Richard Sandiford writes:
> This patch makes genmatch match calls based on combined_fn rather
> than built_in_function and extends the matching to internal functions.
> It also uses fold_const_call to fold the calls to a constant, rather
> than going through fold_builtin_n.
>
> In order to slightl
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 03:16:37PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 02:57 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:57:22AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>On 11/02/2015 06:26 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >>>The attached patch fixes the annoying warnings generated by
> >>>diagnostic_set_l
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch adds support to the ARM back-end for the Cortex-A35
> processor, as recently announced by ARM. The ARM Cortex-A35 provides
> full support for the ARMv8-A architecture, including the CRC extension,
> with optional Advan
Hi Bernd,
On 16/11/15 18:40, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/16/2015 03:07 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I've explained in the comments in the patch what's going on but the
short version is trying to change the destination of a defining insn
that feeds into an extend insn is not valid if the defining i
Can we please get trunk back to bootstrap land?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
This test uses NaN, so it requires ieee options for certain targets.
2015-11-17 Uros Bizjak
* gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c: Use dg-add-options ieee.
Tested on alphaev68-linux-gnu and committed to mainline SVN.
Uros.
Index: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c
===
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> +static bool
> +can_use_internal_fn (gcall *call
Hi,
GIMPLE IVO needs to call backend interface to calculate costs for addr
expressions like below:
FORM1: "r73 + r74 + 16380"
FORM2: "r73 << 2 + r74 + 16380"
They are invalid address expression on AArch64, so will be legitimized by
aarch64_legitimize_address. Below are what we got from that
Richard Biener writes:
> On November 10, 2015 9:13:25 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/genmatch.c b/gcc/genmatch.c
index cff32b0..7139476 100644
--- a/gcc/genmatch.c
Thanks for all the reviews for this series. I think the patch below
is the only target-independent one that hasn't had any comments.
Richard
Richard Sandiford writes:
> This patch tries to vectorize built-in and internal functions as
> internal functions first, falling back on the current built
This series is aimed at backporting algorithmic optimizations and a
change to a test it affects from trunk to the embedded-5-branch.
Andre Vieira(2):
Backporting algorithmic optimization in match and simplify
Backporting fix for PR-67948.
New algorithmic optimisations:
((X inner_op C0) outer_op C1)
With X being a tree where value_range has reasoned certain bits to
always be
zero throughout its computed value range, we will call this the
zero_mask,
and with inner_op = {|,^}, outer_op = {|,^} and inner_op != outer_op.
This patch backports the fix for PR-67948 from trunk to the
embedded-5-branch.
The original patch is at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02193.html
Tested for Cortex-M3.
Is this OK to commit?
Thanks,
Andre
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2015-10-27 Andre Vieira
Backport from mainline
On 17/11/15 09:08, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Bernd,
On 16/11/15 18:40, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/16/2015 03:07 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I've explained in the comments in the patch what's going on but the
short version is trying to change the destination of a defining insn
that feeds into an
Hello!
Attached patch fixes PR 68263. IAMCU ABI doesn't guarantee any
alignment, so we have to emit unaligned moves for SSE or AVX unaligned
operands.
2015-11-17 Uros Bizjak
PR target/68263
* config/i386/i386.h (BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT): Always define
to 32 for IAMCU.
* config/i386/
Is the following patch OK for trunk and 5.3?
I have used the legalese found in my draft for Fortran 2015.
Would it be acceptable to replace
"with the BIND attribute or the SEQUENCE attribute"
with
"with the BIND or SEQUENCE attribute"?
Dominique
Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
==
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 09/11/15 12:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Currently BB vectorization computes all dependences inside a BB
> > region and fails all vectorization if it cannot handle some of them.
> >
> > This is obviously not needed - BB vectorization can restri
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This patch short-circuits the builtins.c expansion code for a particular
>
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> pass_scev_cprop contains a bit where it replaces uses of an ssa-name with
> constants. This is currently not noted in the dump-file, even with
> TDF_DETAILS.
>
> This patch adds that information in the dump-file, in this format:
> ..
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
>> Yeah. Kenny was adamant that for wide-int we should have an UNSIGNED/SIGNED
>
> Yeah, you can blame me. I think (, UNSIGNED) conveys more than (,true) or
> (,false). The sad part
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 16/11/15 13:45, Richard Biener wrote:
+ NEXT_PASS (pass_scev_cprop);
> >
> >What's that for? It's supposed to help removing loops - I don't
> >expect kernels to vanish.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >I'm using pass_sc
Hi Kugan,
It does look like an issue.
Please open a bug report.
