>>>
>>> 2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov
>>>
>>> PR target/67929
>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr67929_1.c: New test.
>
> This test fails when tested on hard-float targets, adding the
> following line to avoid testing it in such cases will fix the issue,
> but I wonder if there is a better dejaGNU dir
Hi!
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:31:26 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 02:23 PM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> > On 10/30/2015 01:20 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >> On 10/30/2015 02:09 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>> On 10/30/2015 01:56 PM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 12:24 PM, Jef
(@Uli: I'd like to hear your opinion on this issue.
Original message:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03403.html).
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:09:39PM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Why do we need x_s390_arch_specified and x_s390_tune_specified? You
> should be able to use opts_set-
On 2 November 2015 at 09:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov
PR target/67929
* gcc.target/arm/pr67929_1.c: New test.
>>
>> This test fails when tested on hard-float targets, adding the
>> following line to avoid testing it in such cases w
Hello everyone,
gently pinging to bring this back to life given the last patch I emailed.
Best regards,
-- Nuno Diegues
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Nuno Diegues wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> after a summer internship and some backlog catching up in the past
> weeks, I have finally got aro
On 2 November 2015 at 09:51, Yvan Roux wrote:
> On 2 November 2015 at 09:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>>
>
> 2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov
>
> PR target/67929
> * gcc.target/arm/pr67929_1.c: New test.
>>>
>>> This test fails when tested on hard-float targets, addin
On 29/10/15 02:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM, kugan
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/15 01:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Kugan
>>> wrote:
On 21/10/15 23:45, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 a
On 02/11/15 08:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov
PR target/67929
* gcc.target/arm/pr67929_1.c: New test.
This test fails when tested on hard-float targets, adding the
following line to avoid testing it in such cases will fix the issue,
but I wonder if there
On 02/11/15 09:01, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 2 November 2015 at 09:51, Yvan Roux wrote:
>> On 2 November 2015 at 09:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> 2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov
>>
>> PR target/67929
>> * gcc.target/arm/pr67929_1.c: New test.
On 02/11/15 09:20, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 02/11/15 08:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> 2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov
>
> PR target/67929
> * gcc.target/arm/pr67929_1.c: New test.
>>> This test fails when tested on hard-float targets, adding the
>>> following line
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The new routines operate on the built-in enum rather than on tree decls.
> The idea is to extend this to handle internal functions too, with a
> combined enum for both.
>
> The patch also moves fold_fma too, with the same prototype. The
On 2 November 2015 at 10:24, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
>
> On 02/11/15 09:01, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 2 November 2015 at 09:51, Yvan Roux wrote:
>>> On 2 November 2015 at 09:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov
>>>
>>> PR targ
On 02/11/15 09:28, Yvan Roux wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 10:24, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
On 02/11/15 09:01, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 09:51, Yvan Roux wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 09:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov
PR target/67929
n discr45.proc (signal=true)
at /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20151102/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/discr45.adb:19
#2 0x400104a0 in discr45 ()
at /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20151102/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/discr45.adb:43
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2015, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, bb_no_side_effects_p (inner_cond_bb) is called in all four
>> tests in tree_ssa_ifcombine_bb_1, for each outer_cond_bb that
>> tree_ssa_ifcombine_bb might choose. Is there any rea
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> The ifcombine pass may move a conditional access to an uninitialized
> value before the condition that ensures it is always well-defined,
> thus introducing undefined behavior. Stop it from doing so.
>
> Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu and
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> ../../../../libgo/go/syscall/exec_linux.go:185:37: error: reference to
>> undefined name 'TIOCSPGRP'
>>_, err1 = raw_ioctl_ptr(sys.Ctty, TIOCSPGRP, unsafe.Pointer(&pgrp))
>>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 07:57 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>
>> I'm getting this regression on m68k:
>>
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-thread-11.c scan-tree-dump vrp2 "FSM"
>>
>> The generated code looks equivalent, though.
