Hi,
this patch fixes wrong-code PR68953, a graphite 6 regression.
I.
Consider test.c:
...
int yu[4][1] = { { 1 }, { 2 }, { 3 }, { 4 } };
int
main (void)
{
int zh, ro;
for (zh = 0; zh < 2; ++zh)
for (ro = 0; ro < 3; ++ro)
yu[ro][0] = yu[zh + 1][0];
return yu[0][0];
}
...
The
On 2016.04.06 at 18:25 -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Here is a safer and simpler approach that just walks the expression
> being unshared to try to find a CONSTRUCTOR node. If it finds one, then
> we unshare the whole expression. Otherwise we return the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:34:43PM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> --- a/gcc/gimplify.c
> +++ b/gcc/gimplify.c
> @@ -5802,7 +5802,8 @@ omp_add_variable (struct gimplify_omp_ctx *ctx, tree
> decl, unsigned int flags)
> flags |= GOVD_SEEN;
>
>n = splay_tree_lookup (ctx->variables, (spla
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:40:54AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, you can do all the checking there. Say on OMP_CLAUSE_REDUCTION
> for the ORT_ACC_PARALLEL check the flags if they include GOVD_PRIVATE
> or GOVD_FIRSTPRIVATE, if yes, complain. Also check if GOVD_MAP is included,
Though,
void f
Hello Richard & Alan,
Thanks for your feedback. Back on it after a few extra
experiments.
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 19:41 , Richard Henderson wrote:
>
>> Let's see what rth thinks. He did say the patch might need to be
>> redone. :)
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-08n/msg00072.html
>
This patch adds support for the new SIMD operations added to ARC HS
cpu class. The proposed patch doesn't chase for performance but offers
support for those newly added operations, and autovectorization.
The patch is tested using dg.exp, compile.exp, and execute.exp for
both arc700 and archs with
Hi!
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:29:45 +0200, I wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:55:49 +0200, I wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:31:29 +0100, I wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:57:50 +0100, Bernd Schmidt
> > > wrote:
> > > > Ok with [...].
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review; committed in r234471:
> >
Hi,
this patch actually fixes two issues:
* In some cases the dereferences in function argument list are not
instrumented and ASan can miss errors, e.g. heap-use-after-free. To
resolve this, we can just iterate through gimple_call's arguments and
add ASAN_CHECK statements for them if needed.
On 05/04/16 12:16, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 24/03/16 17:59, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
This patch fixes an incorrect warning for the oacc copy clause.
Consider this test-case:
...
void
foo (void)
{
int i;
#pragma acc kernels
{
i = 1;
}
}
...
When compiling with -fopenacc -Wuninitia
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:52:32AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> 2016-04-08 Maxim Ostapenko
>
> PR sanitizer/70541
> * asan.c (instrument_derefs): If we get unknown location, extract it
> with EXPR_LOCATION.
> (maybe_instrument_call): Instrument gimple_call's arguments
On 01/03/16 16:17, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For GCC 6 we want to deprecate architecture revisions prior to ARMv4T.
> This patch implements this by documenting the deprecation in invoke.texi
> and adding
> a warning whenever the user specifies an -march or -mcpu option that
> selects suc
On 07/04/16 15:51, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In this wrong-code PR we have a Thumb2 peephole transforming:
> tstr3, #2
> bne.L3
> beq.L6
>
> into:
> lslsr3, r3, #30 // LSLS is shorter than TST in Thumb2
> bmi.L3
> beq.L6
>
> that is, the
On 05/04/16 17:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:17:16PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 24/03/16 18:02, Tom de Vries wrote:
Remove incorrect warning for parallel firstprivate clause
2016-03-24 Tom de Vries
* omp-low.c (lower_omp_target): Set TREE_NO_WARNING for oac
Hi!
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > >
> > >In addition to that, how about we split up gcc/omp-low.c into several
> > >files? Would it make sense (I hav
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:32:34AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Patch updated as attached.
>
> OK for stage4/stage1 trunk?
Ok for stage4, thanks.
> Remove incorrect warning for parallel implicit firstprivate clause
>
> 2016-03-24 Tom de Vries
>
> * omp-low.c (lower_omp_target): Set TR
On 09/02/16 17:21, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In this wrong-code PR the builtin-apply-4.c test fails with -flto but
> only when targeting an fpu
> with only single-precision capabilities.
>
> bar is a function returing a double. For non-LTO compilation the caller
> of bar reads the retur
Hi!
Ping.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:24:48 +0100, I wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:36:25 +0200, Tom de Vries
> wrote:
> > On 14/07/15 06:54, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On 07/13/2015 04:58 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > >> On 07/07/15 09:53, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > >>> currently, we have these spec strings
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > >
> > > >In addition to that, how
On 08/04/16 12:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:52:32AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
2016-04-08 Maxim Ostapenko
PR sanitizer/70541
* asan.c (instrument_derefs): If we get unknown location, extract it
with EXPR_LOCATION.
