Re: RFA: Testsuite PATCH to add support for dlopen tests

Hi! On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 00:37:30 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/13/2014 09:24 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > Can this please be reverted and a patch circulated for testing > > instead? > > Done, sorry. Committed as obvious: r210742 | tschwinge | 2014-05-22 09:07:29 +0200 (Thu, 22 M

FWD: Re: OpenACC subarray specifications in the GCC Fortran front end

On 16.05.2014 19:44, Ilmir Usmanov wrote: Hi Thomas! On 16.05.2014 19:12, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi Ilmir! You recently indicated that you have already begun implementing OpenACC subarray specifications in the GCC Fortran front end, but have not been/are not currently able to complete that. W

RE: [PATCH][MIPS] Implement O32 FPXX ABI (GCC)

Richard Sandiford writes: > Matthew Fortune writes: > >> > *) Because GCC can be built to have mfpxx or mfp64 as the default > option > >> >the ASM_SPEC has to handle these specially such that they are not > >> >passed in conjunction with -msingle-float. Depending on how all > this > >> >

Re: [patch] c/61271 fix ICE for invalid cilkplus array notation

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > This is only one of several cases in the PR, but one that's simple > enough for me to write a test for and fix. > > Tested x86_64-linux, OK for trunk? Ok. Thanks, Richard.

Re: [PATCH] __attribute__ ((malloc)) doc fix (PR other/56955)

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > Attached is a proposed documentation patch for __attribute__ ((malloc)), > taken from: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955#c9 > > Richard Biener suggested that I forward it to this list. Thanks Paul. Re-reading this I wonde

Re: [PATCH][MIPS] Implement O32 FPXX ABI (GCC)

Matthew Fortune writes: > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Matthew Fortune writes: >> >> > *) Because GCC can be built to have mfpxx or mfp64 as the default >> option >> >> >the ASM_SPEC has to handle these specially such that they are not >> >> >passed in conjunction with -msingle-float. De

[PATCH] Fix LTO decimal ICE

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 08:52:03PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > FAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-10.c -O2 -flto > -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (internal compiler error) > FAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-10.c -O2 -flto > -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-part

Re: [patch] Small enhancement to associate_plusminus

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: > Hi, > > one of the transformations performed by associate_plusminus is: > > /* Second match patterns that allow contracting a plus-minus pair > irrespective of overflow issues. > > [...] > (T)(P + A) - (T)P -> (T)A > > but i

[gomp4] Merge trunk r210672 (2014-05-21) into gomp-4_0-branch

Hi! In r210750, I have committed a merge from trunk r210672 (2014-05-21) into gomp-4_0-branch. The LTO regression that appeared with the second to last merge, , remains to be resolved: PASS: gcc.dg/lto/sav

[C++ Patch] PR 61088

Hi, again, a simple core issue, an ICE on invalid, with some rather more interesting side issues. The core is that we are not enforcing that an incomplete type cannot be captured by value. Thus the add_capture check. Then: 1- I'm also adding the early error_mark_node check because otherwise in

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

.. sorry, I didn't follow the whole thread, but today I'm seeing loads of failures when testing C++ on x86_64-linux, beginning with: FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interface-1.c -O0 execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interface-1.c -O1 execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interf

Re: [PATCH i386 5/8] [AVX-512] Extend vectorizer hooks.

Hello, On 20 May 08:24, H.J. Lu wrote: > ABI alignment should be sufficient for correctness. Bigger alignments > are supposed to give better performance. Can you try this patch on > HSW and SLM to see if it has any impact on performance? Here is perf. data of your patch. Only HSW so far HSW, 64

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > .. sorry, I didn't follow the whole thread, but today I'm seeing loads of > failures when testing C++ on x86_64-linux, beginning with: > > FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interface-1.c -O0 execution test Is that before or after r210743? > FAI

Re: patch to fix PR60969

>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60969 >> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/table-intrinsics.c (internal compiler error) >> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/table-intrinsics.c (test for excess errors) >> Excess errors: >> /work/gcc-clean/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/table-intrinsics.c:17

