsistent locking (mix of atomics and pthread mutexes) and an ABI incompatibility with previous versions of libstdc++. See the PR for all the gory details. Applying to ma

Re: [PATCH] Fix PRs c/52283/37985

As far as I know, this patch hasn't been reviewed: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/150636/ Cheers, Manuel. On 4 April 2012 10:17, Christian Bruel wrote: > Hello, > > Is it OK to push the cleaning of TREE_NO_WARNING to fix the constant > expressions errors discrepancies, as discussed in bugz

[PATCH] Fix PR52976

This patch corrects two errors in reassociating expressions with repeated factors. First, undistribution needs to recognize repeated factors. For now, repeated factors will be ineligible for this optimization. In the future, this can be improved. Second, when a __builtin_powi call is introduced

[wwwdocs] Update libstdc++ front page

The current C++ standard has 30 chapters. Committed to CVS. Index: libstdc++/index.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/libstdc++/index.html,v retrieving revision 1.37 diff -u -r1.37 index.html --- libstdc++/index.html1

Re: [PATCH 01/11] Fix cpp_sys_macro_p with -ftrack-macro-expansion

Jason Merrill writes: > On 04/10/2012 10:55 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: >> + if (CPP_OPTION (pfile, track_macro_expansion)) > > I think this should check context->tokens_kind rather than the > compiler flag. OK. Below is the updated patch that does that. Tested and bootstrapped on x86_64-unknow

Re: [PATCH 02/11] Fix token pasting with -ftrack-macro-expansion

Jason Merrill writes: > On 04/10/2012 10:57 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: >> +virt_loc = *(context->c.mc->cur_virt_loc - 1); > > Style nit: I'd use [-1] here. OK with that change. Thanks, here is the updated patch that I'll commit in a few days. Tested and bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR52916 - fix TREE_PUBLIC() = 0 for module procedures

* PING * It is a rather serious rejects-valid regression. It also affects SPEC CPU 2006 and the patch has been confirmed (cf. PR) to fix the regression. Tobias Tobias Burnus wrote: Dear all, my recent patch for setting PRIVATE module variables and procedures to TREE_PUBLIC()=0 had a flaw:

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR52916 - fix TREE_PUBLIC() = 0 for module procedures

Hi Tobias, * PING * It is a rather serious rejects-valid regression. It also affects SPEC CPU 2006 and the patch has been confirmed (cf. PR) to fix the regression. OK for trunk. Thanks for the patch! Thomas

Re: [patch, fortran] Trim spaces on list-directed reads

On 04/10/2012 08:32 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: Hello world, this patch effectively trims the spaces from the string on list-directed reads. This avoids the large overhead on processing these spaces when reading from long lines. I didn't do this for internal units which are arrays because this wou

Re: [PATCH] Prevent 'control reaches end of non-void function' warning for DO_WHILE

Jason, On 18/02/12 09:33, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 01/22/2012 03:38 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > > Sorry I didn't notice this patch until now; please CC me on C++ patches, > or at least mention C++ in the subject line. > OK, will do. >> + tree expr = NULL; >> + append_to_statement_lis

[v3] libstdc++/52699

Hi, this is what I'm going to commit to mainline (and likely 4.7.1 too) to solve a number of issues affecting the implementation of independent_bits_engine::operator()() as originally contributed: essentially we want to be very careful with overflows (+ other lesser issues and small optimizat

[cxx-conversion] COMPILER_FOR_BUILD in C++ mode

2012-04-14 Pedro Lamarão * Makefile.in: define COMPILER_FOR_BUILD etc. conditionally according with ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX. --- a/gcc/Makefile.in +++ b/gcc/Makefile.in @@ -731,12 +731,22 @@ CC_FOR_BUILD = @CC_FOR_BUILD@ BUILD_CFLAGS= @BUILD_CFLAGS@ -DGENERATOR_FILE # Native

Re: [PATCH 01/11] Fix cpp_sys_macro_p with -ftrack-macro-expansion

OK. Jason