Ok. I'll test Micheal's patch, and send out the new patch soon.
Thanks,
Dehao
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Okay, but I point out that there is an awful lot of #if 0 code
> out there. I would rather have done such removal in a followup
> patch.
Sure. But the point is not to add more. We should mechanically strip
all the #if 0 code from the tr
On 10/27/12, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > 2012-10-26 Lawrence Crowl
> missing '>'
Fixed.
> > * is-a.h: New.
> > (is_a (U*)): New. Test for is-a relationship.
> > (as_a (U*)): New. Treat as a derived type.
> > (dyn_cast (U*)): New. C
On 10/29/12, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2012 Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > The sbitmap popcount function is only used in ebitmap, which is
> > itself not used. If we do anything, removing them might be the
> > thing to do.
>
> Yes, please.
Separate patch, please.
> > The bitmap.h iterators
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> Hi David,
> This is the last of my vendetta against the "o" constraint in the
> rs6000 backend. Remaining are a few places in rs6000.md where the
> operand predicate is offsettable_mem_operand, and one instance in
> spe.md. I believe none of th
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Sure. But the point is not to add more. We should mechanically strip
> all the #if 0 code from the tree, btw. No point keeping all that
> garbage around.
Please no. A lot (if not most) if the #if 0 code serves as good
documentation for wh
On 10/29/2012 12:53 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
The first two patches I've applied. The remaining two are needed to fully
enable building the VxWorks flavor of GCC, but those bits affect parts
outside of fixincludes and there is some breakage somewhere.
All evidence seems to me to show fixincludes sti
On 29 October 2012 02:18, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The code changes seem fine, but I don't think a testcase should depend on
> the details of what system strings.h declares (or even that it exists)
> like that. If you want a system header declaration, add a header to the
> testsuite that uses #pr
ping!
2012/10/22 Janus Weil :
> Minor update to the patch: It now also sets TREE_USED for entry
> masters in order to avoid bogus warnings for procedures with ENTRY
> (cf. comment 6 in the PR, which like comment 0 is a 4.8 regression).
>
> Still regtests cleanly. Ok?
>
> Cheers,
> Janus
>
>
>
> 2
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Just to make sure. Testing on ppc should be fast, for example.
And useless. Your patch does not touch ppc.
Diego.
ping**2
2012/10/16 Janus Weil :
> ping!
>
>
> 2012/10/11 Janus Weil :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here is an OOP patch for the above PR, which has two disconnected parts:
>>
>> 1) It fixes a problem with ASSOCIATED, when it is fed a CLASS-valued
>> function as argument (i.e. the ICE in the bug title). This
Hi,
Attached is the new patch. This patch bootstrapped and passed all
tests except the following:
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43479.c -O1 line 13 h == 9
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43479.c -O1 line 18 h == 9
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43479.c -O2 line 13 h == 9
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43479.c -O2 line 1
Committed as obvious.
Hi!
The following patch should fix the var-tracking slowness on the
reflect/check testcases where one of the test routines was compiling for
almost 50 minutes. The problem was that there is a huge routine that is
shrink wrapped (or perhaps just the split stack prologue is multi-bb),
and I was try
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The following patch should fix the var-tracking slowness on the
> reflect/check testcases where one of the test routines was compiling for
> almost 50 minutes.
Thanks for working on this.
Will you also add the test case?
Ciao!
Steven
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 01:40:35PM -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Attached is the new patch. This patch bootstrapped and passed all
> tests except the following:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43479.c -O1 line 13 h == 9
> FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43479.c -O1 line 18 h == 9
> FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43479
Ping - can I get this reviewed before stage 1 ends?
On 21 October 2012 22:25, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> The C++ bits look good to my casual non-maintainer eyes. Let's CC
> Jason.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jonathan Wakely a écrit:
>
>> This adds a warning switch for the existing "returning address of
>> lo
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:46:24PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Will you also add the test case?
There already is, libgo make reflect/check. I don't see what other kind of
testcase should I provide for that, unless you mean scanning -dA assembly
for DW_OP_fbreg (which would be inherently targe
OK.
