> 2012-08-27 Terry Guo
>
> * lib/gcc-dg.exp (dg_runtest_extra_prunes): New variable to define
> rules
> that will be applied to all tests in a .exp file.
> (gcc-dg-prune): Include rules defined by the above variable.
>
> * gcc.target/arm/arm.exp (dg_runtest_extr
This patch fixes an obvious buffer overflow in c-ada-spec.c:
sprintf (buf, "field_%d : aliased ", field_num + 1);
where buf was too small. The original buffer was large enough, but then
the above string was made larger (change from "field_%d : " to
"field_%d : aliased " without maki
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Botcazou [mailto:ebotca...@adacore.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:56 PM
> To: Terry Guo
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Guenther
> Subject: Re: [Patch, test] Enable to prune warnings for tests defined
> in one exp file
>
> > 2012-08-27
On 10/10/12 02:32, Terry Guo wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard Earnshaw
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:01 PM
To: Terry Guo
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Patch ARM] Fix that miss DMB instruction for ARMv6-M
On 08/10/12 08:29, Terry Guo wrote:
Hi,
When running li
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As the testcase shows, a REAL_CST can appear in MINUS_EXPR as second operand
> (that is not canonicalized to PLUS_EXPR of negated value, unlike integer
> constants (with exception of minimum value)). The following patch handles
> constants ther
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 32-bit HWI warning there is a warning about signed (INTVAL) vs. unsigned
> ({,op_}precision) comparison (on 64-bit HWI that doesn't trigger, as
> INTVAL is 64-bit signed long, while precision is 32-bit unsigned).
> This patch fixes
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Seems I wrote a patch 7.5 years ago for and on the 3.4 branch
> (supposedly for a testcase that went latent on the trunk at that time,
> due to SSA merge?), and missed the fact that GET_RTX_CLASS changed
> on the trunk from characters
The previous fix for clearing EXPR_LOCATION (and thus LOCATION_BLOCK)
from jump functions was incomplete as it didn't consider sub-expressions.
Fixed as follows.
LTO bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
Richard.
2012-10-10 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/54876
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:21:59AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> Err, why? Can't we negate a constant, too?
Not all of them, say INT_MIN can't be negated.
Though,
int
foo (int n)
{
int i, d;
for (i = 0, d = 0; i < n;
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:21:59AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
> >
> > Err, why? Can't we negate a constant, too?
>
> Not all of them, say INT_MIN can't be negated.
> Though,
As many have already noticed I changed surenames (but not e-mail
addresses). The following patch adjusts MAINTAINERS.
Unfortunately this donesn't improve the situation with the
too many Richards ;)
Committed.
Richard.
2012-10-10 Richard Biener
* MAINTAINERS: Adjust for changed sur
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:42:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Yeah, I meant we can negate all constants by doing
>
> tem = - CONSTANT;
Yeah, that is what I meant. tem = - INT_MIN; is undefined overflow.
>
> right? Or wait ... even if we have
>
> red = x - y;
>
> if y is INT_MIN then t
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:45:58AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> 2012-10-10 Richard Biener
>
> * MAINTAINERS: Adjust for changed surename.
>
> Index: MAINTAINERS
> ===
> --- MAINTAINERS (revision 192254)
> +++ MAINTAI
Hi,
adding the testcase and closing the PR as fixed.
Thanks,
Paolo.
//
2012-10-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/50478
* g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist67.C: New.
Index: g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist67.C
===
---
Hi Jakub,
Here is the updated patch.
The command make check-gcc
RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32/-march=i686,-m64\} i386.exp=pr53397*.c'
now passes.
Ok for trunk?
Regards,
Venkat.
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Octo
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:48:02AM +, Kumar, Venkataramanan wrote:
> +2012-10-09 Venkataramanan Kumar
> +
> + PR testsuite/53397
> + * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg: Remove test cases pr53397-1.c and pr53397-2.c
> + they are moved to gcc.target/i386 as they are specific to i386/x86_64.
>
On 10/10/12 03:11, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 10/09/2012 07:39 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 27/09/12 01:02, Janis Johnson wrote:
Test gcc.target/arm/div64-unwinding.c is known to fail for GNU/Linux
targets, as described in PR54732. This patch adds an XFAIL.
Tested on arm-none-eabi and arm-none
Ping^2
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org]
On
> Behalf Of Bin Cheng
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 2:36 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan; Richard Earnshaw; 'Richard Sandiford'
> Subject: RE: [PING Up
Hello!
