On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:46:18AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> That last line means the compiler is free to delete a non-volatile
> >> asm with a memory clobber if that asm is not needed for dataflow. Or
> >> that is how I read it; it is trying to indicate that if you want to
> >> prevent th
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:46:18AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> That last line means the compiler is free to delete a non-volatile
> > >> asm with a memory clobber if that asm is not needed for dataflow. Or
> > >> that is how I read it; it is try
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This fixes an issue in dependence analysis and how we make pointer
> dereferences visible to it. Basically dependence analysis works
> on indices (assuming we deal with arrays) and thus never needs
> sth like an access size (because indices are non-
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 01/14/2015 01:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> Whenever I get to the LTO part of this project, I promise to start
>>> documenting things better. This whole thing is a mystery.
>>
>>
>> Well - mostly to me as well ;) I'll let Honza ans
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:13:30AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> differently. Just trying to grep for a few:
> glibc:
> ./sysdeps/alpha/bits/atomic.h:# define atomic_full_barrier() __asm ("mb" : :
> : "memory");
> ./sysdeps/alpha/bits/atomic.h:# define atomic_read_barrier() __asm ("mb" : :
> :
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I tried compiling an empty plugin that just included gcc-plugin.h and
> plugin-version.h and found that these header files were included from
> gcc-plugin.h but not in the list of header files to be copied to the
> plugin include directory.
>
Hi All,
I did a change proposed by Richard - unconditionally allocate from the heap.
Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures.
Is it OK for trunk?
ChangeLog
2015-01-15 Yuri Rumyantsev
PR tree-optimization/64434
* cfgexpand.c (reorder_operands): New function.
(expand_g
Hi,
This patch implements a new scheduler model for the ARM Cortex-A57
processor.
This model results in better code generation for the Cortex-A57 with a
more mixed blend of instruction types, particularly when scheduling for
the new instructions introduced in ARMv8-A.
I haven't yet wired it up
Hi,
pinging this patchlet...
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01926.html
On 12/29/2014 03:54 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
in this ICE on invalid, we crash during error recovery when
maybe_adjust_types_for_deduction gets an elt which has TREE_TYPE (elt)
== error_mark_node. I
> Robert, can you look at reload.c::reload_inner_reg_of_subreg and verify
> that the comment just before its return statement is effectively the
> situation you're in.
>
> There are certainly cases where a SUBREG needs to be treated as an
> in-out operand. We walked through them eons ago when we
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I did a change proposed by Richard - unconditionally allocate from the heap.
>
> Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures.
>
> Is it OK for trunk?
+ if (!is_gimple_assign (stmt)
+ || gimple_h
Hi Janus,
Your patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-01/txtThsA1zTNFd.txt
looks very similar to the Mikael's one for pr58023 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30633
with retval replaved with success.
Was it intended?
Cheers,
Dominique
Hi!
I ran into -Werror=maybe-uninitialized errors during profiledbootstrap
(../configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-checking=release;
make -j16 profiledboostrap) before I hit a miscompilation I'm going to file.
Is this ok for trunk, or do we want to work around them differently?
2015-01-1
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I ran into -Werror=maybe-uninitialized errors during profiledbootstrap
> (../configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-checking=release;
> make -j16 profiledboostrap) before I hit a miscompilation I'm going to file.
>
> Is this ok
Hi!
With the addition of build libcpp, my build failed because of distro default
flags of -Werror=format-security.
The first hunk is I think no big deal, making it const makes the warning
go away.
The second hunk is more controversial, as even making message const doesn't
help with the warning.
> I have tested this for both mips and micromips, and the tests now pass
> successfully.
> The ChangeLog and patch are below.
>
> Ok to commit?
Since you had not got to committing this yet. I have added the micromips
variants of the tests and committed your patch for you. Thanks for
finding the
A bit of housekeeping in mips.exp. Several test options are incompatible
with micromips so this patch enforces no-micromips as required.
The number of failures in mips.exp for -mmicromips is now much lower and
primarily related to branch distance differences vs MIPS.