>
>
> On 17/11/15 12:00, Charles Baylis wrote:
>> On 16 November 2015 at 22:24, Kugan
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please note that we have a sibcall from "broken" to "indirect".
>>>
>>> "direct" is variadic function so it is conforming to
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:21:01PM +0800, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> GIMPLE IVO needs to call backend interface to calculate costs for addr
> expressions like below:
>FORM1: "r73 + r74 + 16380"
>FORM2: "r73 << 2 + r74 + 16380"
>
> They are invalid address expression on AArch64, so will be le
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 01:15:32PM +, Andre Vieira wrote:
> On 16/11/15 12:07, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:49:11AM +, Andre Vieira wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >> This patch changes the target support mechanism to make it
> >>recognize any ARM 'M' profile as a non-neon
On 16 November 2015 at 14:36, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> 2015-11-16 James Greenhalgh
>
> * config/aarch64/aarch64-cores.def (cortex-a35): New.
> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (cortexa35_tunings): New.
> * config/aarch64/aarch64-tune.md: Regenerate.
> * doc/invoke.te
On 17/11/15 09:49, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 17/11/15 09:08, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Bernd,
On 16/11/15 18:40, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/16/2015 03:07 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I've explained in the comments in the patch what's going on but the
short version is trying to change the destin
Hi,
this no-functional-changes patch improves comments in
pass_tree_loop_init::execute.
For the discussion related to the comment for scev_initialize, see:
- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01127.html
- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56426
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
-
Committed to cvs.
Index: htdocs/gcc-6/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-6/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -u -r1.42 changes.html
--- htdocs/gcc-6/changes.html 15 Nov 2015 08:01:27 - 1.42
+++ htdo
This adds a user-mode set of multilibs to the visium-elf port.
Applied on the mainline.
2015-11-17 Eric Botcazou
* config/visium/t-visium (MULTILIB_OPTIONS): Add muser-mode.
(MULTILIB_DIRNAMES): Adjust accordingly.
--
Eric BotcazouIndex: config/visium/t-visium
=
Empty record should be returned and passed the same way in C and C++.
This patch adds LANG_HOOKS_EMPTY_RECORD_P for C++ empty class, which
defaults to return false. For C++, LANG_HOOKS_EMPTY_RECORD_P is defined
to is_really_empty_class, which returns true for C++ empty classes. For
LTO, we stream
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>
> > On 09/11/15 12:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently BB vectorization computes all dependences inside a BB
> > > region and fails all vectorization if it cannot handle some of them.
> > >
> >
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this no-functional-changes patch improves comments in
> pass_tree_loop_init::execute.
>
> For the discussion related to the comment for scev_initialize, see:
> - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01127.html
> - https://gcc.gnu.org/bu
Hi,
Default hook for get_mask_mode is supposed to return integer vector modes.
This means it should reject calar modes returned by mode_for_vector.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, regtested on
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2015-11-17
On 06/11/15 10:46, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In this wrong-code PR the vector setmem expansion and
> arm_block_set_aligned_vect in particular
> use the wrong offset when calling adjust_automodify_address. In the attached
> testcase during the
> initial zeroing out we get two V16QI st
On 11/17/2015 10:08 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Yes, I had considered that as well. It should be equivalent. I didn't
use !reg_used_between_p because I thought
it'd be more expensive than checking reg_overlap_mentioned_p since we
must iterate over a number of instructions
and call reg_overlap_menti
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Empty record should be returned and passed the same way in C and C++.
> This patch adds LANG_HOOKS_EMPTY_RECORD_P for C++ empty class, which
> defaults to return false. For C++, LANG_HOOKS_EMPTY_RECORD_P is defined
> to is_really_empty_class, whi
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Default hook for get_mask_mode is supposed to return integer vector modes.
> This means it should reject calar modes returned by mode_for_vector.
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, regtested on
> aarch64-u
On 11/17/2015 12:49 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Default hook for get_mask_mode is supposed to return integer vector
modes. This means it should reject calar modes returned by
mode_for_vector. Bootstrapped and regtested on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, regtested on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK
for tr
On 11/16/2015 04:48 PM, Andre Vieira wrote:
On 16/11/15 15:34, Joern Wolfgang Rennecke wrote:
I just happened to stumble on this problem with another port.
The volatile & test solution doesn't work, though.
