On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> With r242674 having enabled the -fprintf-return-value option by
> default, when warnings are disabled the gimple-ssa-sprintf pass
> is now exercised in ways it was not being tested. One of these
> untested use cases exposed a bug in the logi
Hi,
this is a wrong code regression at -O2 on the mainline for Alpha coming from
the REE pass (Alpha is one of the 3 architectures enabling REE at -O2 but I'm
probably going to enable it for 64-bit SPARC too). The problem arises when a
copy is needed in combine_reaching_defs:
/* If the dest
On 22 November 2016 at 20:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 21 November 2016 at 15:34, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 November 2016 at 15:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 17 No
This fixes a latent issue in cfg-cleanup (mergephi) where merging
a forwarder with a loop header can expose a new latch which invalidates
any cached number of iteration information. I believe this issue
is restricted to _with_phi as otherwise constraints on the PHI node
make it impossible to trig
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 22 November 2016 at 20:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 21 November 2016 at 15:34, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 17 Novem
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 22 November 2016 at 20:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 November 2016 at 20:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 21 Novem
Hi,
The below patch fixes uninit-19.c for avr by adding
-finline-small-functions for avr.
The test fails for avr because fn1 does not get inlined into fn2. Inlining
occurs for x86_64 because fn1's computed size equals call_stmt_size. For
avr, 32 bit memory moves are more expensive, and
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for a very late reply as the mail was missed or overlooked.
>
>>> could now move the test tree_expr_nonzero_p next to
>>> tree_expr_nonnegative_p (it is redundant for the last case).
>
> Done.
>
>>> Often just a commen
* gcc.c-torture/compile/20161123-1.c: New test.
--
Eric Botcazou/* PR middle-end/78429 */
/* Testcase by Chengnian Sun */
int a[6];
char b;
unsigned c;
short d;
volatile int e;
int foo (void)
{
int f;
for (; c <= 2; c++) {
d = 3;
for (; d >= 0; d--) {
int
I see broken bootstrap due to:
.././../gcc/config/i386/i386.c: In function ‘rtx_def* ix86_expand_builtin(tree,
rtx, rtx, machine_mode, int)’:
.././../gcc/config/i386/i386.c:38407:18: error: ‘fcn’ may be used uninitialized
in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
emit_insn (fcn (tar
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:06:23AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> I see broken bootstrap due to:
>
> .././../gcc/config/i386/i386.c: In function ‘rtx_def*
> ix86_expand_builtin(tree, rtx, rtx, machine_mode, int)’:
> .././../gcc/config/i386/i386.c:38407:18: error: ‘fcn’ may be used
> uninitialized
On 23/11/2016 10:35, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> I now wonder
> whether this also matters for !WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS targets, e.g. x86:
>
> (set (reg1:DI) ...
> ...
>(set (reg1:QI) (expression:QI))
>...
>(set (reg2:DI) (any_extend:DI (reg1:QI)))
>
Hello!
> I initially thought that this would only matter for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS
> targets like Alpha, where the first set in QImode can implicitly set the whole
> DImode register so the use reads well-defined upper bits, but I now wonder
> whether this also matters for !WORD_REGISTER_OPERATI
On 11/23/2016 11:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:06:23AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>> I see broken bootstrap due to:
>>
>> .././../gcc/config/i386/i386.c: In function ‘rtx_def*
>> ix86_expand_builtin(tree, rtx, rtx, machine_mode, int)’:
>> .././../gcc/config/i386/i386.c:3
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:38 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was relying on ipa_get_callee_param_type to get type of parameter and then
> convert arguments to this type while computing jump functions. However, in
> cases like shown in PR78365, ipa_get_callee_param_type, instead of giving
> up, would
> Does it really do that with a (set (reg1:QI)), as opposed to a
> (set (strict_low_part (subreg:QI (reg1:DI)))?
That's the question (note that REE runs after register allocation).
--
Eric Botcazou
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This is a rework of https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02005.html.
> According to review comment, I extended the original patch and made it
> covering last kind simplification of fold_cond_expr_with_comparison (Well,
> this
Following patch fixes situation where we do a store to a bitfield which
is at boundary of a record. This leads to usage of wider store, leading
to overwriting a following memory location.
Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests.
Apart from that, the reported test-
On 23/11/2016 11:26, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Does it really do that with a (set (reg1:QI)), as opposed to a
>> (set (strict_low_part (subreg:QI (reg1:DI)))?
>
> That's the question (note that REE runs after register allocation).
IIRC, strict_low_part is required even after register allocation,
> Please note that there is no guarantee that "(set (reg1:QI)
> (expression:QI))" will preserve high-order bits. This is guaranteed
> only when strict_low_part is used on the destination operand.
>
> C.f. *addqi_1 pattern, where QImode plus RTX can emit SImode ADDL insn
> vs. *addqi_1_slp, where Q
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This is a follow up patch for
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01898.html
> It moves remaining simplification for (A == C1) ? A : C2 in
> fold_cond_expr_with_comparison
> to match.pd. Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch
On 23/11/16 05:25, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find attached the patch that fixes PR77634.