Thanks,
Matthew
gcc/testsuit
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:17:44PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I ran into -Werror=maybe-uninitialized errors during profiledbootstrap
> > (../configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-checking=release;
> > make -j16 profil
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:17:44PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > I ran into -Werror=maybe-uninitialized errors during profiledbootstrap
>> > (../configure --enable-
> Your patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-01/txtThsA1zTNFd.txt
> looks very similar to the Mikael's one for pr58023 at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30633
> with retval replaved with success.
>
> Was it intended?
Nope. I wasn't even aware of that patch. To which PR is
Committed.
Richard.
2015-01-15 Richard Biener
PR lto/64415
* gcc.dg/lto/pr64415_0.c: Skip on darwin.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr64415_0.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr64415_0.c(revision 2196
Hi,
This patch is to fix https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64363. Patch
disables instrumentation for functions we cannot clone correctly due to labels.
Bootstrapped and checked on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2015-01-14 Ilya Enkovich
PR
I am testing the following hack^Wpatch which makes us preserve
range information in some very special case in PRE. This is
important to get number of iteration analysis results in a way
to enable unrolling of loops in some EEMBC testcase (I don't
have access to that benchmark unless it is part of
Hi,
This is the patch to improve the test case gcc.target/arm/scd42-1.c for both
UAL and non-UAL. It now checks UAL format assembly code for Thumb1 and
Thumb2 while non-UAL format assembly code for ARM mode.
With this patch, the test passes for both cases.
Thanks,
Tony
2015-01-15 Tony Liu
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Committed.
Turns out we can do better.
Committed.
Richard.
2015-01-15 Richard Biener
PR lto/64415
* gcc.dg/lto/pr64415_0.c: Re-enable for darwin with
-Wl,-undefined,dynamic_lookup.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr64
Hi,
libitm.c/stackundo.c fails with -fpic since test1 and test2 may be
preempted with -fpic. This patch makes those 2 functions static.
Tested on Linux/x86. OK for trunk?
Thanks.
H.J.
diff --git a/libitm/ChangeLog b/libitm/ChangeLog
index 74e2940..e46819c 100644
--- a/libitm/ChangeLog
++
> Le 15 janv. 2015 à 12:37, Janus Weil a écrit :
>
>> Your patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-01/txtThsA1zTNFd.txt
>> looks very similar to the Mikael's one for pr58023 at
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30633
>> with retval replaved with success.
>>
>> Was it intend
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:34 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Since PIE is also PIC, we need to add -fno-pie to avoid PIC. OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks.
>
> H.J.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr54445-2.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> 2015-01-11 H.J. Lu
>
> * gcc.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I've committed a patch to libgo to update it to the Go 1.4 release,
> except for the runtime package. Much of the runtime package was
> rewritten in Go, and it does not really affect users of the library,
> so I've postponed that complex
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:34 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Since PIE is also PIC, we need to add -fno-pie to avoid PIC. OK for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> H.J.
>> ---
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr54445-2.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr54445-2.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> 2015-01-11 H.J. Lu
>>>
>>> * gcc.target/i386/pr54445-2.c: Add -fno-pie.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch is to fix https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64363.
> Patch disables instrumentation for functions we cannot clone correctly due to
> labels.
>
> Bootstrapped and checked on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for t
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:02:51PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr54445-2.c | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> 2015-01-11 H.J. Lu
> >>>
> >>> * gcc.target/i386/pr5
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:15 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr54445-2.c | 2 +-
>> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>>
>> >>> 2015-01-11 H.J. Lu
>> >>>
>> >>> * gcc.target/i386/pr54445-2.c: Add -fno-pie.
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/test
Le 14/01/2015 19:30, Janus Weil a écrit :
> Hi Mikael,
>
>>> the attached patch fixes an ICE-on-invalid problem with
>>> procedure-pointer components by making sure that we continue resolving
>>> all components of a derived type, even after an error is thrown.
>>>
>> Does the fonction return false
Le 15/01/2015 12:37, Janus Weil a écrit :
>> Your patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-01/txtThsA1zTNFd.txt
>> looks very similar to the Mikael's one for pr58023 at
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30633
>> with retval replaved with success.
>>
>> Was it intended?