Re: [PATCH] Add support for GNU/Hurd in gnat-4.9

BTW, > I wonder ho the kfreebsd people managed to get accepted upstream? This is typically a good example of patches being accepted too rapidly, and leading to maintenance issues, see: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56274 for which nobody is stepping up to fix. So we might well en

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

Hi, On 22 maggio 2014 11:05:31 CEST, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paolo Carlini > wrote: >> .. sorry, I didn't follow the whole thread, but today I'm seeing >loads of >> failures when testing C++ on x86_64-linux, beginning with: >> >> FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:44:06AM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 22 maggio 2014 11:05:31 CEST, Konstantin Serebryany > wrote: > >On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paolo Carlini > > wrote: > >> .. sorry, I didn't follow the whole thread, but today I'm seeing > >loads of > >> failures when testi

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 61225

On 21 May 2014 20:43, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The patch fixes the gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c FAIL in PR61225. The >> test case tends to check a peephole2 optimization, which optimizes the >> following sequence >> >> 2: bx:SI=

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Handle realloc in PTA and alias analysis

On Wed, 21 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 21 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > PR56955 prompted me to handle BUILT_IN_REALLOC just the same > > way we already handle BUILT_IN_STR[N]DUP. > > > > Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > > > Now this will

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR54733 Optimize endian independent load/store

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: >> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- >> >> I'll send the new patch as soon as all the tests are done. > > Here you are. I also simplified the tests a bit having the reference as a > function > parameter instead of a

[PATCH, ARM, v2] Improve 64 bit division performance

On 1 May 2014 16:41, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > I think really, you've got three independent changes here: Version 2 of this patch series is now a 9 patch series which addresses most of the following. Exceptions discussed below. > 1) Optimize the prologue/epilogue sequences when ldrd is available

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

What is the exact command are you running? On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:44:06AM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> On 22 maggio 2014 11:05:31 CEST, Konstantin Serebryany >> wrote: >> >On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paolo Carlini >> > wrote: >

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

Hi On 22 maggio 2014 12:26:19 CEST, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >What is the exact command are you running? Sorry, now I'm traveling. But nothing special, a very simple c and c++ build on x86_64-linux. No special flags, all defaults. If nobody can reproduce I'll try to fetch again the tree

Re: lto-plugin: mismatch between ld's architecture and GCC's configure --host

Hi! Now that GCC again is in development stage, and with fresh hope to have someone review this patch submission, after having let the issue rest for several months: I just re-tested the current versions. Still there are no changes for a "regular" build (not using the new configure options). On t

Re: config-ml.in: Robustify ac_configure_args parsing.

Hi! Ping. On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:22:29 +0100, I wrote: > $ ../configure --enable-foo='--enable-a=1 --enable-b=2 --enable-c=3' > [...] > $ make configure-zlib > config.status: creating Makefile > config.status: executing default-1 commands > ../../zlib/../config-ml.in: eva

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:26:19PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > >> >> FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interface-1.c -O0 execution test > >> >Is that before or after r210743? Can't reproduce the above (note, not bootstrapped compiler, just --disable-bootstrap), check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=asan.e

Re: [RFC] HOST_WIDE_INT transition steps

"Joseph S. Myers" writes: > On Tue, 20 May 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> > Make the code base easier to understand for newcomers. It's also a >> > documentation improvement (you see what a HOST_WIDE_INT really is), >> > alongside with [u]int64_t being less to type ... >> >> I personally find the

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:03:48PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > There are various other changes to asan_test.cc, so guess some work is needed > on that. Ok, tried to merge also g++.dg/asan from the same revision as you've merged libsanitizer. On x86_64-linux, both -m32 and -m64 I see FAIL: g++

Re: [build, driver] RFC: Support compressed debug sections

"Joseph S. Myers" writes: [Sorry for dropping the ball on this for so long.] > I still have no idea from your answer how a user is meant to know whether > to use the option when compiling, linking or both, which is what needs to > be clear from invoke.texi. > > What does it mean for the option

RE: [PATCH][MIPS] Implement O32 FPXX ABI (GCC)

> Let's step back a bit. Please explain which case you were trying to > handle with the specs patch. Rejecting -msingle-float -mfp64 seems > fine. > Fiddling with the specs to stop that combination reaching the assembler > is what seemed odd. So, perhaps this is a 'vendor' issue too like some ot

Add a lto-section-names.h header

This is a change from the gomp4 branch which I think could go on trunk now. It removes some duplicated definitions and puts them in a header file. More definitions will be added to that header once offloading is implemented as on the branch. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux, ok? Bernd

Re: [PATCH] cplus-demangler, free resource after a failed call to gnu_special.