>
> Definitely an artifact of differe
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I suppose we'd need to either build a new function type for each
>> variadic call
>> then or somehow represent 'fntype' differently (note that function
>> attributes also
>> need to be preserved).
>
> Why we can't keep fntype as it is
Hello.
Following patch moves content of hsa-traits.h to gomp-constants.h.
Martin
>From 40179af53541cf3318f8710ac23b9908b90353e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:49:02 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] HSA: move content of hsa-traits.h to gomp-constants.h
include/ChangeLog:
Hello.
In the following series, I enhance HSA BE to correctly support aggregate types
(as function call arguments and return types).
Apart from that, we should not ICE in situations where we have a non-trivial
memory reference. Finally, many memory leaks were
fixed and a lot of refactoring is in
> > +/* Define platform dependent macros. */
> > +void
> > +s390_cpu_cpp_builtins (cpp_reader *pfile)
> > +{
> > + struct cl_target_option opts;
> > +
> > + cpp_assert (pfile, "cpu=s390");
> > + cpp_assert (pfile, "machine=s390");
> > + cpp_define (pfile, "__s390__");
> > + if (TARGET_ZARCH)
Hello,
Le 30/10/2015 13:47, David Malcolm a écrit :
This patch adds an implementation of Levenshtein distance to gcc,
along with unit testing of the algorithm.
I noticed two nits while looking at it.
diff --git a/gcc/spellcheck.c b/gcc/spellcheck.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..532df5
Am Saturday 31 October 2015, 18:11:47 schrieb Arnaud Charlet:
> > > This patch changes the Ada-declaration of the pthread-related structs
> > > such as pthread_attr_t from a field-equivalent declaration to just
> > > reserving the right amount of memory.
> > > It is only rtems related and essential
> Ok, I don't have time today. I will make a patch against trunk and will try
> again with the correct format tomorrow.
> How does the backporting work?
> It's my first contribution to gcc, so bare with me ;-)
See https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html for details.
Arno
On 02/11/15 09:26, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
>
> On 02/11/15 09:20, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>> On 02/11/15 08:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> 2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov
>>
>> PR target/67929
>> * gcc.target/arm/pr67929_1.c: New test.
This test fails when t
Hello Steve,
Le 01/11/2015 22:16, Steve Kargl a écrit :
The attach patch add checking for a valid type during
matching of a CASE selector. Built and regression
tested on i386-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
[...]
Index: gcc/fortran/match.c
=
On 02/11/15 09:29, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 02/11/15 09:28, Yvan Roux wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 10:24, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
On 02/11/15 09:01, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 09:51, Yvan Roux wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 09:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
2015-10
On 31/10/15 16:47, Jan Sommer wrote:
Hi,
This patch changes the Ada-declaration of the pthread-related structs such as
pthread_attr_t from a field-equivalent declaration to just reserving the right
amount of memory.
It is only rtems related and essentially copies the way how the types are
d
On 07/09/15 04:03, Kugan wrote:
>
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-09-07 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>
> * gcc.target/arm/mla-2.c: Scan for wider mode operation.
> * gcc.target/arm/wmul-1.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/arm/wmul-2.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/arm/wmul-3.c:
Hello
One of the review comments for the v8.1 atomics patches was that the
iterators and unspec declarations should be moved out of the atomics.md
file (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg01375.html).
The iterators in atomics.md are tied to the unspecv definition in the
same file. Thi
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch adds OEP_MATCH_SIDE_EFFECT to tell operand_equal_p that the two
> operands compared are from different code paths and thus they can be matched
> even if they have side effects.
>
> I.e.
>
> volatile int a;
>
> if (a==a)
>
> has two rea
On 02/11/15 11:36, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 02/11/15 09:29, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>> On 02/11/15 09:28, Yvan Roux wrote:
>>> On 2 November 2015 at 10:24, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>>> wrote:
On 02/11/15 09:01, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 2 November 2015 at 09:51, Yvan Roux wrote:
On 16/10/15 15:36, Jiong Wang wrote:
> The patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02654.html
> from last year changed the definition of LR in CALL_USED_REGISTERS,
> but didn't update the comment above the #define to reflect the new usage.
