Hi DJ,
> Uses a "U" constraint. What should that constraint do? Could you post a
> patch to add it?
The U constraint was part of a source tree we worked on previously. I have
provided the patch for it below.
I have also set the valloc attribute for the multiplication insns to 'umul'.
Would that
On 08/06/13 20:41, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 13-06-07 11:12 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> On 13-06-07 10:57 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>> I've applied the attached patch. This helps me getting a little
>>> further when bootstrapping with lra and --with-arch=zEC12.
>>>
>>> 2013-06-07 Andreas K
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:10:13AM -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Hi, Martin,
>
> Yes, your patch can fix my case. Thanks a lot for the fix.
good. However, as usual when I'm trying to do things too quickly, I
made a stupid mistaker and testing has revealed I picked exactly the
wrong branch in t
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >+ tt = fold_build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node, op1,
> >+integer_minus_one_node);
>
> Don't we usually try to have both operands of a comparison of the
> same type?
Will fix.
> >+ t = fold_build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:24:16AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >@@ -4070,8 +4077,15 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location,
> > > {
> > > enum tree_code tcode0 = code0, tcode1 = code1;
> > > tree cop1 = fold_non_dependent_expr_sfinae (op1, tf_none);
> > >+cop1 = maybe_constant
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:32:22AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:24:16AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > >@@ -4070,8 +4077,15 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location,
> > > > {
> > > > enum tree_code tcode0 = code0, tcode1 = code1;
> > > > tree cop1 = fold_non_de
Hi!
This patch mentions support of Silvermont architecture in the
gcc-4.9/changes.html page.
OK to install?
Thanks,
Igor
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html,v
retrieving re
On 06/07/2013 10:43 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> But these I think require a good hard look to see if they really intended an
> ABI alignment:
>
> c6x comment explicitly mentions abi
The ABI specifies a minimum alignment for arrays.
Bernd
Hi all,
This patch makes the changes to the various floating point patterns in
vfp.md. Since pretty much all floating point instruction are always
encoded in 32 bits, they cannot be used inside an IT block by the
-mrestrict-it rules. Therefore this patch just goes and disables the
predicable varia
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:51:05PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/07/2013 10:43 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > But these I think require a good hard look to see if they really intended an
> > ABI alignment:
> >
> > c6x comment explicitly mentions abi
>
> The ABI specifies a minimum alignme
On 06/10/2013 12:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:51:05PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 06/07/2013 10:43 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> But these I think require a good hard look to see if they really intended an
>>> ABI alignment:
>>>
>>> c6x comment explicitly mentio
Igor Zamyatin wrote:
+ GCC now supports new Intel microarchitecture named Silvermont
+ through -march=slm.
Not related to the release notes, but I think it should also be added to
gcc/doc/invoke.texi's "@item -march=@var{cpu-type}" - presumably after
the item:
@item atom
Intel At
Richard Henderson wrote:
> s390 comment mentions LARL instruction
On s390(x) it is indeed an ABI requirement that all global symbols
are at least 2-aligned. (Note that we skip that alignment requirement
if a symbol is marked as attribute((aligned(1)), but that attribute
must then be present for
This fixes one very annoying thing collect2 does when trying to
debug LTO WPA issues. Even with -v you need to wait until all
LTRANS stages completed to see the lto1 -fwpa invocation which
is because collect2 buffers and replays stdout/stderr of ld
(to avoid duplicating that in some cases). But
Hi!
Following patch documents Intel Silvermont support.
OK to install?
Thanks,
Igor
Changelog:
2013-06-10 Igor Zamyatin
* doc/invoke.texi: Document slm.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index b7b32f7..e4f1d45 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/do
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote:
> Following patch documents Intel Silvermont support.
>
> OK to install?
>
> Thanks,
> Igor
>
>
> Changelog:
>
>
> 2013-06-10 Igor Zamyatin
>
> * doc/invoke.texi: Document slm.
>
>
>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/in
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:25:36PM +0400, Igor Zamyatin wrote:
> Following patch documents Intel Silvermont support.
>
> OK to install?
>
> 2013-06-10 Igor Zamyatin
>
> * doc/invoke.texi: Document slm.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> index b7b32f7..e4f1d4
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 12:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> 2013-05-23 Uros Bizjak
>>
>> * config/alpha/alpha.md (unspec): Add UNSPEC_XFLT_COMPARE.
