On 08/14/2013 12:26 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hello,
> Patch was rebased on top of trunk.
>
> It is applicable on top of [2/8] (which was rebased on new trunk today).
>
> Testing:
> 1. Bootstrap pass.
> 2. make check shows no regressions.
> 3. Spec 2000 & 2006 build show no regressions bot
This patch assigns discriminators for different callsites within the
same BB. This is needed for accurate profile attribution in AutoFDO.
Testing on going.
OK for google branches if test pass?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/tree-cfg.c
==
Hi, Richard,
Could you take a second look at this patch?
Thanks,
Dehao
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> The original patch has some flaw. The new patch is attached.
> Bootstrapped and passed regression tests.
>
> Thanks,
> Dehao
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Dehao Che
@@ -960,6 +960,7 @@ SCEV_H = tree-scalar-evolution.h $(GGC_H) tree-chrec.h
$(PARAMS_H)
OMEGA_H = omega.h $(PARAMS_H)
TREE_DATA_REF_H = tree-data-ref.h $(OMEGA_H) graphds.h $(SCEV_H)
TREE_INLINE_H = tree-inline.h
+CILK_H = cilk.h
REAL_H = real.h $(MACHMODE_H)
IRA_INT_H = ira.h ira-int.h $(CFG
Hi All,
I could really use some help here from someone who has a better
understanding of how the config/Makefile system works than I do.
In my libvtv/configure.ac file, I have:
AC_GNU_SOURCE
AC_CHECK_FUNCS([__secure_getenv])
AC_GNU_SOURCE
AC_CHECK_FUNCS([secure_getenv])
This gets translated i
On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I've committed the following fix for the following testcase.
> When scalar_op1 is 0x8000 with 64-bit HWI,
> it matches EXACT_POWER_OF_2_OR_ZERO_P, but we should expand it as
> negation of the << 63 shift rather than th
All tests pass.
Dehao
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> This patch assigns discriminators for different callsites within the
> same BB. This is needed for accurate profile attribution in AutoFDO.
>
> Testing on going.
>
> OK for google branches if test pass?
>
> Thanks,
> Deha
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 12:34 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Ping.
>> Thanks,
>> Teresa
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Teresa Johnson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch fixes PR rtl-optimizations/57451 by preventing scopes and
>>> therefore lexical blo
On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 08:19 -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 02:43 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > gcc/
> > * Makefile.in (GTFILES): Add context.h.
> > * context.c (gcc::context::operator new): New.
> > (gcc::context::gt_ggc_mx): New.
> > (gcc::context::gt_pch_nx): New.
On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 10:52 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/16/2013 08:33 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > I also tweaked the traversal hooks for opt_pass to emulate "chain_next",
> > since this is where the really deep callchains could otherwise occur.
> >
> > See the patch for details (given
On Aug 19, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 09:24 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> [nickc added for comments about the bits he wrote]
>>
>>> ... define these as
>>>
>>> (define_predicate "msp_general_operand"
>>> (match_code "mem,reg,subreg,const_int,const,symbol_ref,label_ref"
>>> {
On Aug 19, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 02:49 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> I'd say it's not as simple as you make it out to be. You can't blindly
>>> combine operations on volatile memory.
>>
>> I'm not blindly combining them, I'm combining them when I know the
>> hardware will
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 2:23 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Rainer Orth
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57490
>
> On 08/19/2013 12
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:53:14AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Alan" == Alan Modra writes:
>
> Alan> This teaches gdb about little-endian IBM long double. Like big-endian
> Alan> IBM long double, the little-endian version is an array of two doubles.
>
> Alan> The patch also deletes some u
101 - 114 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