>
> This patch bring the comment inline with t
Hi,
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:23:58 -0700
Jim Wilson wrote:
> I noticed a comment typo in this file while using grep to look for
> other stuff. The typo is easy to fix.
>
> I tried running neon-testgen.ml to verify, but it is apparently no
> longer valid ocaml, as it doesn't work with the ocamlc
Le 01/11/2015 20:24, Steve Kargl a écrit :
The attached patch enhances the check of the shape argument
when it is a named constant. See the testcase for example.
Built and regression tested on i386-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
Looks good, yes. Thanks.
Mikael
On May 28, 2015 2:03:08 PM GMT+02:00, Mike Stump wrote:
>On May 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> wrote:
>>
>> Does anybody have a better suggestion?
>>
>> directive not at the start of a loop at %C
>> directive not followed by a loop at %C
>
>I prefer either of these. I have a s
On 02/11/15 12:06, Julian Brown wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:23:58 -0700
Jim Wilson wrote:
I noticed a comment typo in this file while using grep to look for
other stuff. The typo is easy to fix.
I tried running neon-testgen.ml to verify, but it is apparently no
longer valid ocaml, as
On 02/11/15 12:01, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 16/10/15 15:36, Jiong Wang wrote:
The patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02654.html
from last year changed the definition of LR in CALL_USED_REGISTERS,
but didn't update the comment above the #define to reflect the new usage.
This
Hi!
The OpenACC atomic directive matches OpenMP's atomic directive (got that
clarified by the OpenACC committee), so they can share the same
implementation. OK for trunk?
commit 826c7022d0e2b9e225215b168a95487823dce925
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date: Mon Nov 2 10:35:44 2015 +0100
OpenACC a
The attached patch fixes the annoying warnings generated by
diagnostic_set_last_function.
Can this be committed?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* tree-diagnostic.h (diagnostic_set_last_function): Fix warning.
>From b09e69bd66f157a2aaf0167b7419f47e9953
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:09:38PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> The OpenACC atomic directive matches OpenMP's atomic directive (got that
> clarified by the OpenACC committee), so they can share the same
> implementation. OK for trunk?
Ok.
Jakub
This patch updates the processing of OpenACC declare directive for
Fortran in the following areas:
1) module support
2) device_resident and link clauses
3) clause checking
4) directive generation
Commentary on the changes is included as an attachment
On 11/02/2015 02:42 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
"Hooray for the C programming language's module system"... ;-)
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:53:40 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Just finished running... I think the external hard drive was slowing
down this run :-P It took quite a while.
Anyway,
On 10/28/15 14:40, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Richard,
this patch adds folding for the new GOACC_DIM_POS and GOACC_DIM_SIZE internal
functions. IIUC gimple_fold_call is the right place to add this.
The size of a compute dimension is very often a compile-time constant. On the
host, in particular it'
On 11/02/2015 01:41 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/30/2015 07:37 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
OK, here's the much delayed front end reduction patch based on the
reordering already being checked in.
I discovered that my targets builds were only building c/c++, so the
other languages were being reduced b
Hi all,
This patch attempts to restrict combine from transforming ZERO_EXTEND and
SIGN_EXTEND operations into and-bitmask
and weird SUBREG expressions when they appear inside MULT expressions. This is
because a MULT rtx containing these
extend operations is usually a well understood widening mu
On 27 May 2015 at 22:15, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
* gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c: Likewise.
Noticed this testcase failed on big-endian on my local test
gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c line 188 in buffer
'expected_vtbl3') at type int8x8 index 0: got 0x0
On 2 November 2015 at 15:20, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 27 May 2015 at 22:15, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> * gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c: Likewise.
>>>
>
> Noticed this testcase failed on big-endian on my local test
>
> gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c line 1
On 02/11/15 14:38, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 15:20, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 27 May 2015 at 22:15, Christophe Lyon wrote:
* gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtbX.c: Likewise.
Noticed this testcase failed on big-endian on my local test
gcc.target/aarch64/a
Yes, that is exactly what should fix the tests.