What does work, however, is:
__asm__ ("" : : "" (dummy));
I can confirm that Joern's
GCC's -fwrapv option does not affect code generation for shifts
because currently GCC does not rely on the fact that certain
signed shifts trigger undefined behavior. However, the definition
of signed arithmetic overflow does extend to shifts; it is only
code generation that is limited to addition
Solaris 12 recently introduced the C++11 overloads, which
caused bootstrap to be broken on both mainline and the gcc-5 branch:
In file included from
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libstdc++-v3/include/precompiled/stdc++.h:41:0:
/var/gcc/regression/trunk/12-gcc/build/i386-pc-solaris2.12/libstdc++-v3
On 05/11/15 16:22, Daniel Gutson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>On 4 November 2015 at 02:11, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>Since this is a nothrow new, we thought that probably the system
>>might not be exceptions-friendly (such as certain embedded systems),
>>so we
On 17/11/15 02:00, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 11/16/2015 07:28 PM, Florian Goth wrote:
Any particular pointers how I can help in improving the implementation?
Immediately: I have a good patch with xfails where #include should
inject into namespace std. That's
probably a one liner in the ma
On 11/17/2015 02:53 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 16, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
So I'd tend to want them either at the end of the file with a
single #if CHECKING_P or as a separate foo-tests file.
Hum… I kinda don’t want the main files mucked up with tests. I
think I’d rather have
#
Hi Ramana,
On 17/11/15 12:02, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 06/11/15 10:46, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
In this wrong-code PR the vector setmem expansion and
arm_block_set_aligned_vect in particular
use the wrong offset when calling adjust_automodify_address. In the attached
testcase dur
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> GCC's -fwrapv option does not affect code generation for shifts
> because currently GCC does not rely on the fact that certain
> signed shifts trigger undefined behavior. However, the definition
> of signed arithmetic overflow does extend to shifts; it
On 17/11/15 12:10, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/17/2015 10:08 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Yes, I had considered that as well. It should be equivalent. I didn't
use !reg_used_between_p because I thought
it'd be more expensive than checking reg_overlap_mentioned_p since we
must iterate over a number
On 17/11/2015 13:58, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> > GCC's -fwrapv option does not affect code generation for shifts
>> > because currently GCC does not rely on the fact that certain
>> > signed shifts trigger undefined behavior. However, the definition
>> > of signed arithmetic overflow does extend to
2015-11-17 15:26 GMT+03:00 Bernd Schmidt :
> On 11/17/2015 12:49 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> Default hook for get_mask_mode is supposed to return integer vector
>> modes. This means it should reject calar modes returned by
>> mode_for_vector. Bootstrapped and regtested on
>> x86_64-unknown-lin
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:33:21AM +, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:22:16PM +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> > The ARMv8.1 architecture extension adds two Adv.SIMD instructions,
> > sqrdmlah and sqrdmlsh. This patch adds the feature macro
> > __ARM_FEATURE_QRDMX to indicate
On 17/11/15 12:58, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Ramana,
On 17/11/15 12:02, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 06/11/15 10:46, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
In this wrong-code PR the vector setmem expansion and
arm_block_set_aligned_vect in particular
use the wrong offset when calling adjust_automo
Now that init priority support on Solaris is on mainline, porting libvtv
proved to be relatively easy, though it discovered a couple of quirks on
a non-gld non-x86 platform.
A considerable part of the patch lives in Solaris-specific files and
thus doesn't need approval, though some changes require
Left shifts into the sign bit is a kind of overflow, and the
standard chooses to treat left shifts of negative values the
same way.
However, the -fwrapv option modifies the language to one where
integers are defined as two's complement---which also defines
entirely the behavior of shifts. Disable
On 11/17/2015 04:09 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Can we please get trunk back to bootstrap land?
Which target isn't bootstrapping for you?
Jason
Jason Merrill writes:
> On 11/17/2015 04:09 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Can we please get trunk back to bootstrap land?
>
> Which target isn't bootstrapping for you?
PR68346, PR68361
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4
While I was looking at the interaction of delayed folding with GGC, I
noticed that ggc_handle_finalizers currently runs no finalizers if
G.context_depth != 0. So any GC objects in a greater depth will still
be collected, but they won't have their finalizers run. This
specifically affects comp
On 14/11/15 00:07, Jason Merrill wrote:
And here's the final patch integrating the delayed folding branch. The general
idea is to mostly avoid folding until the end of the function, at which point we
fold everything as part of genericization. Since many warnings rely on looking
at folded trees,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> This patch makes genmatch match calls based on combined_fn rather
>> than built_in_function and extends the matching to internal functions.
>> It also uses fold_const_call to fold the calls to a constant, rat
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Richard Sandiford w
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On November 10, 2015 9:13:25 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>Richard Biener writes:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/genmatch.c b/gcc/gen
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Thanks for all the reviews for this series. I think the patch below
> is the only target-independent one that hasn't had any comments.