>
> Nope
Le 15/01/2015 14:25, Mikael Morin a écrit :
> Le 15/01/2015 12:37, Janus Weil a écrit :
>>> Your patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-01/txtThsA1zTNFd.txt
>>> looks very similar to the Mikael's one for pr58023 at
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30633
>>> with retval repla
On 14 January 2015 at 12:14, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 14 January 2015 at 17:31, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 14 January 2015 at 11:16, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On 14
2015-01-15 16:07 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch is to fix https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64363.
>> Patch disables instrumentation for functions we cannot clone correctly due
>> to labels.
>>
>> Bootstr
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2015-01-15 16:07 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch is to fix https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64363.
>>> Patch disables instrumentation for funct
Hi all,
This is a simple fix to correct two typos (I believe) in the newly
introduced volatileloadpair-1.c & volatileloadpair-2.c test case.
After the change, the test cases compiles and runs correctly.
Okay to commit?
Regards,
Renlin Li
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-01-15 Renlin Li
On 15/01/15 14:10, Renlin Li wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a simple fix to correct two typos (I believe) in the newly
> introduced volatileloadpair-1.c & volatileloadpair-2.c test case.
>
> After the change, the test cases compiles and runs correctly.
> Okay to commit?
>
> Regards,
> Renlin Li
>
Hi,
Looks like new ISA doc [1] renamed srli,slli intrinsics to bsrli,bslli.
This patch adds b* versions, while keeping old srli for backward
compatibility.
OK for trunk?
1:https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/0d/53/319433-022.pdf
ChangeLog:
gcc/
* config/i386/avx2intrin.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> Hi,
> Looks like new ISA doc [1] renamed srli,slli intrinsics to bsrli,bslli.
> This patch adds b* versions, while keeping old srli for backward
> compatibility.
> OK for trunk?
>
> 1:https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/0d/53/
On 15/12/14 08:41, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 3:26 AM
To: Zhenqiang Chen
Cc: Marcus Shawcroft; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, AARCH64] Fix ICE in CCMP (PR64015)
- tr
Hi all,
This test is applicable to aarch64 target. This patch will remove
aarch64 from skip target list.
Verified that it passes for aarch64-none-elf and aarch64-none-linux-gnu
target.
Okay for trunk?
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-01-15 Renlin Li
* gcc.dg/builtin-apply2.c: Remov
Hi,
if you run a test for a bareboard port, e.g. arm-eabi or visium-elf, you'll
see in gcc.log:
Running /home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dg.exp ...
Executing on host: /home/eric/build/gcc/arm-eabi/gcc/xgcc -
B/home/eric/build/gcc/arm-eabi/gcc/ linker_plugin14260.c -fno-diagnostics-
show-
On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 13:36 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/14/15 13:32, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > The PPC64LE ABI specifies POWER8 ISA as the minimum hardware
> > requierment. Currently, Linux distributions are building the
> > toolchain using --with-cpu=power7 or power8, as they wish. GCC
> > de
Hello.
Following patch is a backport of PR lto/63704 for GCC 4.8 and 4.9 branches.
Richi preapproved me the patch and I've run regtests on x86_64-linux-pc.
I'm going to install the patch.
Thanks,
Martin
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 779fef7..ab916b8 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Patrick Wollgast
wrote:
> Is there something I'm still supposed to do, since I don't have write
> access and this was the last part missing an "OK"?
Somebody with write access will need to commit the patch for you. You
should send a new clean patch including all
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> This fixes 141 FAILs.
>
> -mpowerpc64 does not change the ABI, but default_scalar_mode_supported_p
> does not know that, and allows TImode for -m32 -mpowerpc64.
>
> This fixes it. Okay for mainline?
>
>
> 2015-01-14 Segher Boessenkool
On 14/01/15 02:20 PM, Robert Suchanek wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> An issue has been identified with LRA when running CPU2006 h264ref benchmark.
>
> I'll try to describe what the issue is and a fix applied as it is very
> difficult to reproduce it and it is next to impossible to create a narrowed
> te
Hi!
This patch fixes 'make check-target-libatomic'.
