Re: [PATCH] Prevent LTO wrappers to process a recursive execution

On 04/25/2016 09:30 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Does that really work? When the executable is found in $PATH > av[0] does not contain the full path name. But you seem to assume > it does? > > -Andi Hi. Well, it should be resolved by lrealpath. There's usage from my machine: marxin@marxinbox:~> whic

[PING][PATCH] DWARF: add abstract origin links on lexical blocks DIEs

Ping for the patch submitted at . It applies just fine on the current trunk and still bootstrapps and regtests successfuly on x86_64-linux. Thank you in advance, -- Pierre-Marie de Rodat

Re: Compile libcilkrts with -funwind-tables (PR target/60290)

Hi Jeff, > On 04/06/2016 05:12 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: >> I've finally gotten around to analyzing this testsuite failure on 32-bit >> Solaris/x86: >> >> FAIL: g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/catch_exc.cc -O1 -fcilkplus execution test >> FAIL: g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/catch_exc.cc -O3 -fcilkplus execution test >>

Re: Compile libcilkrts with -funwind-tables (PR target/60290)

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:56:16AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: > > OK. Thanks for tracking this down, including verification that the > > difference between Solaris and Linux is the latter having -funwind-tables > > on by default. > > thanks, installed. About eventual backports to the 5 and 6 (aft

Re: [PATCH] Verify that context of local DECLs is the current function

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > the patch below moves an assert from expand_expr_real_1 to gimple > verification. It triggers when we do a sloppy job outlining stuff > from one function to another (or perhaps inlining too) and leave in > the IL of a function a loca

Unreviewed^2 patches

The following two patches have remained unreviewed for about 6 weeks, despite a reminder: [i386] Support .lbss etc. sections with Solaris as (PR target/59407) https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg01056.html [i386] Support .largecomm with Solaris as (PR target/6182

Re: [PATCH] Fix missed DSE opportunity with operator delete.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > Hmm, this seems to assume that operator delete itself doesn't do > anything with the object being deleted. This is true of the default > implementation, but I don't see anything in the standard that > prohibits a user-supplied replacement or

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:51 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> Tested on Linux/x86-64. OK for trunk? > >> > >>> + /* FIXME: Since the CSE pass may chan

Re: [PATCH] Fix missed DSE opportunity with operator delete.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: Hmm, this seems to assume that operator delete itself doesn't do anything with the object being deleted. This is true of the default implementation, but I don't see anything in the standard that p

Re: Unreviewed^2 patches

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > The following two patches have remained unreviewed for about 6 weeks, > despite a reminder: > > [i386] Support .lbss etc. sections with Solaris as (PR target/59407) > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg01056.html > >

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:51 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> Tested on Linux/x86-64. O

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:51

Re: Unreviewed^2 patches

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:29:40AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rainer Orth > wrote: > > The following two patches have remained unreviewed for about 6 weeks, > > despite a reminder: > > > > [i386] Support .lbss etc. sections with Solaris as (PR target/5940

Re: C++ PATCH to implement C++17 maybe_unused attribute

/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20160426/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr63831-1.c:5:14: error: size of array 'T1' is negative /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20160426/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr63831-1.c:13:14: error: size of array 'T5' is negative /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20160426/gcc/testsu

Re: [PATCH] Fix missed DSE opportunity with operator delete.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, this seems to assume that operator delete itself doesn't do >>> anything with the object being deleted. This is true of the de

Re: match.pd: x+x -> 2*x

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > a simple transform to replace a more complicated one in fold-const.c. > > This patch breaks the testcase gcc.dg/gomp/loop-1.c. Indeed, the C front-end > folds too eagerly > newrhs = c_fully_fold (newrhs, false, NULL); > in buil

Re: [PATCH GCC]Cleanup tree ifcvt by renaming any_mask_load_store.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi, > This is a simple patch for tree ifcvt. It renames variable > any_mask_load_store to any_pred_load_store, as well as makes the variable > visible in file scope. First rationale is name of that variable is confusing > with masked load st

Re: [PATCH GCC]Improve tree ifconv by handling virtual PHIs which can be degenerated.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Richard Biener >>> wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi,

Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 22/04/16 12:20, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> >> >> On 22/04/16 11:34, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> On 22/04/16 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > > On 22/04/16 10:42, Marc Gli

