From: Richard Henderson
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:33:30 -1000
> On 07/30/2013 03:31 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> 2013-07-30 Eric Botcazou
>>
>> * config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_emit_membar_for_model) : Add
>> the implied StoreLoad barrier for atomic operations if before.
>
> Looks good
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Sure, does this patch look ok?
Looks good, thanks!
Gerald
This patch stops the gimple printer from using global pretty printers.
Applied to trunk.
-- Gaby
2013-08-05 Gabriel Dos Reis
* gimple-pretty-print.c (buffer): Remove.
(initialized): Likewise.
(maybe_init_pretty_print): Likewise.
(print_gimple_stmt): Do not
Hi
The patch reassociates X == CST1 || X == CST2 if popcount (CST2 - CST1) == 1
into ((X - CST1) & ~(CST2 - CST1)) == 0.
Bootstrap on x86-64 and ARM chromebook.
No make check regression on x86-64 and panda board.
For some targets/options, the "(X == CST1 || X == CST2)" might be converted
to "if
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Hi
>
> The patch reassociates X == CST1 || X == CST2 if popcount (CST2 - CST1) == 1
> into ((X - CST1) & ~(CST2 - CST1)) == 0.
>
> Bootstrap on x86-64 and ARM chromebook.
> No make check regression on x86-64 and panda board.
>
> For some targ
Same topics as from previous patch; this time for the graphiz outputter.
-- Gaby
2013-08-05 Gabriel Dos Reis
* graph.c (init_graph_slim_pretty_print): Remove.
(print_graph_cfg): Do not call it. Use local pretty printer.
(start_graph_dump): Likewise.
Index: gcc/grap
>> Looking at gfc_class_initializer, I have the impression that it does not
>> handle initialization of unlimited polymorphic variables/components. I don't
>> know whether initialization is permitted, but my feeling is that the
>> following should work:
>>
>> type t
>> class(*), pointer :: x
>> e
PR 57708 is a bug where peep2_find_free_register is incorrectly
returning a register that clobbers an unsaved callee saved register.
The problem is due to the way it validates register liveness: only the
first register in the list is fully validated. In this particular case
the problem is that the
Hi,
This is a really convenient option, thanks for working on it.
I can't approve it as I'm not a maintainer, but it looks ok to me,
except fot a small nitpicking: afair, comments should end with
dot-space-space.
Michael
On 04 Aug 20:01, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> The attached is a new patch impl
Hi,
The following test case fails to compile on Android: gcc.dg/torture/pr56407.c
/tmp/ccA08Isw.o:pr56407.c:function test: error: undefined reference to 'rand'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Which is not surprising at all, since the testcase has only the
declarations of abort() and r
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> The patch reassociates X == CST1 || X == CST2 if popcount (CST2 - CST1) == 1
>> into ((X - CST1) & ~(CST2 - CST1)) == 0.
>>
>> Bootstrap on x86-64 and ARM chromebook.
>> No mak
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:30:01PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> [ Adding Benjamin, Diego, Lawrence ]
>
> General remarks first:
> When we designed the coding standards for GCC, an overriding
> philosophy was that we did not want to be prescriptive. Rather, we
> explicitly wanted to encou
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 12:24:32PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Where are the SAVE_EXPRs coming from? It doesn't seem to me that x
> needs to be wrapped in a SAVE_EXPR at all in this case. For cases
> where the SAVE_EXPR is needed and not used in the test, you could
> add the SAVE_EXPR before th
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>>
>>> 2013-08-01 Teresa Johnson
>>> Steven Bosscher
>>>
>>> * cfgrtl.c (fixup_bb_partition): New routine.
>>> (commit_edge_insertions): Invoke fixup_partit
On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
>> does nor why.
>
> Taking the same example in my first post
[ sorry for the dup ]
On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
>> does nor why.
>
> Taking the same
The patch looks OK to me in general (I can not approve it).
Still have one question...
> +
> +/* Ensure that no cold bbs dominate hot bbs along the dominance or
> + post-dominance DIR, for example as a result of edge weight insanities.
> + Returns the updated value of COLD_BB_COUNT and adds new
On 13/8/5 10:06 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
>>> does nor why.
>
...just about time for another ping on GCC caller instrumentation:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg7.html
Thanks,
Paul
On 07/10/2013 04:43 PM, wrote:
> Ping,
>
> The updated patch that I have sent here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg7.html
> is still pending
> Ping?