The problem is that gcc-dg.exp calls check_effective_target_lto, which calls
libatomic_target_compile. Therefore gcc-dg.exp should be loaded only after the
definition of libatomic_target_compile.
However, a similar exp file in other tree (libi
On Jan 14, 2015, at 3:50 AM, Tejas Belagod wrote:
> As agreed here (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971), please
> can I reverse Andrew's patch
> out(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02916.html)?
Ok.
Unless someone objects to a reversion like this, when the author o
Martin Liška writes:
> On 01/07/2015 12:38 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> Following patch adds support for target and optimization nodes
>> comparison, which is
>> based on Honza's newly added infrastructure.
>>
>> Apart from that, there's a small hunk that corrects formatting and
>> rem
On 01/15/2015 05:20 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Martin Liška writes:
On 01/07/2015 12:38 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
Following patch adds support for target and optimization nodes
comparison, which is
based on Honza's newly added infrastructure.
Apart from that, there's a small hunk that corr
So, I was hoping that someone would step forward and review this. I’d like for
a reviewer to consider, is this the type of error messages we want to vend to
the poor user? It strikes me as, well, icky. Should -fPIE imply -fPIC?
Exclusive of that issue, the patch is fine.
On Jan 11, 2015, at
On 15/01/15 03:51, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/14/15 15:31, Jiong Wang wrote:
agree, and I think the truncation is needed otherwise there may have ICE
on some target.
and I found current gcc LOCATION info is very good !
have done an experimental hack on at "expand_assignment": 4931 where the
tree is
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> I've committed a patch to libgo to update it to the Go 1.4 release,
> except for the runtime package. Much of the runtime package was
> rewritten in Go, and it does not really affect users of the library,
> so I've postponed that complex merge. All the other packages
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> So, I was hoping that someone would step forward and review this. I’d like
> for a reviewer to consider, is this the type of error messages we want to
> vend to the poor user? It strikes me as, well, icky. Should -fPIE imply
> -fPIC?
It i
On Jan 14, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 14/01/15 11:57, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
>> Ping?
>
> I'm OK with this, but I think you also need a generic testsuite
> maintainer to go over the target independent parts.
Ok.
>
> On 01/13/15 11:01, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it really sufficient here to verify that all the defs are on latch
> >> predecessors, what about the case where there is a predecessor
> >> without a def. How do you guarantee domination in that case?
> >>
> >> ISTM that given the structur
On 01/15/15 09:36, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
On 01/13/15 11:01, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Is it really sufficient here to verify that all the defs are on latch
predecessors, what about the case where there is a predecessor
without a def. How do you guarantee domination in that case?
ISTM that given
Richard Henderson writes:
> Upstream libffi has added support for Go closures (using the static chain),
> and support for complex numbers. Perhaps less relevant is new support for
> arc, microblaze, moxie, nios, and or1k targets.
>
> Without additional changes for Go, this merge has little effec
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Richard Henderson writes:
>
>> Upstream libffi has added support for Go closures (using the static chain),
>> and support for complex numbers. Perhaps less relevant is new support for
>> arc, microblaze, moxie, nios, and or1k targets.
>>
>> W
OK, sorry for the delay.
Jason
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> So, I was hoping that someone would step forward and review this. I’d like
>> for a reviewer to consider, is this the type of error messages we want to
>> vend to the poor user? It strikes
On 01/15/2015 08:40 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> The patch introduced massive problems on Solaris, both SPARC and x86:
>
> * on Solaris/SPARC, /bin/as requires
>
> .type fn,#function
>
> instead of @function. I've simply commented the affected lines in
> src/sparc/v[89].S to make progress.
>
Hello.
This is Honsa's patch that I've just tested on x86_64-linux-pc. The patch is
preapproved by Honza
and is going to be installed.
Thanks,
Martin
>From 84b6878f168802516febfbd00252f56f965b9666 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: mliska
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:20:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix
On 01/15/15 03:13, Robert Suchanek wrote:
Robert, can you look at reload.c::reload_inner_reg_of_subreg and verify
that the comment just before its return statement is effectively the
situation you're in.