Hi! On Wed, 14 May 2014 15:20:16 +0100, Gary Benson wrote: > Andrew Burgess wrote: > > On 14/05/2014 10:01 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > > > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > > Andrew Burgess wrote: > > > > > On 09/05/2014 9:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > > > > Andrew Burgess wrote: > > > > > > >

Create a library for tools like collect2 and lto-wrapper (1/2)

For offloading which is being implemented on the gomp4 branch, we're about to introduce new mkoffload programs. These are going to require a lot of functionality that's already present in lto-wrapper and collect2, I've decided to make a new set of utility functions that can be linked in with th

Create a library for tools like collect2 and lto-wrapper (2/2)

This is the second part of making a set of utility functions to be used by collect2, lto-wrapper and mkoffload. The implementations of some functions like fork_execute are changed to those from collect2 and the calls in lto-wrapper adapted accordingly. There are some minor changes in these fun

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:03:48PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> There are various other changes to asan_test.cc, so guess some work is >> needed on that. > > Ok, tried to merge also g++.dg/asan from the same revision as you've merged > lib

Re: [RFC][AArch64] Define TARGET_SPILL_CLASS

On 22/05/14 00:44, Kugan wrote: > Compiling some applications with -mgeneral-regs-only produces better > code (runs faster) compared to not using it. The difference here is that > when -mgeneral-regs-only is not used, floating point register are also > used in register allocation. Then IRA/LRA has

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:26:19PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >> >> >> FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interface-1.c -O0 execution test >> >> >Is that before or after r210743? > > Can't reproduce the above (note, not bootstrapped comp

Re: [PATCH 7/7] Plug ipa-prop escape analysis into gimple_call_arg_flags

Hi, On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 04:27:32PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this demonstrates how results of ipa-prop escape analysis from > > previous patches can be used at a later stage of compilation by > > directly returning the

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

Oops, ignore that. Forgot -C gcc On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:26:19PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >>> >> >> FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interface-1.c -O0 execution te

Re: [PATCH 4/5] add gcc/gdb interface files

On 05/16/14 09:26, Tom Tromey wrote: 2014-05-16 Phil Muldoon Jan Kratochvil Tom Tromey * gcc-c-fe.def: New file. * gcc-c-interface.h: New file. * gcc-interface.h: New file. --- +GCC_METHOD7 (gcc_decl, build_decl, +const char *

Re: [PATCH][AARCH64] Support tail indirect function call

On 21/05/14 15:44, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: Couple of comments: +typedef void FP(int); GNU style please, space before (. +void f1(FP fp, int n) { (fp)(n); } GNU style please, line breaks after void, '(' and ';'. Space between ')' an '('. Likewise in the following line. We should really follow

Re: [PATCH 4/5] add gcc/gdb interface files

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 06:52:05AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/16/14 09:26, Tom Tromey wrote: > > > >2014-05-16 Phil Muldoon > > Jan Kratochvil > > Tom Tromey > > > > * gcc-c-fe.def: New file. > > * gcc-c-interface.h: New file. > > * gcc-interface.h: New file.

Re: Add a lto-section-names.h header

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > This is a change from the gomp4 branch which I think could go on trunk now. > It removes some duplicated definitions and puts them in a header file. More > definitions will be added to that header once offloading is implemented as > on the br

Re: [PATCH] Regression fix for PR target/61223

On 20.05.2014 20:24, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: For now, please revert your original patch and one of Richard or me will try to look at it in the morning. The thumb1 case is slightly more complicated than this. I don't like this approach as you are introducing the problem again in ARM state

Re: [PATCH 7/7] Plug ipa-prop escape analysis into gimple_call_arg_flags

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 04:27:32PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > this demonstrates how results of ipa-prop escape analysis from >> > previous patches can be u