>> +2012-10-09 Venkataramanan Kumar
>> +
>> +PR testsuite/53397
>> +* gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg: Remove test cases pr53397-1.c and pr53397-2.c
>> +they are moved to gcc.target/i386 as they are specific to i386/x86_64.
>> +* gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr53397-1.c: New test
>
Hi,
adding the testcase and closing the PR as fixed.
Thanks,
Paolo.
2012-10-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53741
* g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-ice9.C: New.
Index: g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-ice9.C
=
Hi,
On 10/03/2012 11:57 AM, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh wrote:
Testing was done before posting the patch. It was successful.
This change is now in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-10/msg00418.html
and it looks like is breaking the build for me:
build/genattrtab
/scratch/Gcc/svn-dir
Depending on the system mkstemp might create the scratch files with 0666
permission (e.g. glibc <= 2.06); for security reasons, it should use
0600. Thus, one is supposed to set a umask before calling the function
(see, e.g., the Linux man page for mkstemp).
Build and regtested on x86-64-linux
On 21/09/12 03:51, Janis Johnson wrote:
This patch adds test directives to skip 5 tests in gcc.target/arm if the
flags specified for the test would be overridden by or conflict with
flags used for all tests, such as multilib flags.
Tested on arm-none-eabi with a variety of test flags. I'll wait
On 21/09/12 03:52, Janis Johnson wrote:
Tests in gcc.target/arm/aapcs check for floating-point arguments being
passed correctly, but the added flag "-mfloat-abi=hard" can be
overridden by another value in flags used for all tests (like multilib
flags), causing the tests to fail. The tests in tha
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:29:04PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/03/2012 11:57 AM, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh wrote:
> >Testing was done before posting the patch. It was successful.
> This change is now in:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-10/msg00418.html
>
> and it looks
Hi,
On 10/10/2012 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Yeah, clearly a different version of the patch has been posted
vs. what has been checked in. The difference is removal of the
(define_cpu_unit "bdver1-mult" "bdver1_mult")
line (present in the posted patch, not in the checked in patch).
Also, th
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Depending on the system mkstemp might create the scratch files with 0666
> permission (e.g. glibc <= 2.06); for security reasons, it should use 0600.
> Thus, one is supposed to set a umask before calling the function (see, e.g.,
> the Linux
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:57:09PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Yeah, clearly a different version of the patch has been posted
> >vs. what has been checked in. The difference is removal of the
> >(define_cpu_unit "bdver1-mult" "bdver1_mult")
> >line
On 10/10/2012 01:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I have removed the extra line as obvious in SVN, to allow my
bootstraps to continue.
Thanks!
Paolo.
That was obvious. Sorry for the wrong commit.
Thanks Jakub.
-Ganesh
-Original Message-
From: Paolo Carlini [mailto:paolo.carl...@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:33 PM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh; Uros Bizjak; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;
veku...@gcc.gnu.
Hi,
The tests gcc.dg/vect/vect-82_64.c and gcc.dg/vect/vect-83_64.c are
failing on powerpc*-*-* (see for instance
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-10/msg01054.html ).
This is fixed with the following patch
diff -up gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-82_64.c
../work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vec
... tested x86_64-linux. Committed to mainline.
Paolo.
2012-10-10 Paolo Carlini
* include/std/type_traits (__do_common_type_impl): Revert for now
LWG 2141-related change.
* testsuite/20_util/common_type/requirements/typedefs-1.cc: Likewise.
Hi guys,
>> Is it ok for release it into trunk and 4.7?
>
> Yes, please do so.
Checked into trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-10/msg00419.html
and 4.7: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-10/msg00431.html
Thanks, K
2012/10/10 Paolo Carlini :
> ... tested x86_64-linux. Committed to mainline.
I'd like to mention that this patch does not reflect what the core
language says, e.g.
static_assert(is_type, int>(), "");
Should assert, the correct result being int&&. The test currently
holds because of compiler bug
On 10/10/2012 02:06 PM, Daniel Krügler wrote:
2012/10/10 Paolo Carlini :
... tested x86_64-linux. Committed to mainline.