(maybe_instrument_ca
Ping.
On 2016/3/29 5:48 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> I've updated this patch for trunk (as attached), and re-tested without
> regressions. This patch is still a fix for
> libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/asyncwait-1.c,
> which FAILs right now.
>
> ChangeLog is still as before. Is this okay for trunk?
>
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > Certainly. On one side I'd say it is too late now in stage3, on the other
> > side when would be better time to do that, during stage1 people will have
> > more likely out of the tree branches with more changes (I'm aware we even
On 04/07/2016 11:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Not sure if this patch catches everything though, perhaps there could be
e.g.
(set (reg:SI ...) (plus:SI ((subreg:SI (reg:QI ...) 0) (const_int ...)))
and we'd still assign REG_EQUAL note. So maybe instead we should walk the
*loc expression and look f
On 08/04/16 12:35, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
Ping.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:24:48 +0100, I wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:36:25 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 14/07/15 06:54, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/13/2015 04:58 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 07/07/15 09:53, Tom de Vries wrote:
currently, we have
On 04/08/2016 12:50 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> New options need documenting in invoke.texi.
>
Done.
--
Regards,
Mikhail Maltsev
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
2016-04-08 Mikhail Maltsev
PR c/43651
* c-decl.c (declspecs_add_qual): Warn when -Wduplicate-decl-specifier
is enabled
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:38:06PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 08/04/16 12:35, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> I've looked at the patch, it looks good to me.
>
> I think it can be committed as obvious.
The patch is ok for trunk.
> >>commit df7d7943ae64f6df74d360e71f7c495c78647fda
> >>Author: Thomas
This is my attempt to fix at least a part of this PR. I haven't been able to
come up with a fix that fixes the other part involving templates.
We were ICEing on code such as
struct S
{
enum E : int;
enum S::E : int { foo } e;
};
Clang rejects this with "extra qualification" error. When I m
On 04/01/2016 05:03 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote:
This fixes the invalid write of size 8 detailed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70492
Handle the special case when consume_count returns -1 due to an integer
overflow when parsing the length of the virtual table qualifier in
cplus-de
Hi!
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:13:58 +0100, I wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:58:45 +0100, I wrote:
> > Cesar and Jim copied, for help with Fortran and generally testsuite
> > things.
(Just in case you happen to have any ideas.)
> > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:30:34 +, Julian Brown
> > wrote:
> > > [
Hi!
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:43:49 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:38:06PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > On 08/04/16 12:35, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > I've looked at the patch, it looks good to me.
> >
> > I think it can be committed as obvious.
>
> The patch is ok for tr
On 04/08/16 00:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+/* OpenACC parallel reductions need a present_or_copy clause to ensure
+ that the original variable used in the reduction gets updated on
+ the host. Scan the list of clauses for reduction so that any existing
+ data clause can be adjusted if neces
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 07:14:13AM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 04/08/16 00:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >>+/* OpenACC parallel reductions need a present_or_copy clause to ensure
> >>+ that the original variable used in the reduction gets updated on
> >>+ the host. Scan the list of claus
On 04/08/2016 12:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:34:43PM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/gimplify.c
>> +++ b/gcc/gimplify.c
>> @@ -5802,7 +5802,8 @@ omp_add_variable (struct gimplify_omp_ctx *ctx, tree
>> decl, unsigned int flags)
>> flags |= GOVD_SEEN;
>
On 04/08/2016 07:14 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 04/08/16 00:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>>> +/* OpenACC parallel reductions need a present_or_copy clause to ensure
>>> + that the original variable used in the reduction gets updated on
>>> + the host. Scan the list of clauses for reduction s
On 04/08/16 07:46, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
I'm not sure what the purpose of a firstprivate parallel reduction is
anyway.
I'm not sure either.
Tom and I were pushing to make parallel reductions imply copy (or
present_or_copy in openacc 2.0). Did that fall through?
It doesn't seem to have
Hi Bill,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:04:30PM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
> On 04/05/16 21:27, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Bill Seurer
> >> * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_overloaded_builtins,
> >> altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin): Remove
> >>
Hi!
xen is miscompiled since Alex' SSA coalescing changes.
The problem is that we have there inline asm that sets more than one
SSA_NAME, one of them is dead though (has zero uses) and because of
the zero uses coalescing doesn't see any conflicts and puts both
the SSA_NAMEs in the two GIMPLE_ASM o
I've been looking through this patch. I had intended to commit it, but
after looking through it a little more carefully I think there are a few
things left to solve.
So, d_number/d_compact_number now return ints rather than longs, which
makes sense since the lengths in things like struct deman
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I plan on tackling the other C++ status pages in the coming days
> as well.
Here is the version for gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html.
(My bad, I should have noticed those areas of simplification
earlier on, that would have saved the C++ guys some effort, too,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 07:35:35AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> The FEs a little inconsistent, and I didn't want to make this patch that
> invasive. Can the FE changes wait to gcc7?