>> * config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_emit_xfloating_compare): Construct
>> REG_EQUAL note as
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
> + if (code == LSHIFT_EXPR
> + && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (op0))
> + && (flag_isoc99 || flag_isoc11))
flag_isoc11 implies flag_isoc99, you only need to check flag_isoc99 here.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Attached, please find a patch that will fix the bug reported in PR
> 57563. There are a couple issues that went wrong. First, in the test
> case, we have a double multiplied to a double. When -std=c99 flag is
> used, they get converted to long d
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> This fixes one very annoying thing collect2 does when trying to
> debug LTO WPA issues. Even with -v you need to wait until all
> LTRANS stages completed to see the lto1 -fwpa invocation which
> is because collect2 buffers and replays stdout/stderr of
On 2013-06-09 20:34 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
So, my advice is for GCC source code to forget about the
headers for the most part. I can see an instance where or
would make a difference but given point (1) above, no it doesn't.
Just use the traditional headers and be done with it.
Maybe I s
On 06/07/2013 02:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > When the linker merges common blocks, it chooses both maximum size and
>> > maximum
>> > alignment. Thus for any common block for which we can prove the block must
>> > reside in the module (any executable, or hidden common in shared object),
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 10:40 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek; mpola...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57563
>
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > You don't say what the actual error was, and neither does the original PR.
> > But if it was an ICE from an EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR getting to the
> > gimplifier,
> > that suggests that c_fully_fold isn't getting called somewhere it should be
> > - an
On 07/06/13 17:50, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
On 6/6/13 9:00 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The pipeline offset is 4 for Thumb2 as well. So at the very least you
need to explain why your change doesn't apply then as well.
Yes some context is lost in that comment. Thunks are usually emitted in
ARM
Mike,
This patch is okay, but something seems really broken with respect to
TImode. I don't know if we have to separate TImode from V1TImode or
some distinction for atomics from other uses of TImode. This isn't
like float modes where they mostly live in FPRs and only occassionally
need to live i
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:51:54AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/07/2013 02:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> > When the linker merges common blocks, it chooses both maximum size and
> >> > maximum
> >> > alignment. Thus for any common block for which we can prove the block
> >> > must
On 6/10/13 8:32 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 07/06/13 17:50, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> On 6/6/13 9:00 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> The pipeline offset is 4 for Thumb2 as well. So at the very least you
>>> need to explain why your change doesn't apply then as well.
>>
>> Yes some context i
Steven,
The assert has been in ToT for over a week now and I haven't seen any problems
reported.
Is it time to move on to the next step?
Steve Ellcey
sell...@mips.com
From: Steven Bosscher [stevenb@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:15 PM
To:
Hi,
committed to mainline.
Thanks,
Paolo.
2013-06-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/52440
* g++.dg/cpp0x/pr52440.C: New.
Index: g++.dg/cpp0x/pr52440.C
===
--- g++.dg/cpp0x/pr52440.C (revision 0)
On 06/09/2013 08:34 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I strongly suggest prefering over for GCC source code
base.
The problem is that including does not define
_GLIBCXX_CSTDLIB, so if one of the C++ library headers includes
the contents are added then, but by that point e.g. "malloc"
is poison
On 06/09/2013 08:49 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
If you put the function in an unnamed namespace
you would expect GCC to treat is as if it was of internal
linkage for many purposes including automatic inlining, but
it doesn't:-( For example, you lose the "defined but not used
warning", and the "
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Joseph S. Myers
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:16 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek; mpola...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix for P
On 05/27/2013 01:13 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> I have just created a new branch off the trunk named scalar-storage-order to
> host the (experimental) support to specify a reverse storage order (byte/word
> order, aka endianness) for scalar components of aggregate types.
>
> I will be maintaining
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> FYI, gcc/cp has it's own ChangeLog file. Yes, it is confusing that
> some directories have their own and others do not.
Fixed now.
Sri.
>
> - David
Am 22.05.2013 11:18, schrieb Paolo Carlini:
> On 05/21/2013 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Am 19.05.2013 11:40, schrieb Paolo Carlini:
>>> On 05/19/2013 11:35 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Tests that now fail, but worked before:
>>> Thanks Andreas. Matthias, please revert ASAP, thanks.