I'd like to mention that this patch does not reflect what the core
language says, e.g.
static_assert(is_type, int>(), "");
Should assert, the correct result being int&&. Th
The test gcc.dg/pr54782.c uses command line option
-ftree-parallelize-loops=2 which implies -pthread and thus the test fails on
targets that do not support pthread, such as arm-none-eabi.
This patch adds effective target check.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Greta
ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite
2012-10-05 G
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> It's an incorrect warning from an old version of GCC. Fixed like so.
> Bootstrapped and ran libbacktrace testsuite on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline.
Another two in libbackend/elf.c, committed as obvious after
build passed the poin
On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:17, "Greta Yorsh" wrote:
> The test gcc.dg/pr54782.c uses command line option
> -ftree-parallelize-loops=2 which implies -pthread and thus the test fails on
> targets that do not support pthread, such as arm-none-eabi.
>
> This patch adds effective target check.
>
> Ok for
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:13:06PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 04:36 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> ==36994== Address 0x1003cd2e0 is 16 bytes inside a block of size 536 free'd
>> ==36994==at 0x10001252D: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:430)
>> ==36994==by 0x1003B5CB2: emutls_d
Hi,
adding the testcase and closing the PR as fixed in mainline.
Thanks,
Paolo.
//
2012-10-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53122
* g++.dg/cpp0x/auto35.C: New.
Index: g++.dg/cpp0x/auto35.C
===
--- g++.dg/
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Unfortunately this donesn't improve the situation with the
> too many Richards ;)
I think you will find it easier to change your given name at the same
time that you are changing your surname, to get all the changes over
with at once. Pe
As reported in the PR, abi_check fails on Solaris 10 and 11 since about
20120817. On Solaris 10, I get
1 incompatible symbols
0
_ZNSt12system_errorC1ESt10error_codeRKSs
std::system_error::system_error(std::error_code, std::string const&)
version status: incompatible
GLIBCXX_3.4.11
type: function
first referenced
symbol in file
dl_iterate_phdr
/var/gcc/gcc-4.8.0-20121010/10-gcc-gas/i386-pc-solaris2.10/./libgo/.libs/libgo.so
ld: fatal: symbol referencing errors. No output written to
/var/gcc/gcc-4.8.0-20121010/10-gcc-gas/gcc/testsuite/go/
This moves the location bitpacks to the bitpack pieces and adjust
the weird hooking that is in place currently.
I need to separate tree reference writers from data writers
for some major reorg.
LTO bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2012-10-10 Richard Biene
In the testsuite, distinguish between arm targets that prefer LDRD/STRD and
arm targets that prefer LDM/STM. This patch adds a new effective target test
and updates documentation accordingly.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Greta
ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite/
2012-09-13 Greta Yorsh
* gcc.target/a
Generate prologue/epilogue using STRD/LDRD in ARM mode, when tuning
prefer_ldrd_strd flag is set, such as in Cortex-A15.
[1/3] Prologue using STRD in ARM mode
[2/3] Epilogue using LDRD in ARM mode
[3/3] Adjust tests gcc.target/arm/interrupt-*.c
Testing and benchmarking:
* No regression on qemu fo
domi...@lps.ens.fr (Dominique Dhumieres) a écrit:
> The following tests are failing (with -m32):
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-36.C (test for warnings, line 9)
> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-36.C (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-37.C (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.
Emit prologue using STRD in ARM mode when tune parameter prefer_ldrd_strd is
set.
ChangeLog
gcc/
2012-09-13 Sameera Deshpande
Greta Yorsh
* config/arm/arm.c (emit_multi_reg_push): New declaration
for an existing function.
(arm_emit_strd_push): New functi
Emit epilogue using LDRD in ARM mode when prefer_ldrd_strd is set.
ChangeLog
gcc/
2012-10-10 Sameera Deshpande
Greta Yorsh
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_emit_ldrd_pop): New function.
(arm_expand_epilogue): Used here.
(arm_emit_multi_reg_pop): Add a special ca
This patch adjusts the tests to accept LDRD or LDM, depending on effective
target arm_prefer_ldrd_strd. To handle the cases in which this test is not
valid, use effective target arm_notthumb instead of __thumb_ predefine.
With this patch, the test interrup-2.c will fail when arm_prefer_ldrd_strd
h
Sorry, forgot to attach the patch. Here it is.