This patch is ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Richard
>
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> This patch tries to
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> This patc
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> While I was looking at the interaction of delayed folding with GGC, I
> noticed that ggc_handle_finalizers currently runs no finalizers if
> G.context_depth != 0. So any GC objects in a greater depth will still be
> collected, but they won't
On 17/11/15 11:05, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 16/11/15 13:45, Richard Biener wrote:
+ NEXT_PASS (pass_scev_cprop);
What's that for? It's supposed to help removing loops - I don't
expect kernels to vanish.
I'm using pass_sc
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:53:52AM +0100, Dominique d'Humi??res wrote:
> Is the following patch OK for trunk and 5.3?
OK.
>
> I have used the legalese found in my draft for Fortran 2015.
> Would it be acceptable to replace
> "with the BIND attribute or the SEQUENCE attribute"
> with
> "with t
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 09:39 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> The PPC port seems to be bootstrapping again, but I'm not sure why.
>> Mike Meissner's patch only should have affected long double.
>
>
>> It's hard to know if there is a latent bug that ha
On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 22:34 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 09:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The root cause is uninitialized data. Specifically, the C parser's
> > struct c_expr gained a "src_range" field, and it turns out there are a
> > few places where I wasn't initializing this w
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg01192.html
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * cp-gimplify.c (genericize_cp_loop): Change LOOP_EXPR's location
> to start of loop body instead of start of loop.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/guality/pr67192.C: New tes
On 11/17/2015 04:13 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 22:34 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Should c_expr perhaps acquire a constructor so that this problem is
avoided in the future? The whole thing seems somewhat error-prone.
I agree that it's error prone, and the ctor approach is w
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Can you suggest a wording for "if the GNU C language definition changes
> [which, no matter how unlikely, is explicitly not ruled out by the
> manual] -fwrapv will be extended to signed shifts, and shifts of
> negative numbers would return A*2^B whenever
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 17/11/15 11:05, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Tom de Vries
> > wrote:
> > > On 16/11/15 13:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + NEXT_PASS (pass_scev_cprop);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wha
On 17/11/15 16:18, Richard Biener wrote:
IMHO autopar needs to handle induction itself.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? Autopar handles induction
>variables, but it doesn't handle exit phis reading the final value of the
>induction variable. Is that what you want fixed? How?
On 17/11/2015 16:27, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > Can you suggest a wording for "if the GNU C language definition changes
> > [which, no matter how unlikely, is explicitly not ruled out by the
> > manual] -fwrapv will be extended to signed shifts, and shifts of
> > negative numbers would return A*2^B
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> * it doesn't promise that GCC will never rely on undefined behavior
> rules for signed left shifts
I think we should remove the ", but this is subject to change" in
implement-c.texi (while replacing it with noting that ubsan will still
diagnose such c
The testcase in the GCC testsuite assumes that wchar_t is 32 bits,
which is not correct on AIX. 32 bit AIX maintains 16 bit wchar_t for
backward compatibility (64 bit AIX uses 32 bit wchar_t).
What is the preferred method to make the testcase safe for smaller wchar_t?
The following patch works f
The attached patch fixes an issue with SPREAD and the PARAMETER
attribute when an array constructor is too large for expansion.
gfortran now issues an error message and points to the
-fmax-array-constructor.
Patch built on i386-*-freebsd and x86_64-*-freebsd. There are
no regressions. OK to com
Kirill,
* c-c++-common/attr-simd.c
and
* c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c
fail on 32 bit systems, e.g., see powerpc64-linux tested in 32 bit mode.
- David
On 17 November 2015 at 16:04, David Edelsohn wrote:
> The testcase in the GCC testsuite assumes that wchar_t is 32 bits,
> which is not correct on AIX. 32 bit AIX maintains 16 bit wchar_t for
> backward compatibility (64 bit AIX uses 32 bit wchar_t).
>
> What is the preferred method to make the te
On 11/16/15 17:07, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I've committed this patch to the gomp4 branch. It adds support for worker and
gang level complex double reductions.
I was unsatisfied with that approach, so I've separated the two mechanisms into
different functions with the attached patch. The lockin
On 17/11/15 12:29, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/16/2015 04:48 PM, Andre Vieira wrote:
On 16/11/15 15:34, Joern Wolfgang Rennecke wrote:
I just happened to stumble on this problem with another port.
The volatile & test solution doesn't work, though.
What does work, however, is:
__asm__ ("" : : "
On 16/11/15 14:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi Alan,
I've noticed that this new test (gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-subgroups-3.c)
fails for armeb targets.