There are certainly cases where a SUBREG needs to be treated as an
in-out operand. We walke
On 01/15/15 04:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
With the addition of build libcpp, my build failed because of distro default
flags of -Werror=format-security.
The first hunk is I think no big deal, making it const makes the warning
go away.
The second hunk is more controversial, as even making mes
On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> The attached patch fixes it by ensuring that LTO_TORTURE_OPTIONS is computed
> after set_ld_library_path_env_vars is invoked (this procedure invokes in turn
> set_gcc_exec_prefix_env_var), both in c-torture.exp and in gcc-dg.exp.
> OK for the
On Jan 15, 2015, at 8:14 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> The problem is that gcc-dg.exp calls check_effective_target_lto, which calls
> libatomic_target_compile. Therefore gcc-dg.exp should be loaded only after
> the
> definition of libatomic_target_compile.
> However, a similar exp file in other tree
On 01/15/2015 08:54 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>> Richard Henderson writes:
>>
>>> Upstream libffi has added support for Go closures (using the static chain),
>>> and support for complex numbers. Perhaps less relevant is new support for
>>> arc, mi
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:58:43PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> [ 5286s] ../../../libgo/go/reflect/makefuncgo_s390x.go:323:5: error: expected
> ';
> ' or '}' or newline
> [ 5286s]} else {
> [ 5286s] ^
Bet that
} else {
line should have been replaced with
default:
Jakub
On 15 Jan 09:40, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2015, at 8:14 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > The problem is that gcc-dg.exp calls check_effective_target_lto, which calls
> > libatomic_target_compile. Therefore gcc-dg.exp should be loaded only after
> > the
> > definition of libatomic_target_compile.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/15/2015 08:54 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Rainer Orth
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Henderson writes:
>>>
Upstream libffi has added support for Go closures (using the static chain),
and support for com
On 01/15/15 05:23, H.J. Lu wrote:
Hi,
libitm.c/stackundo.c fails with -fpic since test1 and test2 may be
preempted with -fpic. This patch makes those 2 functions static.
Tested on Linux/x86. OK for trunk?
Thanks.
H.J.
diff --git a/libitm/ChangeLog b/libitm/ChangeLog
index 74e2940..e468
On 01/15/15 01:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The glibc barriers are supposedly something that can be CSEd (one barrier
instead of
two consecutive barriers is enough), but certainly not moved across any
loads/stores
in between. In the kernel case, the enable/disable probably wouldn't allow
even CS
On 01/15/15 09:20, Rainer Orth wrote:
Martin Liška writes:
On 01/07/2015 12:38 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
Following patch adds support for target and optimization nodes
comparison, which is
based on Honza's newly added infrastructure.
Apart from that, there's a small hunk that corrects
On 12/15/2014 12:41 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> +(define_expand "cmp"
> + [(set (match_operand 0 "cc_register" "")
> +(match_operator:CC 1 "aarch64_comparison_operator"
> + [(match_operand:GPI 2 "register_operand" "")
> + (match_operand:GPI 3 "aarch64_plus_operand" "")]))]
On 15 January 2015 at 14:14, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> I tried compiling an empty plugin that just included gcc-plugin.h and
>> plugin-version.h and found that these header files were included from
>> gcc-plugin.h but not in the list of heade
Oops, got a bit excessive with the copy/paste.
commit 4203eda52ae9eefc618d3819a3c468841bf2910b
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Wed Jan 14 23:58:50 2015 -0500
PR c++/64356
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_binary_expression): Fix pasto.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index e
On 01/15/15 09:27, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 15/01/15 03:51, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/14/15 15:31, Jiong Wang wrote:
agree, and I think the truncation is needed otherwise there may have ICE
on some target.
and I found current gcc LOCATION info is very good !
have done an experimental hack on at "expa
So, I wanted to add some unrolling test cases and found that we had unroll-1.c
and unroll_[1-5].c. :-( - is the standard, and picking numbers sequential
from 1, with a - before the number is standard. No reason to deviate in this
case. I’ve fixed this by renaming the test cases like so:
> >>
> >> 2015-01-14 Steve Ellcey
> >>
> >> * Makefile.in (PLUGIN_HEADERS): Add dominance.h, cfg.h, cfgrtl.h,
> >> cfganal.h, cfgbuild.h, cfgcleanup.h, lcm.h, builtins.def,
> >> chkp-builtins.def, and pass-instances.def
> >>
> Should pass-instances.def be removed from Ch
2015-01-15 14:22 GMT+01:00 Mikael Morin :
the attached patch fixes an ICE-on-invalid problem with
procedure-pointer components by making sure that we continue resolving
all components of a derived type, even after an error is thrown.