Re: [patch] Small enhancement to associate_plusminus

> I'm a little worried that introducing PLUS_EXPR_CODE_P and friends > invites too easy (not well thought) uses of it - they are distinct enough > that we have very few "common" code-paths given the constraints on > op2 of POINTER_PLUS_EXPR. "grep -A1 -B1 POINTER_PLUS_EXPR *.c" convinced me of the

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:06:21PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > Not really recently... (Feb 2013) > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=175507&view=rev Ah, wasn't aware of that. Here is (so far not bootstrapped/regtested) patch for the GCC side. Notes: 1) the cases where we e.g. for

Re: [Patch] Avoid gcc_assert in libgcov

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> >> >> In that case should we call gcov_error when IN_LIBGCOV? One >> >> possibility would be to simply make gcov_nonruntime_assert be defined >> >> as if (!EXPR) gcov_error in the IN_L

RE: [PATCH][MIPS] P5600 scheduling

Hi Richard, Please refer to the attached patch files. gcc-p5600-noMSA.patch The patch implements P5600 pipeline and scheduling for GP and FPU instructions. gcc-p5600-noMSA-msched-weight.patch The patch implements -msched-weight option. The -msched-weight option: We are using ~650 hot-spot

Re: [PATCH] __attribute__ ((malloc)) doc fix (PR other/56955)

Richard Biener wrote: Can you try to clarify the wording (I'm not a native speaker). Sure. I've filed a clarified version on PR 56955 and am attaching it here for convenience. Index: gcc/ChangeLog === --- gcc/ChangeLog (rev

Re: [RFC][AARCH64] TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV hook

On 2 May 2014 13:27, Kugan wrote: > +2014-05-02 Kugan Vivekanandarajah > + > + * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV): New > + define. > + * config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h (aarch64_atomic_assign_expand_fenv): > + New function declaration. > +

PR 61222: noncanonical constant in simplify_shift_const_1

simplify_shift_const_1 has code to convert: (ashift (trunc (plus X C1)) C2) into: (plus (ashift (trunc X) C2) C1<

Re: [PATCH][AARCH64] Support tail indirect function call

On 22 May 2014 14:03, Jiong Wang wrote: > gcc/testsuite > gcc.target/aarch64/tail-indirect-call_1.c: New test. That should be tail_indirect_call_1.c as requested in the previous review. Otherwise this is OK to commit. /Marcus

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:06:21PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >> Not really recently... (Feb 2013) >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=175507&view=rev > > Ah, wasn't aware of that. > > Here is (so far not bootstrapped/regteste

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 06:34:22PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > > Notes: > > 1) the cases where we e.g. for various stringops perform first and > >last address check and use separate __asan_report_*1 for reporting > >that should probably be converted to use this __asan_report_*_n t

Re: [PATCH][MIPS] P5600 scheduling

Hi Jaydeep, Thanks for the write-up and updated patches. I'll try to get to them this weekend. In the meantime... Jaydeep Patil writes: > The -msched-weight option: > We are using ~650 hot-spot functions from VP9/VP8/H264/MPEG4 codes > available to us as a test suite. The default Haifa-schedu

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

> >> > 3) there is still a failure for -m32: >> > FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_UAF_long_double >> > Ident(p)[12] = 0 output pattern test >> > Output should match: WRITE of size 1[06] >> > FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_UAF_long_double >> > Ident(p)[0]

Re: [PATCH][MIPS] P5600 scheduling

Richard Sandiford writes: > Yeah, this sounds similar to what I was seeing for Cortex-A8 > with the default -fsched-pressure (which is tuned for and known > to work well on x86). Did you try with: > > -fsched-pressure --param sched-pressure-heuristic=2 Gah, sched-pressure-algorithm rather than

Commit: MSP430: Add spaces after options inserted by ASM_SPEC

Hi Guys, I am applying the patch below (to mainline and the 4.9 branch) to fix a small bug in the definition of ASM_SPEC for the MSP430. The problem was that there were no spaces between some of the options that could be inserted into the assembler command line, which could produce unin

Re: [PATCH 4/5] add gcc/gdb interface files

On 05/22/14 07:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 06:52:05AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/16/14 09:26, Tom Tromey wrote: 2014-05-16 Phil Muldoon Jan Kratochvil Tom Tromey * gcc-c-fe.def: New file. * gcc-c-interface.h: New file.