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 6 April 2016 at 14:54, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> > >> > On 6 April 2016 at 13:44, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Pratham

Re: match.pd: unsigned A - B > A --> A < B

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > the first part is something that was discussed last stage3, and Jakub argued > in favor of single_use. The second part is probably less useful, it notices > that if we manually check for overflow using the result of IFN_*_OVERFLOW, >

Re: match.pd patch: u + 3 < u is u > UINT_MAX - 3

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Marc Glisse >>> wrote: Hello, this optimizes a common pattern for unsigned overflow detection,

[C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

This PR was reopened, because the exact same problem with treating a TYPENAME wrongly as an ID was found when using just if-clause, without an enclosing for loop. More details: . That fix had a follow-up, because it broke some ObjC code. T

[PATCH] [ARC] Fix emitting jump tables for ARCv2

The compact casesi option only make sens for ARCv1 cores. For ARCv2 cores we use the regular expansion. OK to apply? Claudiu gcc/ 2016-04-26 Claudiu Zissulescu * common/config/arc/arc-common.c (arc_option_optimization_table): Disable compact casesi as default option. *

RE: PING [PATCH] [ARC] Add SIMD extensions for ARC HS

PING > -Original Message- > From: Claudiu Zissulescu > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:31 AM > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Claudiu Zissulescu; g...@amylaar.uk; francois.bed...@synopsys.com; > jeremy.benn...@embecosm.com > Subject: [PATCH] [ARC] Add SIMD extensions for ARC HS > > Thi

Re: match.pd: x+x -> 2*x

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: Note that I think /* (X /[ex] A) * A -> X. */ (simplify (mult (convert? (exact_div @0 @1)) @1) /* Look through a sign-changing conversion. */ (convert @0)) has a bug as we use operand_equal_p for comparing @1 but that treats equal but different t

Re: [C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > This PR was reopened, because the exact same problem with treating a TYPENAME > wrongly as an ID was found when using just if-clause, without an enclosing for > loop. More details: > . > That fi

Re: match.pd patch: u + 3 < u is u > UINT_MAX - 3

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > > Hello, > >>>

Re: match.pd patch: u + 3 < u is u > UINT_MAX - 3

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: By the way, it would be cool to be able to write: (lt:c @0 @1) which would expand to both (lt @0 @1) (gt @1 @0) (as per swap_tree_comparison or swapped_tcc_comparison) Yeah, I know... I was hesitant to overload :c with "slightly" different semantic

Re: Move "X +- C1 CMP C2 to X CMP C2 -+ C1" to match.pd

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > trying to move a first pattern from fold_comparison. > > I first tried without single_use. It brought the number of 'free' in > g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr61034.C down to 11, changed gcc.dg/sms-6.c to only 2 SMS > (I don't think the generated

Re: match.pd patch: u + 3 < u is u > UINT_MAX - 3

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > By the way, it would be cool to be able to write: (lt:c @0 @1) which would expand to both (lt @0 @1) (gt @1 @0) (as per swap_tree_comparison or swapped_tcc_com

Re: match.pd: x+x -> 2*x

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> Note that I think >> >> /* (X /[ex] A) * A -> X. */ >> (simplify >> (mult (convert? (exact_div @0 @1)) @1) >> /* Look through a sign-changing conversion. */ >> (convert @0)) >> >> has a bug a

Re: Fix some i386 testcases for -frename-registers

On 01/29/2016 01:19 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: * gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-vptestmb-1.c: Correct [xyz]mm register number scans. * gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-vptestmw-1.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-vptestnmb-1.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-vptestnmw-1.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/a

Re: [PATCH] Fixup nb_iterations_upper_bound adjustment for vectorized loops

2016-04-22 10:13 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Currently when loop is vectorized we adjust its nb_iterations_upper_bound >> by dividing it by VF. This is incorrect since nb_iterations_upper_bound >> is upper bound for ( - 1) and th

Re: C/C++ PATCH to add -Wdangling-else option

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:16:12PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:13:28PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > On 04/13/2016 04:14 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > >This patch is meant to be applied on top of the "Wparentheses overhaul" > > >patch. > > > > > >I really think that w

Re: C/C++ PATCH to add -Wdangling-else option

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 02:32:01PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:16:12PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:13:28PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > On 04/13/2016 04:14 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > >This patch is meant to be applied on top of th

Re: Enabling -frename-registers?