>>> Does the fonction return false as before,
On 01/05/15 21:01, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Radovan Obradovic wrote:
index eb37bfe..ddaf8e0 100644
--- a/gcc/toplev.c
+++ b/gcc/toplev.c
@@ -1605,6 +1612,11 @@ process_options (void)
/* Save the current optimization options. */
optimization_default_node = build_
On 11/20/14 05:33, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Now that I've managed to put together and test all the submitted OpenACC
patches I found there was one piece missing. The problem is that omp-low
on the host likes to generate function names like "_main._omp_fn". On
ptx, the dot is not allowed in identifier
Similar to the unroll_1.c change.
* gcc.dg/inline_1.c: Rename gcc.dg/inline_[1-4].c to inline-3[6-9].c.
* gcc.dg/inline_2.c: Likewise.
* gcc.dg/inline_3.c: Likewise.
* gcc.dg/inline_4.c: Likewise.
The recent xgene tuning parameters merge broke the ARM bootstrap, since
the tables have been extended by an additional parameter giving:
gcc/config/arm/arm.c:1932:1: error: missing initializer for member
'tune_params::fuseable_ops' [-Werror=missing-field-initializers]
};
^
Fixed as below. I'v
On 22 Dec 13:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:48:08PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > In my understanding, we'd like to support the modes that either all
> > compilers are installed (which is what a user will be using), or all are
> > tested from their build trees. Or, do we
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:55:40PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> This patch enables 'make check-target-libgomp' with noninstalled offloading
> compilers. It creates gcc/accel// directory in the build tree of the
> offloading compiler, this allows lto-wrapper to find corresponding mkoffload
> in
> c
On 16 January 2015 at 00:00, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> 2015-01-14 Steve Ellcey
>> >>
>> >> * Makefile.in (PLUGIN_HEADERS): Add dominance.h, cfg.h, cfgrtl.h,
>> >> cfganal.h, cfgbuild.h, cfgcleanup.h, lcm.h, builtins.def,
>> >> chkp-builtins.def, and pass-instance
On Jan 15, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> If I just remove 'load_gcc_lib gcc-dg.exp' from libatomic.exp, like this is
> done
> in libitm.exp, it will not work:
Ok, original patch is fine.
Richard,
Thanks for catching this.
Your change is optimal for X-Gene 1.
—Phil.
> On 15 Jan 2015, at 19:51, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> The recent xgene tuning parameters merge broke the ARM bootstrap, since
> the tables have been extended by an additional parameter giving:
>
> gcc/config/arm/
r219655 added two files explow.h, dojump.h with duplicated contents,
silly mistake from my side. The attached patch removes duplicate
contents. Committed (r219680) as obvious.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2015-01-15 Prathamesh Kulkarni
* explow.h: Remove duplicate contents.
* dojump.h: L
gcc_jit_block_add_assignment_op was missing type-checking on the params,
which could lead to an ICE deep inside gimplification in fold-const.c:
10339 gcc_assert (TYPE_PRECISION (atype) == TYPE_PRECISION (type));
Takes jit.sum's # of expected passes from 7494 to 7514.
Committed to trunk as r2196
On 15 Jan 11:20, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > If I just remove 'load_gcc_lib gcc-dg.exp' from libatomic.exp, like this is
> > done
> > in libitm.exp, it will not work:
>
> Ok, original patch is fine.
Oh, I see, it's loaded by libitm/testsuite/libitm.c/
Release managers: given that this only touches the jit, and that the jit
is off by default, any objections if I go ahead and commit this?
It's a late-breaking feature, but the jit as a whole is new, and
I think the following is a big win, so I'd like to proceed with this in
stage 3 (i.e. in the nex
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