Commit: MSP430: Built libgcc with hardware multiply disabled

Hi Guys, I am applying the patch below (to mainline and the 4.9 branch) to fix a problem when building libgcc for the MSP430. The problem was that the software multiply functions were being renamed to the hardware multiply equivalents, and libgcc was using the hardware multiply feature

Re: [PATCH 7/7] Plug ipa-prop escape analysis into gimple_call_arg_flags

> > Can we? If the body is not readily available we only have decl and > cgraph-node, not struct function. > > I suppose we could exchange the struct function pointer in > tree_function_decl for a cgraph_node pointer and put > the struct function pointer into the cgraph_node. > > Of course that

Re: [PATCH 7/7] Plug ipa-prop escape analysis into gimple_call_arg_flags

On May 22, 2014 5:24:33 PM CEST, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> Can we? If the body is not readily available we only have decl and >> cgraph-node, not struct function. >> >> I suppose we could exchange the struct function pointer in >> tree_function_decl for a cgraph_node pointer and put >> the struc

Breakage with [PATCH, libgfortran] PR60324 Handle arbitrarily long path names

On Mon, 19 May 2014, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > Hello, > > some systems such as GNU Hurd, don't define PATH_MAX at all, and on > some other systems many syscalls apparently work for paths longer than > PATH_MAX. Thus GFortran shouldn't truncate paths to PATH_MAX > characters, but rather use heap allo

Re: [build, driver] RFC: Support compressed debug sections

On Thu, 22 May 2014, Rainer Orth wrote: > * common.opt (compressed_debug_sections): New enum. > (gz, gz=): New options. > * opts.c (common_handle_option): Handle OPT_gz, OPT_gz_. Given that the options are completely handled via specs, why can't they just be Driver options (wi

Re: Create a library for tools like collect2 and lto-wrapper (2/2)

On Thu, 22 May 2014, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > The implementations of some functions like fork_execute are changed to those > from collect2 and the calls in lto-wrapper adapted accordingly. There are some > minor changes in these functions: for example I avoid calling fatal_error, > instead using the

Re: [PATCH] cplus-demangler, free resource after a failed call to gnu_special.

Hi Thomas, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > In GCC, I'm consistenly seeing the following new failure: > > ./test-demangle < ../../../source/libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected > FAIL at line 4350, options --format=auto --no-params: > in: _QueueNotification_QueueController__$4PPPM_A_INo

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix HTM __builtin_ttest rtl expansion

On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 16:36 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > > gcc/ > > * config/rs6000/htm.md (ttest): Use correct shift value to get CR0. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ > > * gcc.target/powerpc/htm-ttest.c: New test. > > Okay. Ok, t

Re: [PATCH] cplus-demangler, free resource after a failed call to gnu_special.

Hi Gary! On Thu, 22 May 2014 17:02:08 +0100, Gary Benson wrote: > Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > In GCC, I'm consistenly seeing the following new failure: > > > > ./test-demangle < ../../../source/libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected > > FAIL at line 4350, options --format=auto --no-params:

Re: [build, driver] RFC: Support compressed debug sections

"Joseph S. Myers" writes: > On Thu, 22 May 2014, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> * common.opt (compressed_debug_sections): New enum. >> (gz, gz=): New options. > >> * opts.c (common_handle_option): Handle OPT_gz, OPT_gz_. > > Given that the options are completely handled via specs, why can

Re: Create a library for tools like collect2 and lto-wrapper (1/2)

> For offloading which is being implemented on the gomp4 branch, we're about to > introduce new mkoffload programs. These are going to require a lot of > functionality that's already present in lto-wrapper and collect2, I've > decided to make a new set of utility functions that can be linked in

Re: [build, driver] RFC: Support compressed debug sections

On Thu, 22 May 2014, Rainer Orth wrote: > "Joseph S. Myers" writes: > > > On Thu, 22 May 2014, Rainer Orth wrote: > > > >>* common.opt (compressed_debug_sections): New enum. > >>(gz, gz=): New options. > > > >>* opts.c (common_handle_option): Handle OPT_gz, OPT_gz_. > > > > Given tha