On 04/17/2016 08:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote: invoke.texi has an independent list (probably incomplete! ;( of all the things that -O2 enables. Make sure to add -frename-registers to that list and this is Ok for the trunk (gcc-7). This is what I committed. Bernd Index: gcc/ChangeLog ==

Re: [PATCH] Fix missed DSE opportunity with operator delete.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> Hmm, this seems to assume that operator delete itself doesn't do >> anything with the object being deleted. This is true of the default >> implementation, but I don't see anything in

[PATCH] Fix up inchash::add_expr to match more closely operand_equal_p (PR sanitizer/70683)

Hi! As mentioned in the PR, the bug that has been eventually worked around by making the C++ constexpr hash tables non-deletable is that operand_equal_p, which is used in lots of hash tables as the equal function (with last argument 0), may return true, i.e. a match, even for trees that have diffe

Re: C/C++ PATCH to add -Wdangling-else option

On 04/26/2016 02:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: I support that change, and -Wparentheses will still enable this, it just gives more fine-grained control and be in line with what clang does. Bernd, how much are you against this change? Don't really care that much, I just don't quite see the point.

Re: C, C++: New warning for memset without multiply by elt size

On 04/25/2016 07:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 04/25/2016 05:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: +if (TREE_CODE (arg2) == CONST_DECL) + arg2 = DECL_INITIAL (arg2); +int literal_mask = ((!!integer_zerop (arg1) << 1) +| (!!integer_zerop (arg2) << 2)); Are yo

Re: [PATCH] add support for placing variables in shared memory

On 04/25/16 13:49, Alexander Monakov wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Nathan Sidwell wrote: acceptable? No, that really doesn't sound viable. You'd need to somehow take into account every instance where the compiler attempts to switch sections internally (.text/.data/.bss, -ffunction-sections/-fda

Re: [C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44:52AM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > This PR was reopened, because the exact same problem with treating a > > TYPENAME > > wrongly as an ID was found when using just if-clause, without an enclosing > > for > > loop. More

[PATCH] Fix a recent warning in reorg.c

Hi! I've noticed a warning during bootstrap: ../../gcc/reorg.c: In function ‘void try_merge_delay_insns(rtx_insn*, rtx_insn*)’: ../../gcc/reorg.c:1431:12: warning: name lookup of ‘i’ changed for (i = 0; i < XVECLEN (PATTERN (insn), 0); i++) ^ ../../gcc/reorg.c:1263:7: warning:

Re: [C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:06:16PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44:52AM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > > > This PR was reopened, because the exact same problem with treating a > > > TYPENAME > > > wrongly as an ID was fou

Re: [PATCH] Fix a recent warning in reorg.c

On 04/26/2016 03:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: It is not fatal, but still ugly. The problem is that the function has int i; ... for (i = 0; ...) ... for (unsigned int i = ... ) ... for (i = 0; ...) This patch just declares the var in the only affected loop, so that the warning is not e

Re: [PATCH] Fix a recent warning in reorg.c

On 04/26/2016 03:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: ^ ../../gcc/reorg.c:1413:25: warning: matches this ‘i’ under old rules for (unsigned int i = len - 1; i < len; i--) ^ Oh, and also - I flagged this while reviewing other parts of Trevor's changes, this pat

[Patch AArch64] Set TARGET_OMIT_STRUCT_RETURN_REG to true.

As $SUBJECT. The reason this caught my eye on aarch64 is because the return value register (x0) is not identical to the register in which the hidden parameter for AArch64 is set (x8). Thus setting this to true seems to be quite reasonable and shaves off 100 odd mov x0, x8's from cc1 in a bootstrap

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Replace insn to zero up SIMD registers

Evandro Menezes wrote: >On 03/10/16 10:37, James Greenhalgh wrote: >> Thanks for sticking with it. This is OK for GCC 7 when development >> opens. >> >> Remember to mention the most recent changes in your Changelog entry >> (Remove "fp" attribute from *movhf_aarch64 and *movtf_aarch64). > > > OK to