-Original Message-
From: Greta Yorsh
Sent: 10 October 2012 15:37
To: Greta Yorsh; GCC Patches
Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan; Richard Earnshaw; ni...@redhat.com;
p...@codesourcery.com
Subject: [PATCH, ARM][3/3] Adjust tests gcc.target/arm/interrupt
Hi,
FreeBSD has already defined the various Elf_ stuff for 32 and 64-bit
targets.
Currently compilation in libbacktrace fails due to redefinition of these:
- Elf_Ehdr
- Elf_Sym
- Elf_Shdr
I 'fixed' this with ifndef'ing. See below.
Bootstrap passed.
Is something like this ok for trunk?
Tha
Generate prologue/epilogue using STRD/LDRD in Thumb mode, when tuning
prefer_ldrd_strd flag is set, such as in Cortex-A15.
[1/4] New RTL patterns for LDRD/STRD in Thumb mode
[2/4] Prologue using STRD in Thumb mode
[3/4] Epilogue using LDRD in Thumb mode
[4/4] Adjust tests gcc.target/arm/pr40457-*.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
>
> Solaris 10 Update 10 or sufficiently recent linker patches introduced
> dl_iterate_phdr on S10 as a backport from Solaris 11, but unlike S11, it
> lives in libdl.so only. The current dl_iterate_phdr check misses that,
> and given that it's o
Jack Howarth writes:
>Have you tried a gcc trunk build on linux configured to use emutls instead
> of tls to confirm that this issue is really darwin-specific? These failures
> might
> also appear on sparc-sun-solaris2.9 but we don't have recent gcc trunk
> testresults
> for that. Perhaps R
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The following patch solves most of LRA scalability problems.
>
> It switches on simpler algorithms in LRA. The first it switches off
> trying to reassign hard registers to spilled pseudos (they usually for such
> huge functions have lon
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Terry Guo wrote:
> Hello Joseph,
>
> Please help to review this new Multilib feature. It intends to provide user
Your patch doesn't include documentation for fragments.texi (which needs
to define the semantics without reference to the details of what gcc.c's
internal datas
the others under gdb 4.5, though:
Starting program:
/var/gcc/gcc-4.8.0-20121010/10-gcc-gas/gcc/testsuite/g++/thread_local4g.exe
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread 1 (LWP 1)]
[New LWP2]
[LWP2 exited]
[New Thread 2]
thread_to_lwp: td_ta_m
On 09/10/12 07:34, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2012/8/28 下午 04:14, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 12/7/12 5:47 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 12 July 2012 07:52, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
ARM parts, no further notes.
ARM parts are ok, modulo approval for generic parts and no
regressions with testi
This patch adds define_insn patterns for LDRD and STRD in Thumb mode.
ChangeLog
gcc/
2012-09-13 Sameera Deshpande
Greta Yorsh
* config/arm/arm-protos.h (offset_ok_for_ldrd_strd): New
declaration.
(operands_ok_ldrd_strd): Likewise.
* config/arm/arm.c (off
Generate prologue using STRD when prefer_ldrd_strd is set in tune_params.
ChangeLog
gcc/
2012-09-13 Sameera Deshpande
Greta Yorsh
* config/arm/arm.c (thumb2_emit_strd_push): New function.
(arm_expand_prologue): Use the new function.diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm
Generate epilogue using LDRD in Thumb mode when prefer_ldrd_strd is set in
tune_params.
ChangeLog
gcc/
2012-09-13 Sameera Deshpande
Greta Yorsh
* config/arm/arm.c (thumb2_emit_ldrd_pop): New function.
(arm_expand_epilogue): Use the new function.diff --git a/gcc/config
As a result of adding LDRD/STRD patterns in Thumb mode, the compiler
generates LDRD/STRD instead of LDM/STM in some cases. This patch adjusts
existing tests to accept LDRD/STRD in addition to LDM/STM.
ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite
2012-09-13 Sameera Deshpande
Greta Yorsh
* gc
Hi,
in this PR, at variance with the C front-end, we don't check well enough
the aggregate type - in finish_struct_1 - and we ICE later. Then I'm
essentially copying from the C front-end the check. Some details:
1- In these checks, eg, no fields too, the C front-end only warns,
zeroes TYPE_T
The pattern prologue_use is emitted for both prologue and epilogue.
In particular, the assembly comment
"@sp needed for prologue"
is printed out for both prologue and epilogue.
This patch adds a separate pattern for epilogue_use and replaces
prologue_use with epilogue_use where appropriate.