RE: [PATCH][MIPS] Implement O32 FPXX ABI (GCC)

On Thu, 22 May 2014, Matthew Fortune wrote: > GCC is saving too much of the callee-saved registers when single-precision > values are live in them but this is historic behaviour. The code which > controls this is very complex and I'd be worried about breaking it. The > fix would be invasive as all

RE: [PATCH][MIPS] Implement O32 FPXX ABI (GCC)

On Thu, 22 May 2014, Matthew Fortune wrote: > I'm not confident that it would be the right thing to change this > behaviour. While the test is slightly weird in that the compiler generates > code that touches a -ffixed-reg this is just an ABI test. > > == Taken from MIPS ABI supplement == > Only

Re: [PATCH i386 5/8] [AVX-512] Extend vectorizer hooks.

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > Hello, > On 20 May 08:24, H.J. Lu wrote: >> ABI alignment should be sufficient for correctness. Bigger alignments >> are supposed to give better performance. Can you try this patch on >> HSW and SLM to see if it has any impact on performance

Re: [PATCH 7/7] Plug ipa-prop escape analysis into gimple_call_arg_flags

> >It won't be so easy, because struct function is really built at > >relatively convoluted > >places within frontend before cgraph node is assigned to them (I tried > >that few years > >back). > > Well, just call cgraph create node from struct Funktion allocation. That will make uninstantiated t

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 61088

On 05/22/2014 04:27 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: lambda-ice7.C:8:9: error: cannot capture by value ‘a’ of incomplete type ‘A’ [=](){a;}; ^ All the carets in your mail are in the first column; is this one in the right place for you? Let's not print out the expression, we've been moving away from

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:07:38PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > 2014-05-22 Jakub Jelinek > > * sanitizer.def (BUILT_IN_ASAN_REPORT_LOAD_N, > BUILT_IN_ASAN_REPORT_STORE_N): New. > * asan.c (struct asan_mem_ref): Change access_size type to > HOST_WIDE_INT. > (asan_m

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 61088

Hi, On 05/22/2014 08:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 05/22/2014 04:27 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: lambda-ice7.C:8:9: error: cannot capture by value ‘a’ of incomplete type ‘A’ [=](){a;}; ^ All the carets in your mail are in the first column; is this one in the right place for you? It would be def

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

Hi, On 05/22/2014 01:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:26:19PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interface-1.c -O0 execution test Is that before or after r210743? Can't reproduce the above (note, not bootstrapped compiler, just --disable-b

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:38:31PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/22/2014 01:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:26:19PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > >>FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interface-1.c -O0 execution test > >Is that before or after r21

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

Hi, On 05/22/2014 09:02 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:38:31PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, On 05/22/2014 01:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:26:19PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/asan-interface-1.c -O0 execution t

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 61088

On 05/22/2014 02:26 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Good. I wanted to ask about that. Also, by copy instead of by value, right? Because the Standard always talks about copy (likewise clang). Yes. Right, thanks. I'm probably going to add it, at some point. Me, I was looking for something not using C

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:03:44PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/22/2014 09:02 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:38:31PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>On 05/22/2014 01:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>>On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:26:19PM +0400, Konst

Re: [PATCH] cplus-demangler, free resource after a failed call to gnu_special.

Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Thu, 22 May 2014 17:02:08 +0100, Gary Benson wrote: > > Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > In GCC, I'm consistenly seeing the following new failure: > > > > > > ./test-demangle < > > > ../../../source/libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected > > > FAIL at line 4350, op

Re: [1/6] OpenMP 4.0 C FE support

Hi! On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:52:40 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > --- gcc/c/c-parser.c (.../trunk) (revision 203241) > +++ gcc/c/c-parser.c (.../branches/gomp-4_0-branch) (revision 203287) > +c_parser_omp_clause_thread_limit (c_parser *parser, tree list) > [...] > + location_t num_teams_loc

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

Hi, On 05/22/2014 09:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Do you have LD_PRELOAD set in the environment? I don't. If not, can you cut'n'paste the large-func-test-1.exe command line and run it with the given LD_LIBRARY_PATH under ldd? Jakub Sure. This is what I get: linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ff

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:43:01PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/22/2014 09:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >Do you have LD_PRELOAD set in the environment? > I don't. > >If not, can you cut'n'paste the large-func-test-1.exe command line > >and run it with the given LD_LIBRARY_PATH unde

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536

Yuri, this comes from yours http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=205308 Could you please take a look? On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:43:01PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 05/22/2014 09:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wr

[COMMITTED] Cosmetic fixes for DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_* macros.