Re: [PING][PATCH] New plugin event when evaluating a constexpr call

Hi, thanks for answering, 2016-04-25 16:21 GMT-03:00 Jason Merrill : > Let's create a constexpr.h rather than expose constexpr internals to all of > the front end. Really, I'd prefer to avoid exposing them at all. Why does > what you want to do require all this implementation detail? Ok, you are

Re: [PATCH] Replace old AWK script (utilizing bc) with Python implementation

On 04/25/2016 09:01 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > please could you make the shebang python3? Not sure if it's good to replace > one old implementation with a soon to become old implementation. > > Matthias Sure, thanks for pointing out. Attaching v2, where I changed: + switched from python2 to py

Allow redefinition of libcilkrts debug macros

When working on a couple of Cilk Plus issues lately (PRs target/60290, target/68945), I noticed that you have to modify the libcilkplus sources to enable various debugging output. This seems silly, and the following patch allows defining them from the command line. Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.12 a

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-25 18:27 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >> >> Ilya, can you take a look? >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> H.J. > > Hi, > > Algorithmic part of the patch looks OK to me except the following piece of > code. > > +/* Check REF's chain to add new insns in

Re: [RFC][PR68217] Improve value range for signed & sign-bit-CST

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, kugan wrote: > As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should be > [-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as happens now. > > This patch fixes this. I bootstrapped and regression tested for > x86-64-linux-gnu with no new regression. Is t

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

2016-04-26 17:07 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-04-25 18:27 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >>> >>> Ilya, can you take a look? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -- >>> H.J. >> >> Hi, >> >> Algorithmic part of the patch looks OK to me except the following piece of >>

Re: [PATCH] Replace old AWK script (utilizing bc) with Python implementation

> On 04/25/2016 09:01 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > > please could you make the shebang python3? Not sure if it's good to replace > > one old implementation with a soon to become old implementation. > > > > Matthias > > Sure, thanks for pointing out. > > Attaching v2, where I changed: > + switche

Re: [C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > Ah, right, that revealed two more places that were missing the > c_parser_maybe_reclassify_token call. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk? OK. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 17:07 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich >> wrote: >>> 2016-04-25 18:27 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : Ilya, can you take a look? Thanks. -- H.J. >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Algo

[C PATCH] Better location for -Wnested-externs (PR c/70791)

This patch improves the location info for -Wnested-externs. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, applying to trunk. 2016-04-26 Marek Polacek PR c/70791 * c-decl.c (pushdecl): Pass LOCUS down to warning. * gcc.dg/Wnested-externs-2.c: New test. diff --git gcc/c/c-de

Re: [PATCH] Fix a recent warning in reorg.c

On 04/26/2016 07:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I've noticed a warning during bootstrap: ../../gcc/reorg.c: In function ‘void try_merge_delay_insns(rtx_insn*, rtx_insn*)’: ../../gcc/reorg.c:1431:12: warning: name lookup of ‘i’ changed for (i = 0; i < XVECLEN (PATTERN (insn), 0); i++)

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

2016-04-26 17:55 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-04-26 17:07 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich >>> wrote: 2016-04-25 18:27 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > > Ilya, can you take a look? > > Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 17:55 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich >> wrote: >>> 2016-04-26 17:07 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-25 18:27 GMT+03:00 H.J

Re: [PATCH] [libatomic] Add RTEMS support

On 04/19/2016 01:24 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: gcc/ * config/rtems.h (LIB_SPEC): Add -latomic. libatomic/ * configure.tgt (*-*-rtems*): New supported target. * config/rtems/host-config.h: New file. * config/rtems/lock.c: Likewise. IMHO, as the rtems port maintai

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On 04/26/2016 03:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:51 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: Tested on Linux/x86-64. OK for trunk? + /* FIXME:

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

2016-04-26 18:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-04-26 17:55 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich >>> wrote: 2016-04-26 17:07 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:

Re: Patches to fix GCC’s C++ exception handling on NetBSD/VAX

On 03/26/2016 06:02 AM, Jake Hamby wrote: As an added bonus, I see that my patch set also included an old m68k patch that had been sitting in my tree, which fixes a crash when -m68040 is defined. I may have submitted it to port-m68k before. It hasn’t been tested with the new compiler either. Here