Unfortunately I don't have access to darwin machine right now.
Can you please test if the patch (attached) fixes the tests?
gcc/
* multiple_target.c (create_dispatcher_calls): Add target check
on ifunc.
(create_target_clone):
On 02/11/15 12:58, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 02/11/15 12:01, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 16/10/15 15:36, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>> The patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02654.html
>>> from last year changed the definition of LR in CALL_USED_REGISTERS,
>>> but didn't update the co
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As was pointed out in previous thread
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg00723.html), sometimes
> PGO-built binaries can actually introduce performance regressions. We could
> identify affected object files and disabl
On 02/11/15 14:38, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>
I'm a bit puzzled as to why nobody else has been seeing this, as it's been
happening to me as part of building gcc on x86_64, but since this patch I've
been seeing an ICE in vec::operator[] in reorder_basic_blocks_simple, building
libitm/beginend.cc. Prep
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:33:25PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote:
>
> Le 01/11/2015 22:16, Steve Kargl a écrit :
> > The attach patch add checking for a valid type during
> > matching of a CASE selector. Built and regression
> > tested on i386-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
>
> [...]
>
> > Index: gcc/fo
Evgeny,
I have already checked that the addition of
+/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
fixes the failures. I’ll test your full patch later today (currently chasing
regression with gfortran).
Thanks,
Dominique
> Le 2 nov. 2015 à 15:50, Evgeny Stupachenko a écrit :
>
> Yes, that is exactly what
Hi Richard,
I've come back to this optimization and try to implement your proposal
for comparison:
> Btw, you didn't try the simpler alternative of
>
> tree type = type_for_mode (int_mode_for_mode (TYPE_MODE (vectype)));
> build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node,
> build1 (VIEW_CONVERT, type, op0), bu
Hi Ville,
On 11/01/2015 04:27 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
In the last meeting, while processing LWG 2510, LWG's guidance
was to make the default constructors of pair and tuple conditionally
explicit. This patch implements a new trait and uses it in pair and tuple.
Paolo, Jonathan is traveling
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 01/11/15 19:03, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> > So, the new patch series is:
> >
> > 1Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to make_param_constraints
> > 2Handle recursive restrict in function parameter
> >
> > I'll repost in reply to
The following introduces convert_to_complex_nofold, similarly to what
I've done with convert_to_pointer. Nothing too surprising in the patch,
I suppose.
Now, what remains to do is to also introduce convert_to_real. Then we
should be done with convert.c as convert_to_vector doesn't fold and
conve
Bernd Schmidt writes:
> On 10/28/2015 02:06 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Ulrich Weigand writes:
>>> seems this still hasn't gone upstream ... Any news?
>>
>> Ah, sorry, I should have been pinging it. I think it's still waiting
>> for review.
>
> Hmm, unfortunately I have a hard time making s
I see this error when building gccgo from trunk on ppc64le and running
the libgo tests:
exec_unix_test.go:174:43: error: reference to undefined identifier
'syscall.TIOCGPGRP'
errno := syscall.Ioctl(tty.Fd(), syscall.TIOCGPGRP,
uintptr(unsafe.Pointer(&fpgrp)))
Steven Bosscher writes:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Is the split_block change really so bad?
>
> IMHO: Yes.
Fair enough :-)
> split_block just splits some basic block B into two blocks B1/B2
> somewhere in the middle of B. The dominance relations between B1
Jakub,
the following patch series implements the reduction handling for OpenACC:
01-trunk-reductions-core-1102.patch Core execution changes
02-trunk-reductions-ptx-1102.patch PTX backend bits
03-trunk-reductions-tests-1102.patch Testcases
The reduction mechanism relies on a new internal bui
This is the core execution bits of OpenACC reductions.
We have a new internal fn 'IFN_GOACC_REDUCTION' and a new target hook
goacc.reduction, to lower it on the target compiler.