No re
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> This fixes a problem with my PR45844 fix. PR45844 was due to rs6000.c
> reg_offset_addressing_ok_p testing the operand mode to determine
> whether an insn supports reg+offset addressing, but the VSX splat insn
> uses a DF/DI mode input operand.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>
> FreeBSD has already defined the various Elf_ stuff for 32 and 64-bit
> targets.
>
> Currently compilation in libbacktrace fails due to redefinition of these:
>
> - Elf_Ehdr
> - Elf_Sym
> - Elf_Shdr
>
> I 'fixed' this with ifndef'ing. See b
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> 2012-10-10 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR middle-end/54862
> * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_truncation): Compare UINTVAL instead of
> INTVAL of second argument with precision resp. op_precision.
OK. Sorry for the breakage, and thanks for fixing it.
Richard
Torbjorn complained that the GCC bugzilla requires an account. I
committed this patch to the web site to explain why.
Ian
Index: bugs/index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/bugs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.108
diff
On 2012-10-10 09:33 , Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
with at once. Perhaps "Rick" would be a good choice.
Last name "Astley"? Include links to videos, please.
Hello Florian,
Let's CC Jason for this optimization patch.
Florian Weimer a écrit:
> If the size of the inner array elements is 1 and we do not need a
> cookie, we do not need to insert an overflow check. This applies to
> the relatively frequent new char[n] case.
I just have one question for
On 10/10/2012 06:02 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
I just have one question for own education.
Regarding:
@@ -2450,7 +2450,13 @@
if (array_p && TYPE_VEC_NEW_USES_COOKIE (elt_type))
size = size_binop (PLUS_EXPR, size, cookie_size);
else
- cookie_size = NULL_
Seems like S M AA is shattering through shorts at the $.09 point and is wired
to take off past $0.15 this week. We should drive these shorters off the
barrier and we will all produce a vast profit on S M AA.
Today: October 10
Name: SMA Alliance
Symbol traded: S M AA
Closed Price: 0.12
Long Term
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> No before I go an redo the main part of patch #2, I have a question, which
> people prefer.
>
> The current code has sequences of:
>
> target_flags |= MASK_FOO; /* set -mfoo */
> if ((target_flags_explicit & MASK_F
This bootstraps and causes no new regressions on the 4.7 branch.Is
it OK to check this into the 4.7 branch right now?
Thanks
Andrew
Original Message
Subject:PR 54861 - libstdc++ header file typo
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:40:46 -0400
From: Andrew MacLeod
To
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:42:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ah, no, make_ssa_name (TREE_TYPE (rhs), NULL) is even better. On
> the 4.7 branch you need to create a new temp var ...
Ok, here is what I've committed to trunk after bootstrap/regtest:
2012-10-10 Jakub Jelinek
PR tree
Hi!
This patch folds REDUC_*_EXPR (e.g. on pr54877.c -Ofast -mavx
testcase we end up with unfolded REDUC_PLUS_EXPR till *.optimized).
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2012-10-10 Jakub Jelinek
* fold-const.c (fold_unary_loc): Handle REDUC_MIN_EXPR,
Hello!
For 64bit targets, we can use mxcsr register to set soft-FP rounding mode.
2012-10-10 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/sfp-machine.h (FP_RND_NEAREST, FP_RND_ZERO, FP_RND_PINF,
FP_RND_MINF, FP_RND_MASK, FP_INIT_ROUNDMODE, _FP_DECL_EX): Move to ...
* config/i386/32/sfp-m
The following patch implements Richard's proposals from lra-lives.c review.
The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86/x86-64.
Committed as rev. 192326.
2012-10-10 Vladimir Makarov
* lra-int.h (lra_live_range_in_p): Remove.
* lra-lives.c (lra_copy_live_range_l
On 12-10-02 9:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
This is the major patch containing all new files. The patch also adds
necessary calls to LRA from IRA.As the patch is too big, it continues in
the next email.
2012-09-27 Vladimir Makarov
* Makefile.in (LRA_INT_H)
On 12-10-02 10:14 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Sandiford writes:
+/* Merge ranges R1 and R2 and returns the result. The function
+ maintains the order of ranges and tries to minimize size of the
+ result range list. */
+lra_live_range_t
+lra_merge_live_ranges (lra_live_range_t r1,
On 10/10/2012 07:16 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
This bootstraps and causes no new regressions on the 4.7 branch.Is
it OK to check this into the 4.7 branch right now?