Jason
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 12-10-28 11:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> There are many trialling white spaces in LRA codes. This patch removes
>> them.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out. I should be more careful with emacs macros
> using TAB. I
måndag 29 oktober 2012 18.56.42 skrev Jakub Jelinek:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon. Patches
> posted before t
PR libstdc++/55123
* include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h (__shared_count::_S_create_from_up):
Do not instantiate allocator with element_type.
* testsuite/20_util/shared_ptr/cons/55123.cc: New.
Tested x86-64-linux, committed to trunk and 4.7
commit 3a994d1a811d62cd87a3e97
Yeah, I looked into the testcase. Indeed, the expr location should be
used instead of curr_insn_location(). Otherwise the source line for
all definitions will be attributed to the use point. But if we use
EXPR_LOCATION, then we need to make sure the block is also correct.
Any suggestions how we sh
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> The following patch should fix the var-tracking slowness on the
> reflect/check testcases where one of the test routines was compiling for
> almost 50 minutes. The problem was that there is a huge routine that is
> shrink wrapped (or perha
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch changes get_elimination to check register number instead of
>> RTX. Tested on Linux/x32 with -maddress-mode=long. OK to install?
>
> FWIW, this doesn't sound right to me, at least not without m
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch changes get_elimination to check register number instead of
>>> RTX. Tested on Linux/x32 with -maddress-mode=long. OK to install?
>>
>>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 12-10-29 12:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
>> Vladimir Makarov writes:
>>>
>>> H.J. in
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55116
>>>
>>> reported an interesting address
>>>
>>> (and:DI (subreg:DI (plus:SI (a
Hello,
This fixes the issues of PR 54988.
Tested on rev 192482 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}"
and no new failures.
Cheers,
Oleg
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/54988
* config/sh/sh.md (tstqi_t_zero)
On 29 October 2012 21:26, Jason Merrill wrote:
> OK.
Thanks, committed.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 12-10-29 12:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
>> Vladimir Makarov writes:
>>>
>>> H.J. in
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55116
>>>
>>> reported an interesting address
>>>
>>> (and:DI (subreg:DI (plus:SI (a
On Oct 26, 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2012-10-26 Jakub Jelinek
> PR debug/54953
> * valtrack.h (DEBUG_TEMP_AFTER_WITH_REG_FORCE): New.
> * valtrack.c (dead_debug_insert_temp): Use emit_debug_insn_after
> even for where == DEBUG_TEMP_AFTER_WITH_REG_FORCE.
> * dc
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> On 12-10-29 12:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>
>>> Vladimir Makarov writes:
H.J. in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55116
reported a
I get a clean build on my end... no stdarg.h issues. Build
characteristics are given in the previous email.
On 10/29/2012 4:26 PM, rbmj wrote:
The build does eventually die in libstdc++-v3, but that's not due to
these changes (it gives me an internal compiler error while compiling
complex_io.c
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:27 AM
> To: Bin Cheng
> Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH GCC]Fix test case failure reported in PR54989
>
> On 10/26/2012 10:14 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> > Act
Oleg Endo wrote:
> This fixes the issues of PR 54988.
> Tested on rev 192482 with
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}"
>
> and no new failures.
OK.
Regards,
kaz
This patch fixes three different failures I encountered while trying to use
-freorder-blocks-and-partition, including the failure reported in PR 53743.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Teresa
2012-10-29 Teresa Johnson
PR optimization/53743
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:01 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:06:01AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> When indent == 0, we call alloca with -1 bytes. This patch changes
>>> it to indent + 1. This is a trunk only regression. OK t
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Vladimir Makarov
>> wrote:
>>> On 12-10-29 12:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
>
> H.J. in
>
> http://gcc.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
Hi,
This patch changes get_elimination to check register number instead of
RTX. Tested on
Hi Jakub,
We are working on the following.
1. bdver3 enablement. Review completed. Changes to be incorporated and
checked-in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01131.html
2. btver2 basic enablement is done
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01018.html)/
Scheduler descript
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 10/29/12, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 2012 Diego Novillo wrote:
>> > Just to make sure. Testing on ppc should be fast, for example.
>>
>> And useless. Your patch does not touch ppc.
>
> I've fixed the #if 0 and the remaining su
101 - 141 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