The omp-low changes are:
1) remove all the existing OpenACC reduction handling
2) when emitting an openacc loop hea
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Our documentation describes -Wall as enabling "all the warnings abo
Steve,
The error for the test
program p
integer, parameter :: sh(2) = [2, 2]
integer, parameter :: a(2,2) = reshape([1, 2, 3, 4], -sh)
print *, a
end
is
pr68153_2.f90:2:34:
integer, parameter :: sh(2) = [2, 2]
1
Error: 'shape' argument of 'reshape
Richard Sandiford writes:
> gcc/
> PR debug/66728
> * dwarf2out.c (loc_descriptor): Remove redundant GET_MODE of
> CONST_WIDE_INTs. Handle BLKmode for CONST_WIDE_INT too.
> (add_const_value_attribute): Add a mode parameter.
> Check it for CONST_INT and CONST_WIDE_INT
This patch contains the PTX backend pieces of OpenACC reduction handling. These
functions are lowered to gimple, using a couple of PTX-specific builtins for
some functionality. Expansion to RTL introduced no new patterns.
We need 3 different schemes for the 3 different partitioning axes, but
This patch are the initial set of tests. The libgomp tests use an idiom of
summing thread identifiers and then checking the expected set of threads
participated. They are all derived from the loop tests I recently added for the
execution model itself.
The fortran test was duplicated in both
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 20:12:25 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:44:07PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 00:11:03 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 15:05:59 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > As the testcases show, #pragma omp de
On 11/02/2015 06:26 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
The attached patch fixes the annoying warnings generated by
diagnostic_set_last_function.
Can this be committed?
Can you point out what warning you're fixing? Inline or pointer to a
build log would be fine.
jeff
On 2 November 2015 at 17:19, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Anyway, so far the only detail which makes me a little nervous is the
> following:
>
> + template
> +struct __is_implicitly_default_constructible
> + : public integral_constant +(is_default_constructible<_Tp>::value
On 11/02/2015 07:50 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what should fix the tests.
Unfortunately I don't have access to darwin machine right now.
Can you please test if the patch (attached) fixes the tests?
gcc/
* multiple_target.c (create_dispatcher_calls): Add target ch
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 11:21 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >> On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >>>
> > >
>
> But you don't even need the call case for tailmerge or ICF as we don't
> have CALL_EXPRs in GIMPLE. No?
Sure, it will do the trick only if ?: generic folding is updated to pass
OEP_MATCH_SIDE_EFFECTS
>
> And you mean the difference of OEP_CONSTANT_ADDRESS_OF to
> OEP_ADDRESS_OF | OEP_MATCH
OK, thanks.
Jason
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:54:17PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> Here is the patch.
> make check RUNTESTFLAGS=gomp.exp and check-target-libgomp passed.
> OK for gomp-4_5-branch?
>
>
> gcc/c/
> * c-parser.c: Include context.h.
> (c_parser_omp_declare_target): If decl has "omp declare tar
On 26/10/15 16:26, Alan Lawrence wrote:
The included testcase demonstrates the ICE: aarch64_valid_floating_const
(via aarch64_float_const_representable_p) disables HFmode immediates, but
allows 0.0. However, *movhf_aarch64 does not allow this insn:
(insn 7 6 10 2 (set (mem:HF (reg/f:DI 73) [0 *f
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:03:58PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 26/10/15 16:26, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >The included testcase demonstrates the ICE: aarch64_valid_floating_const
> >(via aarch64_float_const_representable_p) disables HFmode immediates, but
> >allows 0.0. However, *movhf_aarch64 do
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:34:22 +0100
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Your use_device sounds very similar to use_device_ptr clause in
> OpenMP, which is allowed on #pragma omp target data construct and is
> implemented quite a bit differently from this; it is unclear if the
> OpenACC standard requires this k
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Our documentation describes -Wall as enabli
The following pair of patches add support for routines.