I haven't had time to look at more details yet, but I guess you can
reproduce it quickly enough.
Thanks - yes I see it now.
-fdump-tree-optimized lo
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 17 November 2015 at 16:04, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> The testcase in the GCC testsuite assumes that wchar_t is 32 bits,
>> which is not correct on AIX. 32 bit AIX maintains 16 bit wchar_t for
>> backward compatibility (64 bit AIX uses 3
On 17/11/2015 17:02, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> * it doesn't promise that GCC will never rely on undefined behavior
>> rules for signed left shifts
>
> I think we should remove the ", but this is subject to change" in
> implement-c.texi (while replacin
On 17/11/2015 17:02, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> * it doesn't promise that GCC will never rely on undefined behavior
>> rules for signed left shifts
>
> I think we should remove the ", but this is subject to change" in
> implement-c.texi (while replacin
This patch adds an empty priority_queues.c in libgomp for nvptx targets.
Nvptx targets don't have sufficient support for a complete libgomp
library, so we're only building a subset of it. And without that empty
file, I was seeing an error message that looked like this:
libgomp/libgomp.h:122:17: fa
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 09:16:05AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> This patch adds an empty priority_queues.c in libgomp for nvptx targets.
> Nvptx targets don't have sufficient support for a complete libgomp
> library, so we're only building a subset of it. And without that empty
> file, I was s
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/11/2015 17:02, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> * it doesn't promise that GCC will never rely on undefined behavior
> >> rules for signed left shifts
> >
> > I think we should remove the ", but this is su
On 11/17/15 12:16, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
This patch adds an empty priority_queues.c in libgomp for nvptx targets.
Nvptx targets don't have sufficient support for a complete libgomp
library, so we're only building a subset of it. And without that empty
file, I was seeing an error message that l
On 11/17/15 12:23, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 11/17/15 12:16, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
This patch adds an empty priority_queues.c in libgomp for nvptx targets.
Nvptx targets don't have sufficient support for a complete libgomp
library, so we're only building a subset of it. And without that empty
On 11/17/2015 09:23 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 11/17/15 12:23, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> On 11/17/15 12:16, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>>> This patch adds an empty priority_queues.c in libgomp for nvptx targets.
>>> Nvptx targets don't have sufficient support for a complete libgomp
>>> library, so
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:23:51PM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 11/17/15 12:23, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >On 11/17/15 12:16, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> >>This patch adds an empty priority_queues.c in libgomp for nvptx targets.
> >>Nvptx targets don't have sufficient support for a complete libgo
Attached is a patch fixing the ICE caused by a prior change of mine:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=230081
Tested on x86_64, committing to trunk as per Jason via IRC.
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-11-17 Martin Sebor
PR c++/68308
* cp/init.c (build_new
On 11/17/2015 05:51 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/17/2015 02:53 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 16, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
So I'd tend to want them either at the end of the file with a
single #if CHECKING_P or as a separate foo-tests file.
Hum… I kinda don’t want the main files muc
A couple of bootstrap issues on some targets:
68346: My earlier change to avoid folding the arguments to
warn_tautological_cmp wasn't quite right, either. This patch folds
within the function, at the place where we are interested in a constant
value.
68361: The way we were trying to suppres
I've checked in this patch to fix PR53587, which is about missing
documentation for the -mms-bitfields command-line option for x86. It
turns out there *was* documentation, but it was buried in the discussion
of the corresponding variable attributes with no pointers in the option
summary or ind
Nothing uses these macros and removing them makes it more likely
that future code will use CASE_CFN_* instead.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, aarch64-linux-gnu and arm-linux-gnueabi.
Applied as obvious.
Thanks,
Richard
gcc/
* tree.h (BUILTIN_EXP10_P, BUILTIN_EXPONENT_P, BUILTIN_SQRT_P)
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 02:09:31PM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 09:44 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > (@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 +01
On 11/17/2015 09:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
While I was looking at the interaction of delayed folding with GGC, I
noticed that ggc_handle_finalizers currently runs no finalizers if
G.context_depth != 0. So any GC objects in a greater dept
On 16/11/2015 11:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 15/11/15 22:12 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
>> Here is a last version I think.
>>
>>I completed the debug light mode by adding some check on iterator
>> ranges.
>>
>>Even if check are light I made some changes to make sure that
>> internally
For the record, I committed the following:
2015-11-17 Steven G. Kargl
* primary.c (gfc_match_structure_constructor): Fix whitespace.
--
Steve
Index: primary.c
===
--- primary.c (revision 230494)
+++ primary.c (workin
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