From: tschwinge gcc/ada/ * gcc-interface/utils.c (DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_0, DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_6) (DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_7, DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_8) (DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_VAR_5): Cosmetic fixes. gcc/ * builtin-types.def: Simplify examples for DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_*.

[COMMITTED] Remove unused, and sort prototypes.

From: tschwinge gcc/c-family/ * c-common.h (c_omp_sharing_predetermined, c_omp_remap_decl): Remove prototypes. (record_types_used_by_current_var_decl): Move prototype to where it belongs. git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@210823 138bc75d-0d0

[patch i386]: Sibcall tail-call improvement and partial fix PR/60104

Hi, This patch adds a small improvement about sibling tail-calls. We producing without that patch an useless load of address into register. See for this the testcases sibcall-1.c, and sibcall-3.c. The testcase sibcall-3.c is just an demonstration about other missed opportunities for sibcall t

another patch for PR60969

The following patch fixes a GCC testsuite test failure on aarch64 after committing the 1st patch for PR60969. The patch was bootstrapped and tested on x86/x86-64. Committed as rev. 210825 for gcc-4.9 branch and rev. 210824 for trunk. 2014-05-22 Vladimir Makarov PR rtl-optimizat

Re: Breakage with [PATCH, libgfortran] PR60324 Handle arbitrarily long path names

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Mon, 19 May 2014, Janne Blomqvist wrote: >> Hello, >> >> some systems such as GNU Hurd, don't define PATH_MAX at all, and on >> some other systems many syscalls apparently work for paths longer than >> PATH_MAX. Thus GFortran shouldn'

Re: [Patch] Avoid gcc_assert in libgcov

I think these asserts will be used by gcov-tool. So I prefer to change them to gcov_nonruntime_assert(). I'll merge them in my new gcov-tool patch before submitting (waiting for honaz's ok). Thanks, -Rong On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:41 PM,

Re: [PATCH][MIPS] Implement O32 FPXX ABI (GCC)

Matthew Fortune writes: >> Let's step back a bit. Please explain which case you were trying to >> handle with the specs patch. Rejecting -msingle-float -mfp64 seems >> fine. >> Fiddling with the specs to stop that combination reaching the assembler >> is what seemed odd. > > So, perhaps this is

[patch i386]: Expand sibling-tail-calls via accumulator register

Hello, This patch avoids for sibling-tail-calls the use of pseudo-register. Instead it uses for load of memory-address the accumulator-register. By this we avoid that IRA/LRA need to choose a register. So we reduce register-pressure. The accumulator-register is always a valid register on tai

[PATCH] Disable unroll loop that has header count less than iteration count.

If a loop's header count is less than iteration count, the iteration estimation is apparently incorrect for this loop. Thus disable unrolling of such loops. Testing on going. OK for trunk if test pass? Thanks, Dehao gcc/ChangeLog: 2014-05-21 Dehao Chen * cfgloop.h (expected_loop_iter

Re: [patch i386]: Expand sibling-tail-calls via accumulator register

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: > Hello, > > This patch avoids for sibling-tail-calls the use of pseudo-register. Instead > it uses for load of memory-address the accumulator-register. By this we > avoid that IRA/LRA need to choose a register. So we reduce register-pressure.

Re: [PATCH][MIPS] Implement O32 FPXX ABI (GCC)

On Thu, 22 May 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote: > I can't hope to match Maciej's reply on the details, but like he says, > my understanding was that this: > > > ADD.D $f20, $f10, $f10 > > MOV.D $f18, $f20 > > SWC1 $f20, 0($sp) > > MTC1 $2, $f20 > > LWC1 $f20, 0($sp) > > ADD.D $f16, $f18, $f20 > > (

  1   2   >