>
Ping^2
Thanks,
Kyrill
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> > ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Kyrylo Tkachov
> > Sent: 23 July 2013 10:09
> > To: 'Richard Sandiford'
> > Cc: gcc-patches; mi...@it.uu.se; 'Richard Biener'
> > S
On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 13/8/5 10:06 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
is sufficiently old and noisy
> "David" == David Malcolm writes:
David> GDB 7.0 onwards supports hooks written in Python to improve the
David> quality-of-life within the debugger. The best known are the
David> pretty-printing hooks [1], which we already use within libstdc++ for
David> printing better representations of S
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
[…]
>> > Note that as per
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01365.html
>> > we'll use "pass_manager" rather than "pipeline", so this would look
>> > like:
>> > pass_manager &get_passes () { gcc_assert (passes_); return *passe
On 13/8/5 下午10:24, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 13/8/5 10:06 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> The patch looks OK to me in general (I can not approve it).
> Still have one question...
>> +
>> +/* Ensure that no cold bbs dominate hot bbs along the dominance or
>> + post-dominance DIR, for example as a result of edge weight insanities.
>>
Hi,
our handling of local flag (that define where register passing convention will
be used)
is somewhat off. First we clear it on all functions that have call across
partitions
and we also clear it on partial cgraph boundaries.
Fixed both,
Bootstrapped/regtested ppc64-linux, comitted.
PR
I was creating the const char type in a wrong way. I should've used
build_qualified_type, otherwise we'd ICE in the C++ FE later on due to
mismatched TYPE_CANONICALs...
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to ubsan branch.
2013-08-05 Marek Polacek
* ubsan.c (ubsan_source_location_typ
On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 08:39 -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 02:48 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > +pass_manager::gt_ggc_mx ()
> > +{
> > + ::gt_ggc_mx (all_passes);
> > + ::gt_ggc_mx (all_small_ipa_passes);
> > + ::gt_ggc_mx (all_lowering_passes);
> > + ::gt_ggc_mx (all_regular_ipa
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>>Hi, GCC/i386 currently has about 73 boolean parameters/knobs (defined
>>>in ix86_tune_features[], indexed by ix86_tune_indices) to perform
>>>micro-ar
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:26 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> Xinliang David Li wrote:
Hi, GCC/i386 currently has about 73 boolean parameters/knobs (defined
in ix86_tune_features[
thanks. Updated patch attached.
David
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Michael V. Zolotukhin
wrote:
> Hi,
> This is a really convenient option, thanks for working on it.
> I can't approve it as I'm not a maintainer, but it looks ok to me,
> except fot a small nitpicking: afair, comments should en
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:12:41PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I have applied the patch on top of r201441 and I still get the warning for
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_48.f90 with -m32 -O(2|s):
>
> /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_48.f90: In function
On 08/05/2013 05:18 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> So I *think* the most efficient traversal is to do this first (with a
> suitable comment):
>
> for (int i = passes_by_id_size ; i > 0; )
>::gt_ggc_mx (passes_by_id[--i]);
>
> That ought to visit all of the passes without triggering recursion
> (
On 08/04/2013 11:40 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> *recog.c (peep2_find_free_register): Validate all regs in a
> multi-reg mode.
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64.
>
> Ok for trunk and 4.8? (4.7 is also affected, but I don't know of any
> back-end relies on this at that point).
Ok.
r~
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 06:59 -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 05:18 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > So I *think* the most efficient traversal is to do this first (with a
> > suitable comment):
> >
> > for (int i = passes_by_id_size ; i > 0; )
> >::gt_ggc_mx (passes_by_id[--i]);
> >
comma comma comma comma comma comma
got it ;-)
Hi,
PR 58041 is a misalignment bug caused by replace_ref in
gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c because it does not make sure that the
MEM_REFs it creates has the proper alignment encoded in them.
I'd like to fix this with the patch below, which basically does the
same thing SRA does, it is only slig
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:26 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
Xinliang David Li wrote:
>Hi, GCC/i386 currently has abou
Mike Stump writes:
> On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
>>> does nor why.
>>
>> Taking the s
Martin Jambor wrote:
>Hi,
>
>PR 58041 is a misalignment bug caused by replace_ref in
>gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c because it does not make sure that the
>MEM_REFs it creates has the proper alignment encoded in them.
>
>I'd like to fix this with the patch below, which basically does the
>same t
ok -- makes sense. This can be done as a follow up patch.
thanks,
David
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:26 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrot
On 5/08/2013, at 10:57 PM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following test case fails to compile on Android: gcc.dg/torture/pr56407.c
>
> /tmp/ccA08Isw.o:pr56407.c:function test: error: undefined reference to 'rand'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> Which is not surprising
This patch fixes up the vget_lane RTL patterns to better
exploit the behaviour of their target instructions, and
to allow variants keeping the result in the SIMD register file.