[middle-end][PATCH] Update alignment_for_piecewise_move

I am working a patch to enable SSE, AVX and AVX512 for memcpy/memset optimization. x86 backend defines MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT to 128 to keep the OI and XI modes from confusing the compiler into thinking that these modes could actually be used for computation. But the OI and XI modes can be used

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 18:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Enkovich >> wrote: >>> 2016-04-26 17:55 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 17:07 GMT+03:00 H.J

Re: [PATCH] Fix a recent warning in reorg.c

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:13:32PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/26/2016 03:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >^ > >../../gcc/reorg.c:1413:25: warning: matches this ‘i’ under old rules > >for (unsigned int i = len - 1; i < len; i--) > > ^ > > Oh, and al

Re: Bad CC0 optimizer in VAX backend (was Re: Patches to fix GCC’s C++ exception handling on NetBSD/VAX)

On 03/28/2016 04:29 PM, Jake Hamby wrote: I have some bad news and some good news. The bad news is that there has been a nasty optimizer bug lurking in the VAX backend for GCC for many years, which has to do with over-optimistic removal of necessary tst/cmp instructions under certain circumstance

Re: [PATCH] Fix a recent warning in reorg.c

On 04/26/2016 05:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:13:32PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 04/26/2016 03:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: ^ ../../gcc/reorg.c:1413:25: warning: matches this ‘i’ under old rules for (unsigned int i = len - 1; i < len; i--)

Re: C++ PATCH to implement C++17 maybe_unused attribute

Fixed. Jason On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20160426/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr63831-1.c:5:14: > error: size of array 'T1' is negative > /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20160426/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/pr63831-1.c:13:14: >

Re: match.pd: unsigned A - B > A --> A < B

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, the first part is something that was discussed last stage3, and Jakub argued in favor of single_use. The second part is probably less useful, it notices that if we manually check for overflow

Re: Patches to fix GCC's C++ exception_handling on NetBSD/VAX

On 03/27/2016 04:09 PM, Jake Hamby wrote: Thank you for the offer. I already tested it on an Amiga 3000 w/ 68040 card when I made the fix. The bug manifested as the cross-compiler crashing with a failure to find a suitable insn, because it couldn’t find the correct FP instruction to expand to. I

Re: C, C++: New warning for memset without multiply by elt size

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/25/2016 07:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On 04/25/2016 05:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> +if (TREE_CODE (arg2) == CONST_DECL) >>> + arg2 = DECL_INITIAL (arg2); >>> +int literal_mask = ((!!integer_zerop

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

2016-04-26 18:39 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-04-26 18:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Enkovich >>> wrote: 2016-04-26 17:55 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 18:39 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich >> wrote: >>> 2016-04-26 18:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 17:55 GMT+03:00 H.J

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve aarch64_case_values_threshold setting

Evandro Menezes wrote: > > True, but the results when running on A53 could be quite different. GCC is ~1.2% faster on Cortex-A53 built for generic, but there is no difference in perlbench. Wilco

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve aarch64_case_values_threshold setting

On 04/26/16 11:14, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: Evandro Menezes wrote: True, but the results when running on A53 could be quite different. GCC is ~1.2% faster on Cortex-A53 built for generic, but there is no difference in perlbench. Looks good, then. Fine by me. Thanks for your patience, -- Evand

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

2016-04-26 19:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-04-26 18:39 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich >>> wrote: 2016-04-26 18:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Enkovich

Re: Patches to fix optimizer bug & C++ exceptions for GCC VAX backend

On 04/04/2016 08:51 AM, 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, because it can't ex

Re: Patches to fix optimizer bug & C++ exceptions for GCC VAX backend

On 04/01/2016 05:37 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: Cc'ing Matt Thomas who is listed as the vax maintainer; most of the patch should be reviewed by him IMO. If he is no longer active I'd frankly rather deprecate the port rather than invest effort in keeping it running. Index: gcc/except.c

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

2016-04-26 19:20 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich : > 2016-04-26 19:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Ilya Enkovich >> wrote: >>> 2016-04-26 18:39 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 18:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 19:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Ilya Enkovich >> wrote: >>> 2016-04-26 18:39 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 18:12 GMT+03:00 H.J