Yes, thanks.
Paolo.
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> The following patch implements Richard's proposals from lra-lives.c review.
>
> The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86/x86-64.
>
> Committed as rev. 192326.
>
> 2012-10-10 Vladimir Makarov
>
> * lra-int.h (lra_live_range_in_p): Remove.
>
On 10.10.12 17:36, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
FreeBSD has already defined the various Elf_ stuff for 32 and 64-bit
targets.
Currently compilation in libbacktrace fails due to redefinition of these:
- Elf_Ehdr
- Elf_Sym
- Elf_Shdr
I 'fixed'
Sorry, reading back in different surroundings made me notice a couple
of silly errors:
Richard Sandiford writes:
> E.g.:
>
> if ((*loc = get_equiv_substitution (reg)) != reg)
> ...as above...
> if (*loc != reg || !in_class_p (reg, cl, &new_class))
> ...as above...
> else if (new_cla
On Oct 10, 2012 3:05 PM, "Rainer Orth" wrote:
>
> As reported in the PR, abi_check fails on Solaris 10 and 11 since about
> 20120817. On Solaris 10, I get
>
> 1 incompatible symbols
> 0
> _ZNSt12system_errorC1ESt10error_codeRKSs
> std::system_error::system_error(std::error_code, std::string const&
I have merged revision 192321 of the gcc 4.7 branch to the gccgo branch,
committed as revision 192330. This brings GCC 4.7.2 and Go 1.0.3 to the
gccgo branch.
This is the last merge I plan to do from 4.7 to the gccgo branch. After
this I plan to start merging from trunk to gccgo branch. The gcc
"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> > So I think this can't really be selected automatically for all cores,
>> > some human-supplied knowledge about the MD unit used is required -- that
>> > obviously affects other operations too, e.g. some multiplica
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Andreas Tobler
wrote:
> On 10.10.12 17:36, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Andreas Tobler
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> FreeBSD has already defined the various Elf_ stuff for 32 and 64-bit
>>> targets.
>>>
>>> Currently compilation in libba
On 12-10-10 10:53 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The following patch solves most of LRA scalability problems.
It switches on simpler algorithms in LRA. The first it switches off
trying to reassign hard registers to spilled pseudos (they
ble-tls
shows...
Native configuration is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 499
# of unsupported tests 5
/home/howarth/work-gcc/gcc/xgcc version 4.8.0 20121010 (experimental) (GC
I have created a temporary branch to host the port of ASAN to
trunk. Wei has done the initial port of the original code from
Kostya. It compiles but we still do not have the runtimes (Wei
is working on that).
I have not touched nor reviewed the code in detail. Right now
I'm interested in puttin
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I have created a temporary branch to host the port of ASAN to
> trunk. Wei has done the initial port of the original code from
> Kostya. It compiles but we still do not have the runtimes (Wei
> is working on that).
The branch is in svn://g
>
>
> Running target unix
>
> === gcc Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 499
> # of unsupported tests5
> /home/howarth/work-gcc/gcc/xgcc version 4.8.0 20121010 (experimental) (GCC)
>
> === g++ tests ===
>
>
On 10.10.12 22:00, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Andreas Tobler
wrote:
On 10.10.12 17:36, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Andreas Tobler
wrote:
FreeBSD has already defined the various Elf_ stuff for 32 and 64-bit
targets.
Currently com
On 2012-10-10 16:21 , Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I have created a temporary branch to host the port of ASAN to
trunk. Wei has done the initial port of the original code from
Kostya. It compiles but we still do not have the runtimes (Wei
is worki
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> It is also interesting that your IRA range patch results in
> different code generation (i can not explain it too now). I saw the same
> on a small test (black jack playing and betting strategy).
I haven't looked into this, but I'm gue
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> * tree-asan.c: New file.
> * tree-asan.h: New file.
Nit: do we still need the "tree-" prefix? IMHO not.
Ciao!
Steven
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> * tree-asan.c: New file.
>> * tree-asan.h: New file.
>
> Nit: do we still need the "tree-" prefix? IMHO not.
Richard Biener suggested we use gimple- as the prefix fo
Is there an agreed way for file naming?
David
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> * tree-asan.c: New file.
>> * tree-asan.h: New file.
>
> Nit: do we still need the "tree-" prefix? IMHO not.
>
> Ciao!
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