We patch up aarch64_get_lane_. These are somewhat
misleading and are not being used in their full capacity.
They current
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:41 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/26/2013 09:04 AM, 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.
> [ ... ]
> With t
On 08/04/2013 07:45 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
What should I do about the symtab nullptr issue?
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00043.html) Should I
leave the workaround in my patch set as a standalone commit to be
remedied later or should I try to squash it? Or is the hack appropria
OK.
Jason
Hello,
Any comments?
(patch is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01315.html)
Cheers,
Oleg
On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 14:52 +0200, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 08:51 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > BTW: I am not c++ expert, but doesn't c++ offer some sort of
> >
On 07/27/2013 02:52 AM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> * recog.h (rtx (*insn_gen_fn) (rtx, ...)): Replace typedef with
> new class insn_gen_fn.
> * expr.c (move_by_pieces_1, store_by_pieces_2): Replace
> argument rtx (*) (rtx, ...) with insn_gen_fn.
> * genoutput.
Janus Weil wrote:
Ok for trunk?
Sorry for the belated review.
+ bool ptr = sym->attr.pointer || sym->attr.allocatable
+|| (sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS
+&& CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.class_pointer);
That looks quite imbalanced. Why do you not take care of
CL
This looks almost ready to commit. Some comments below:
Once this is committed, you should write a blurb in GCC's home page
describing the contribution.
> ===
> --- libgcc/vtv_start_preinit.c (revision 0)
> +++ libgcc/vtv_start_prei
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 11:42 -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/27/2013 02:52 AM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > * recog.h (rtx (*insn_gen_fn) (rtx, ...)): Replace typedef with
> > new class insn_gen_fn.
> > * expr.c (move_by_pieces_1, store_by_pieces_2): Replace
> > ar
Hi,
I have been investigating this very old and very weird issue where we
wrongly reject:
class Foo
{
int u, v, w, x;
typedef struct Bar { } Bar;
virtual void foo(void) {
struct Bar bar;
}
};
46206.C: In member function ‘virtual void Foo::foo()’:
46206.C:6:12: error: using typedef-name ‘Foo::
On 08/05/2013 12:32 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Thanks, committed as rev 201513.
> 4.8 also has the same problem. The patch applies on 4.8 branch without
> problems and make all-gcc works.
> OK for 4.8, too?
Hum. I suppose so, since it's relatively self-contained. I suppose the
out-of-tree openrisc
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:24 -0700, Diego Novillo wrote:
> This looks almost ready to commit. Some comments below:
[...]
> > +/* Definition of this optimization pass. */
> > +
> > +struct gimple_opt_pass pass_vtable_verify =
> > +{
> > + {
> > + GIMPLE_PASS,
> > + "vtable-verify",
On 08/05/2013 06:46 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
and after this comment, both pairs of qualify_lookup are called in that
order. Thus I started seriously suspecting that something may be wrong
in the if-else above, that is, that we really want something with
iter->type *before* iter->value there too:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> The patch looks OK to me in general (I can not approve it).
>> Still have one question...
>>> +
>>> +/* Ensure that no cold bbs dominate hot bbs along the dominance or
>>> + post-domina
Hi Joey,
Attached patch is a backport to support cortex-r7 in gcc command line.
Tested and it works.
Is it OK to commit?
BR,
Terry
2013-08-05 Terry Guo
Backport from mainline r197153
2013-03-27 Terry Guo
* config/arm/arm-cores.def: Added core cortex-r7.
*
OK to embedded 4.8 branch.
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Guo
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:59
> To: Joey Ye
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [arm-embedded] Request to back port Cortex-R7 option support
> patch
>
> Hi Joey,
>
> Attached patch is a backport to support co
This patch ports messages to the new dump framework, specifically those
involving missing/mismatched/corrupted profile data, indirect call
promotions performed, and inlines. For the inline messages, I ported
Dehao's patch from the google branches that enables printing call chain
information.
I als
Hello Joey,
The thumb1 far jump patch is about an optimization to avoid unnecessary lr
save instruction. It is now in trunk. Is it OK to back port it to embedded
4.8 branch?
BR,
Terry
gcc/ChangeLog.arm
2013-08-05 Terry Guo
Backport from mainline r197956
2013-04-15 Joey Ye
60 matches
Mail list logo