Sure.
> 2016-04-08 Cesar Philippidis
>
> PR lto/70289
> PR ipa/70348
> PR tree-optimizat
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:24:50AM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> > But I expect for stage4, the best solution is to strengthen the stack_tie
> > pattern to block all memory. Early scheduling of the stack frame
> > deallocation (a simple logic insn) can't really be that important to
> > perfor
> On Apr 8, 2016, at 17:37 , Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:24:50AM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>>> But I expect for stage4, the best solution is to strengthen the stack_tie
>>> pattern to block all memory. Early scheduling of the stack frame
>>> deallocation (a
On April 8, 2016 4:54:22 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>xen is miscompiled since Alex' SSA coalescing changes.
>The problem is that we have there inline asm that sets more than one
>SSA_NAME, one of them is dead though (has zero uses) and because of
>the zero uses coalescing doesn't se
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 06:04:38PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Hmm, don't we simply want to do this for all stmts (OK, only asm have
> multiple defs...)?
For all stmts that have multiple defs (which is only GIMPLE_ASM right now).
Though, of course, if you want, unconditionally doing:
My recent change that avoided needlessly unsharing expressions during
constexpr evaluation introduced a regression. If we reuse the result
of the same constexpr call from the constexpr_call_table in two
separate caller functions then both functions will be sharing this
reused tree in their functio
On 04/08/16 09:50, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Bill,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:04:30PM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
On 04/05/16 21:27, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Bill Seurer
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_overloaded_builtins,
altivec_resolve_o
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:18:50PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 11:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Not sure if this patch catches everything though, perhaps there could be
> >e.g.
> >(set (reg:SI ...) (plus:SI ((subreg:SI (reg:QI ...) 0) (const_int ...)))
> >and we'd still assign REG_
On April 8, 2016 6:10:05 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 06:04:38PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Hmm, don't we simply want to do this for all stmts (OK, only asm have
>multiple defs...)?
>
>For all stmts that have multiple defs (which is only GIMPLE_ASM right
>now).
Hi!
The following testcase is miscompiled by tree-ssa-ifcombine.c, because
it sees:
if (_5 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
iftmp.0_12 = foo.part.0 (_11, _5);
_14 = iftmp.0_12 > 0;
_15 = (int) _14;
if (_5 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
and bb_no_side_effects_p says that bb5 ha
On 04/08/2016 07:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
After IRC discussions, I've bootstrapped/regtested following patch that
just punts if *loc contains any paradoxical subregs, together with
additional statistics gathering that proved that the new testcase is
the only spot in which this patch makes a di
OK.
Jason
On 04/04/2016 04:29 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
Hi all!
Currently GCC produces pedantic warning, if variable declaration (or
typedef) has duplicate qualifier, but only when compiling as C89 (not
C99 or C11).
Presumably that's because C89 makes duplicating a type qualifier
a constraint violation
On April 8, 2016 7:16:48 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>The following testcase is miscompiled by tree-ssa-ifcombine.c, because
>it sees:
> if (_5 != 0)
>goto ;
> else
>goto ;
>
> :
> iftmp.0_12 = foo.part.0 (_11, _5);
> _14 = iftmp.0_12 > 0;
> _15 = (int) _14;
> if (_5 !
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Hmm, I think this means GIMPLE_has_side_effects is to be fixed then.
> Note that honza had plans to compute things like 'uses FP' and 'contains
> arith with undefined overflow' and propagate that alongside pure/const-ness.
>
> Can
I wanted to ship the TR29124 special math functions in libstdc++ with
some documentation.
More could be done but this covers the function definitions, argument
ranges, template parms, and arguments.
There is a little mainpage with some overview, history, biblio, and links.
2016-04-08 Edward Sm
Hi,
I'm having a look at this ICE during error recovery regression and I
have a couple of different proposals which both pass testing. In the
first case, instead of reaching (in cp_parser_cache_defarg):
default_argument = make_node (DEFAULT_ARG);
DEFARG_TOKENS (default_argument)
= cp_
On Sun, 2016-04-03 at 21:55 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> The attached patch fixes PR 70416. For details, please see the PR
> audit trail.
>
> Tested on sh-elf with
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,
> -m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}"
>
> and no new fa
> On Apr 4, 2016, at 07:51, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Jake Hamby wrote:
>
>> There's one more thing that's broken in the VAX backend which I'd
>> *really* like to fix: GCC can't compile many of its own files at -O2, as
>> well as a few other .c files in the NetBSD tree
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> pdr_0 (read
> in gimple stmt: _9 = yu[_8][0];
> data accesses: { S_4[i1, i2] -> [1, 0, 1 + i1] }
data access should be { S_4[i1, i2] -> [1, 1 + i1, 0] }
> subscript sizes: { [1, i1, 0] : i1 >= 0 and i1 <= 3 }
> )
[...]
> I'm not really sure h
58 matches
Mail list logo