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 19:20 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich : >> 2016-04-26 19:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Ilya Enkovich >>> wrote: 2016-04-26 18:39 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich

constexpr function caching

Jason. we currently clone constexpr function bodies when evaluating them (via the reuse cache that caused such fun). The cloning is necessary so decls in different (recursive) evaluations are distinct. We only need to clone for recursive evaluations though -- the outermost evaluation could u

Re: RFD: annotate iterator patterns with expanded forms

Bernd Schmidt writes: > On 01/01/2016 07:02 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >>> The automatic Makefile approach might look something like this. The effect >>> is >>> similar to what happens when you edit tm.texi.in, except the build would not >>> be int

Re: [middle-end][PATCH] Update alignment_for_piecewise_move

"H.J. Lu" writes: > I am working a patch to enable SSE, AVX and AVX512 for memcpy/memset > optimization. x86 backend defines MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT to 128 > to keep the OI and XI modes from confusing the compiler into thinking > that these modes could actually be used for computation. But the

[RFC] Update gmp/mpfr/mpc minimum versions

Hi, as we all know, it's high time now to adjust the minimum supported gmp/mpfr/mpc versions for gcc-7. So this attached patch is now targeting at only supporting the currently latest relased gmp-6.1.0, mpfr-3.1.4 and mpc-1.0.3, instead of trying to support all previous versions, especially in-tr

Re: [RFC] Update gmp/mpfr/mpc minimum versions

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 06:23:17PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > as we all know, it's high time now to adjust the minimum supported > gmp/mpfr/mpc versions for gcc-7. I'm not saying we shouldn't bump the minimum supported versions, but bumping them immediately to the latest releases is IMHO undes

Re: [middle-end][PATCH] Update alignment_for_piecewise_move

On 04/26/2016 08:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: "H.J. Lu" writes: I am working a patch to enable SSE, AVX and AVX512 for memcpy/memset optimization. x86 backend defines MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT to 128 to keep the OI and XI modes from confusing the compiler into thinking that these modes could

Re: [PATCH 02/18] make avail_stores a vec

Another style nit on top of the ones already posted, sorry: tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org writes: > +void > +print_rtx_insn_vec (FILE *file, const vec &vec) > +{ > + fputc('{', file); missing space before '('. Richard

Re: Fix some i386 testcases for -frename-registers

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 01/29/2016 01:19 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> >>> * gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-vptestmb-1.c: Correct [xyz]mm register >>> number scans. >>> * gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-vptestmw-1.c: Likewise. >>> * gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-vptestnmb-1.c: Likewi

Re: [RFC] Update gmp/mpfr/mpc minimum versions

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote: as we all know, it's high time now to adjust the minimum supported gmp/mpfr/mpc versions for gcc-7. So this attached patch is now targeting at only supporting the currently latest relased gmp-6.1.0, mpfr-3.1.4 and mpc-1.0.3, instead of trying to suppor

Re: [middle-end][PATCH] Update alignment_for_piecewise_move

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/26/2016 08:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> >> "H.J. Lu" writes: >>> >>> I am working a patch to enable SSE, AVX and AVX512 for memcpy/memset >>> optimization. x86 backend defines MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT to 128 >>> to keep the OI

Re: [RFC] Update gmp/mpfr/mpc minimum versions

On 26.04.2016 20:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 06:23:17PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> as we all know, it's high time now to adjust the minimum supported >> gmp/mpfr/mpc versions for gcc-7. > > I'm not saying we shouldn't bump the minimum supported versions, but bumping > th

Re: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-04-26 19:20 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich : >>> 2016-04-26 19:12 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-04-26 18:39 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu

Re: [RFC] Update gmp/mpfr/mpc minimum versions

On April 26, 2016 8:39:28 PM GMT+02:00, Marc Glisse wrote: >On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> as we all know, it's high time now to adjust the minimum supported >> gmp/mpfr/mpc versions for gcc-7. >> >> So this attached patch is now targeting at only supporting the >currently >> lat

Re: [RFC] Update gmp/mpfr/mpc minimum versions

On 26.04.2016 20:39, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> as we all know, it's high time now to adjust the minimum supported >> gmp/mpfr/mpc versions for gcc-7. >> >> So this attached patch is now targeting at only supporting the currently >> latest relased gmp-6.1.0

  1   2   >