>> you
The following patch fixes the remaining problems in the C++ front-end to
bring the pragma simd implementation on equal footing with the C FE.
Herein lie some small changes to the code parsing the initialization
statement in the for loop, as well as the condition. I also separated
out the "for
"umul" is used when the insn takes two operands in A and X, and
computes a value into AX. This is similar to "op2" which, in general,
does AX = AX op (other register or memory). The devirtualizer will
arrange for the right values to be in real registers for these.
"macax" is used when the insn
Hi Jakub.
In contrast to OMP4+, Cilk Plus allows a "!=" in the condition to a simd
for loop (we are guaranteed no unsigned wrap around).
I'm not totally happy with the cleanliness of this patch, but the
alternative seems a lot more convoluted. Type checking before hand,
should guarantee tha
On 06/08/2013 09:34 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
I think I previously put constraint_info in lang_decl_min, right next
to template_info no less. It was easy to manage there, and initialized
as part of build_template_decl. But this obviously doesn't work for
partial specializations unless they get tem
On 06/07/2013 10:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> * tree-into-ssa.c (interesting_blocks): Make static.
Ok.
r~
Hi,
Matthias Klose ha scritto:
>Am 22.05.2013 11:18, schrieb Paolo Carlini:
>> On 05/21/2013 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> Am 19.05.2013 11:40, schrieb Paolo Carlini:
On 05/19/2013 11:35 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Tests that now fail, but worked before:
Thanks Andreas. Mat
Since members of the anonymous namespace can't be defined in another
translation unit, we should treat them like statics for diagnostic purposes.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 815fbf1df6dafdbeb04a35827222d78c9b419219
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mon Jun 10 12:29:35 2013
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:51:54AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 06/07/2013 02:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >> > When the linker merges common blocks, it chooses both maximum size and
>> >> > maximum
>> >> > alignment. Thus for a
We found a bug in the micromips implementation where the branch delay slot
was not getting filled for micromips. You can reproduce this with a program
that just has an empty main function. Andrew Bennett created this fix for
it and we would like to check it in. I am submitting it for Andrew sinc
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:41:20AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Mike,
>
> This patch is okay, but something seems really broken with respect to
> TImode. I don't know if we have to separate TImode from V1TImode or
> some distinction for atomics from other uses of TImode. This isn't
> like floa
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 12:32 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/07/2013 10:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > * tree-into-ssa.c (interesting_blocks): Make static.
>
> Ok.
Thanks; committed to svn trunk as r199911.
Dear all,
this patch implements DW_TAG_namelist for Fortran's namelists.
Unfortunately, it does not yet handle all cases:
a) Namelists in modules
b) Namelists in procedures (subroutines, functions)
The patch currently supports (b) but it does not handle (a). Suggestions
how to best implement
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I looked into it a bit more detail. It was an error on my side. I was
> removing the excess precision expr layer instead of fully folding it. I
> did that change (i.e. fully fold the expression) and all the errors seem
> to go away. Here is the fixed
Hello,
Any comments on that one?
Original message containing the attachment is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01086.html
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 18:06 +0200, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed that testsuite/gcc.dg has some ISR related test cases that
> probably should h
On Jun 10, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Any comments on that one?
Nope. Seems like a good idea to me.
Ok.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> We found a bug in the micromips implementation where the branch delay slot
> was not getting filled for micromips. You can reproduce this with a program
> that just has an empty main function. Andrew Bennett created this fix for
> it and we would like
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:18 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek; mpola...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57563
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote
Here is the ChangeLog entries. Sorry I forgot to include in my previous email.
gcc/c/ChangeLog
2013-06-10 Balaji V. Iyer
* c-array-notation.c (fix_builtin_array_notation_fn): Fully folded
excessive precision expressions in function parameters. Also removed
couple unwa
Hi,
I have just backported the following revisions from trunk to
linaro/gcc-4_8-branch:
r198890,199254,199259,199260,199293,199294,199407,199408,199454,199544,199545
(as rev 199915)
r199261 as rev 199916
r199606 as rev 199917
r199652,199653,199656,199657,199658 as rev 199919
r198879 as rev 199922
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > This version is better, but if removing an EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR there
> > caused
> > problems, why is it OK to remove CONVERT_EXPR and NOP_EXPR like you still
> > do - won't that also cause type mismatches (at least if the conversions are
> > to
>
On 6/10/13, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2013-06-09 20:34 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > So, my advice is for GCC source code to forget about the
> > headers for the most part. I can see an instance where
> > or would make a difference but given point (1) above,
> > no it doesn't. Just use the tr
Ping.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Ping, for review of ipa-inline.c change.
