On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 11:04 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> This patch is the hand-written part of the conversion of passes from
> C structs to C++ classes. It does not work without the subsequent
> autogenerated part, which is huge.
>
> Given that the autogenerated part of the conversion is very l
Hi,
On 07/28/2013 06:13 AM, Tim Shen wrote:
Refractor the whole Thompson matcher using the queue-based(BFS)
Bellman-Ford algorithm. Fix the grouping problem.
Refactor, refactoring, etc, no 'r'.
If the grouping problem is now fixed, would it make sense to add
corresponding testcases?
Paolo.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Refactor, refactoring, etc, no 'r'.
Thanks :)
> If the grouping problem is now fixed, would it make sense to add
> corresponding testcases?
They are already added by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-07/msg00643.html (though I found
the c
Hi Maintainers,
This patch adds supports to handle return address via. frame pointer.
gcc/ChangeLog
-
2013-07-28 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_return_addr): Handle returning
address from a frame.
Regression tested with aarch6
Hello world,
this patch yields an error for identical values in vector expression
subscripts. The algorithm is O(n**2) because
a) It would be impossible to detect a([i,i]) otherwise
b) This is not likely to be a performance bottleneck because
people don't use large vector indices.
(as noted
Hi,
On 07/28/2013 12:18 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
They are already added by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-07/msg00643.html (though I found
the changelog entry used old file names, I'll fix it later). This time
it's the BFS approach that can correctly handle the problem instead of
the DFS one.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> I see. I was wondering if in this development stage it would be convenient
> to have somewhere a parameter allowing to switch by hand such internal
> details, useful for testing purposes too. Eventually may or may not go away.
Here it is :)
Hello Thomas,
Thomas Koenig wrote:
this patch yields an error for identical values in vector expression
Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
+ {
+ if (n->iterator != NULL)
+ continue;
+
+
I'm not aware of any significant use of -g1. It is very rare for
anyone
to mention it in a bug report for instance. Once upon a time (before
2002-03-19), it was used for compiling libgcc, but that was just to
ensure that it got tested somewhere. From my Cisco experience, I
would
agree tha
This patch fixes PR middle-end/56382 on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11. The
patch prevents moving a complex float by parts if we can't
create pseudos. On a big endian 64-bit target, we need a psuedo to
move a complex float and this fails during reload.
OK for trunk?
Dave
--
John David Anglin da
> That doesn't work on ia64.
Yeah, there are so many vectorizer failures on IA-64 that I gave up looking at
them some time ago. Maybe vect_pack_trunc should be false there too. At least
bb-slp-32.c now passes, so the overall number of failures hasn't increased. :-)
--
Eric Botcazou
On 07/27/13 15:18, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments.
I updated the patch:
2013/7/9 Joseph S. Myers :
* It looks rather like microblaze*-*-* don't use elfos.h, so meaning
semantics aren't preserved for those (non-Linux) targets either. Now, I
don't know if th
Le 28/07/2013 14:57, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
> Hello world,
>
> this patch yields an error for identical values in vector expression
> subscripts. The algorithm is O(n**2) because
>
> a) It would be impossible to detect a([i,i]) otherwise
> b) This is not likely to be a performance bottleneck be
On 07/28/2013 05:50 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I see. I was wondering if in this development stage it would be convenient
to have somewhere a parameter allowing to switch by hand such internal
details, useful for testing purposes too. Eventually ma
Eric Botcazou writes:
> At least bb-slp-32.c now passes, so the overall number of failures
> hasn't increased. :-)
It's still an XFAIL, though.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something com
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> What it doesn't do:
* It doesn't implement the stdatomic.h header - do you intend that to be
provided by GCC or glibc?
(Substantive review of the full patch still to come.)
> * It doesn't implement the C11 expression expansion into atomic built-in
Hi Tobias and Mikael,
> Something went wrong with the indentation of the last two lines.
Fixed.
> Additionally: How about simply returning with an "return false;"?
After some more thinking, I used the option that you suggested. We'll
see if we get feedback from users who want something else,
While verifying license compliance for GCC and its libraries I noticed that
several libgcc files that end up in the final library are licensed under
GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception.
This is, obviously, was not the intention of developers who just copied wrong
boilerplate text, an
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Oh well, thanks. But then I expect specific testcases to come with it, for
> the various values of the parameter, both the default and the other other
> values. Otherwise, the idea isn't really immediately useful. See what I
> mean?
So I mod
On 07/27/2013 05:31 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
trunk, but it depends on the OMP_SIMD patch which is also awaiting
review (actually, just the vectorizer bits since Jakub wrote and can
pre-approve the actual OMP changes):
Oh, right.
I can rebase off a more recent trunk if you prefer, or I can ev
2013/7/28 Michael Eager :
> On 07/27/13 15:18, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments.
>>
>> I updated the patch:
>
>
>>
>> 2013/7/9 Joseph S. Myers :
>
>
>>>
>>> * It looks rather like microblaze*-*-* don't use elfos.h, so meaning
>>> semantics aren't preserved for tho
Hi Maintainers,
This patch defines some macros that are needed for profile generation
support in Aarch64.
I tested this patch on top of the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01333.html
Regression tested with aarch64-none-elf with V8 foundation model after
re basing to latest gcc
Hello,
> OK.
>
Checked into MT: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-07/msg00731.html
--
Thanks, K
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Maintainers,
>
> This patch adds supports to handle return address via. frame pointer.
I noticed this patch causes undefined behavior when
-fomit-frame-pointer and __builtin_return_address(1) is used. On
PowerPC it is defined corr
On 07/20/2013 01:12 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 07/09/2013 10:23 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 06/30/2013 09:24 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Here is my third attempt at cleaning up -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.
Ping?
...and ping again.
...and again. Hmmm.
struct patch_status
{
v
25 matches
Mail list logo