01-trunk-routine-code-1102.patch: Compiler changes
02-trunk-routine-tests-1102.patch: Tests
The changes are pretty straight forwards, as the execution model patch set laid
the groundwork. Routines are decorated with the 'oacc routine' pr
On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 00:15 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 02:41 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > As in the previous version of this patch
> > "Implement tree expression tracking in C FE (v2)"
> > the patch now captures ranges for all C expressions during parsing within
> > a new field of c_e
Hi,
+ template
+struct __is_implicitly_default_constructible
+ : public integral_constant,
+__is_implicitly_default_constructible_safe<_Tp>
+ >::value)>
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
__is_direct_constr
This is the core changes, an C & C++ FE parsing pieces.
Parsing only deals with the gang, worker, vector & seq clauses. The nohost and
bind clauses will be a later patch to port.
The parsing is very similar to the omp declare simd parsing, in the way that
it's hooked into the rest of the par
Here are the tests for the routine support. The compiler tests check invalid
combinations of gang, worker, vector & seq. The libgomp execution tests check
the expected partioning occurs within loops. As with the reduction tests,
these ones are taken from the execution model loop tests.
ok
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:33:39PM +, Julian Brown wrote:
> As the author of the original patch, I have to say using the mapping
> structures seems like a far better approach, but I've hit some trouble
> with the details of adapting OpenACC to use that method.
>
> Firstly, on trunk at least, u
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 13:39 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/29
On 10/29/2015 07:08 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 28 Oct 22:37, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Seems the problem occurs in this check in expand_vector_operations_1:
/* A scalar operation pretending to be a vector one. */
if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (type)
&& !VECTOR_MODE_P (TYPE_MODE (type))
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:23:19PM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> +#pragma acc routine gang
> +void __attribute__ ((noinline)) gang (int ary[N])
> +{
> +#pragma acc loop gang
> +for (unsigned ix = 0; ix < N; ix++)
> + {
> + if (__builtin_acc_on_device (5))
> + {
> + int g
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 14:14 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 00:15 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 10/23/2015 02:41 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > As in the previous version of this patch
> > > "Implement tree expression tracking in C FE (v2)"
> > > the patch now captures ranges
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> ../../../../libgo/go/syscall/exec_linux.go:185:37: error: reference to
>>> undefined name 'TIOCSPGRP'
>>>_, err1 = raw_ioctl_ptr(sys.Ctty, TIOCSPGR
On 11/02/15 14:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Does this work even with -O0? I mean, the assembler is invalid
for any target other than PTX, so you are relying on aggressively folding
this away.
Correct. As thread identification is inherently target-specific, I don't see
how to do otherwise.
We
Hi!
This patch attempts to enhance error diagnostic in case of CilkPlus and fixes
PR68001.
Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64.
Is it ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Igor
ChangeLog:
c-family
2015-11-02 Igor Zamyatin
PR c++/68001
* c-gimplify.c (c_gimplify_expr): Stop the process
Hi!
This patches fixes FP exception that comes from CilkPlus runtime.
Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64.
Is it ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Igor
Changelog:
libcilkrts
2015-10-30 Igor Zamyatin
PR target/66326
* untime/config/x86/os-unix-sysdep.c (sysdep_save_fp_ctrl_state):
On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
> __is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit from __and_ and
> avoid explicit integral_constant? Otherwise patch looks good to me.
Sure. Tested again on Linux-PPC64, tests
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Lynn A. Boger
wrote:
> I see this error when building gccgo from trunk on ppc64le and running the
> libgo tests:
>
> exec_unix_test.go:174:43: error: reference to undefined identifier
> 'syscall.TIOCGPGRP'
> errno := syscall.Ioctl(tty.Fd(), syscall.TIOCGPGRP,
> ui
On Nov 2, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> switch (GET_CODE (rtl))
> {
> case CONST_INT:
> - {
> - HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (rtl);
> + if (mode != BLKmode)
This changes BLKmode for CONST_INT, but I didn’t see this discussed. I didn’t
see a test case? I’d l
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
I think we want the first kind of thing at -Wall, but I'm not so keen on
the second kind at -Wall. Is there precedent for "levels" of a warning?
(so e.g. pedantry level 1 at -Wall, level 2 at -Wextra, and have patch 1
be the difference between levels 1 a
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