>>
>> Sri
>>
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sriraman Tallam
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jakub J
Ping.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
>Sorry for the long delay. Test case added and patch attached. OK to
> commit?
>
> Thanks
> Sri
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
Oleg Endo wrote:
> Any comments on that one?
SH portion looks OK.
Regards,
kaz
Hi Bernhard,
> Would you accept something like the patch in the message below into dejagnu?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-03/msg00094.html
Yes, I'm happy to fix this limitation. However, your patch isn't
complete .. you need to update the documentation, testsuite, etc.
Please send a revis
Some of the DR130-mandated signature changes for C++11 require the use
of abi_tag to properly distinguish from C++98 calls of the same
function, but with a different return type.
I've audited libstdc++ for C++98/C++11 API differences that are
signature changes that mangle the same. C++11 to C++14
I've committed this patch.
-cary
2013-06-10 Cary Coutant
gcc/
* dwarf2out.c (hash_external_ref): Use die_symbol or signature
for hash so that hash table traversal order is deterministic.
> Index: gcc/dwarf2out.c
> ===
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 23:13 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> > We found a bug in the micromips implementation where the branch delay slot
> > was not getting filled for micromips. You can reproduce this with a program
> > that just has an empty main
> @@ -986,12 +1053,10 @@ align_variable (tree decl, bool dont_out
> if (! DECL_THREAD_LOCAL_P (decl) || const_align <= BITS_PER_WORD)
> align = const_align;
> }
> -#endif
> }
> +#endif
I think this change in get_variable_align() is wrong; it results in
unbalanced brac
On 13-06-07 9:12 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
Vladimir,
If I introduce an unbalanced parentheses error in a reservation string, f.i. in
athlon.md using the following patch:
...
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/athlon.md b/gcc/config/i386/athlon.md
index d872b8f..b1ed5cd 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/athlo
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Sorry, it should have been 'main(void) {return 0; }. Then you get (with
> the patch):
>
> j $31
> move$2,$0
>
> instead of:
>
> move$2,$0
> j $31
Hmm, something must have been missed then from the microMIP
Fixes gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/sync-2.c
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_adjust_atomic_subword): Calculate
correct shift value in little-endian mode.
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 02:29:25PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > + if (code == LSHIFT_EXPR
> > + && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (op0))
> > + && (flag_isoc99 || flag_isoc11))
>
> flag_isoc11 implies flag_isoc99, you only need to check flag_
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> Fixes gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/sync-2.c
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_adjust_atomic_subword): Calculate
> correct shift value in little-endian mode.
Okay.
Thanks, David
On 06/06/2013 01:23 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 08:11 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>> I understand (and agree with) this bit...
>>
>>> +(define_peephole2
>>> + [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
>>> +(compare:CC (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "")
>>> +(match_operand:SI
Yep, that also works for us. I updated the patch. Is it ok for trunk?
--Alexander
2013/6/5 Patrick Marlier :
> Hi Alexander,
>
> At least for TM testcase, I would prefer to add 'transaction_safe'
> attribute on foobar as in the attached patch.
> Aldy and Richard H: What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
Please see updated patch.
Is it ok to install?
Thanks,
Igor
Changelog:
2013-06-11 Igor Zamyatin
* doc/invoke.texi (core-avx2): Document.
(slm): Likewise.
(atom): Updated with MOVBE.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index b7b32f7..dd82880 10064
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:39:24AM +0400, Igor Zamyatin wrote:
> Please see updated patch.
>
> Is it ok to install?
Ok, thanks.
> 2013-06-11 Igor Zamyatin
>
> * doc/invoke.texi (core-avx2): Document.
> (slm): Likewise.
> (atom): Updated with MOVBE.
Jakub
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 08:44:05PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > @@ -986,12 +1053,10 @@ align_variable (tree decl, bool dont_out
> > if (! DECL_THREAD_LOCAL_P (decl) || const_align <= BITS_PER_WORD)
> > align = const_align;
> > }
> > -#endif
> > }
> > +#endif
>
> I think t
76 matches
Mail list logo