>
> Some testcase does not use -fno-vect-cost-model and hence fails when gcc is
> configured "--with-cpu=thunderx".
> The attached patch modifies the testcases to use -fno-vect-cost-model.
On 23/11/16 05:25, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find attached the patch that fixes PR77635.
>
> Some load pair testcase fails when gcc is configured "--with-cpu=thunderx"
> as -mcpu=generic is missed out in them.
> The attached patch modifies the testcases to use -mcpu=generic.
>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is a rework of
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02005.html. According to
>> review comment, I extended the original patch and made it covering last kind
Hi,
In its current form, when the bswap optimization pass recognizes a load in a
specific endianness it assumes that all smaller loads in the original expression
are part of a linear chain of basic block (ie they are either in the same basic
block or there is no conditional branching in the bl
Hi,
The current comment for struct symbolic_number in the bswap pass code
(tree-ssa-math-opts.c) does not explain all of the fields in the structure. It
is also a bit unclear at times. This patch rewrites the comment to fix those.
Note: it depends on the fix for PR77673 to be installed first.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Following patch fixes situation where we do a store to a bitfield which
> is at boundary of a record. This leads to usage of wider store, leading
> to overwriting a following memory location.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux an
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This is a rework of
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02005.html. According to
>>> review comment, I
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
This is a rework of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pa
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following fixes a C/C++ interoperability issue with LTO when
> zero-sized fields appear in one variant of a struct but not in another.
>
> Bootstrap & regtest in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
This is what I have applied.
Richard.
2016
The attached patch fixes a bad regexp in the s390 specific test
lipool-r2-1.c.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-lp1
* gcc.target/s390/litpool-r3-1.c: Fix label number test.
>From a4fff946a0158cf5a9c3da838d5fc2e8cc80ef31 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dom
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> On November 10, 2016 7:39:57 PM GMT+01:00, Marc Glisse
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> The following fixes PR71762 via reverting the transforms of
> >> ~X & Y to X < Y and similar because when the bools they apply to
>
(wi::fits_to_boolean_p): New predicate.
> (wi::fits_to_tree_p): Use it for boolean types.
> * tree.c (int_fits_type_p): Likewise.
>
>
> 2016-11-23 Eric Botcazou
>
> * gcc.c-torture/compile/20161123-1.c: New test.
>
> --
> Eric Botcazou
On 23 November 2016 at 15:16, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 22 November 2016 at 20:53, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 22 November 2016 at 20:18, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 22 No
On 16/11/16 17:05, Michael Meissner wrote:
I'm starting to test this patch right now (it's on LE power8 stage3 right now,
and I need to build BE power8 and BE power7 versions when I get into the office
shortly, and build spec 2017 with it for PR 78101):
Did the testing go OK?
Andrew
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 23 November 2016 at 15:16, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 November 2016 at 20:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 22 Novem
Hi,
After some extra testing I realized there was an issue with the way we
were clearing registers when returning from a cmse_nonsecure_entry
function for ARMv8-M.Baseline. This patch fixes that and changes the
testcase to catch the issue.
The problem was I was always using LR to clear the regis
On 11/11/16 16:19, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> And CC'ing Ramana and Richard this time...
>
Hi,
After some extra testing I found that the sibcall optimization was not
disabled for calls to function pointers with the cmse_nonsecure_call
attribute, causing the clearing and call to the function wrapper
On 23 November 2016 at 17:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 23 November 2016 at 15:16, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 22 November 2016 at 20:53, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 22 No
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 23 November 2016 at 17:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 23 November 2016 at 15:16, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 22 Novem
On 11/23/2016 11:18 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 23/11/2016 10:35, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I now wonder
whether this also matters for !WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS targets, e.g. x86:
(set (reg1:DI) ...
...
(set (reg1:QI) (expression:QI))
...
(set (reg2:DI)
Hi,
as the bug trail explains make_extraction is claiming but failing to
handle extractions that would go outside the underlying object. So, let's
not construct such, as the patch does.
Dominik tested s390x bootstrap being recovered with this, Andreas ia64
bootstrap, and I regstrapped this on
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:26:49PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as the bug trail explains make_extraction is claiming but failing to
> handle extractions that would go outside the underlying object. So, let's
> not construct such, as the patch does.
>
> Dominik tested s390x bootstrap b
For example, a couple of them were rejecting constant integers, leading to
suboptimal code before function returns in some cases.
Tested on SPARC/Solaris, applied on the mainline.
2016-11-23 Eric Botcazou
* config/sparc/sparc.md (*ashrsi3_extend): Rename to...
(*ashrsi3_exte
Hi Marek,
On 22 November 2016 at 01:02, Marek Polacek wrote:
> What seems like a typo caused an ICE here. We've got a vector of vectors here
> and we're trying to walk all the elements, so the second loop oughta use 'j'.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> 2016-11-21
Hi Michael,
On 21 November 2016 at 10:52, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 07:41:58AM +, Michael Collison wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> I incorporated all your suggestions, and successfully bootstrapped and re-ran
>> the testsuite.
>>
>> Okay for trunk?
>>
>> 2016-11-18 Michael Co
Hi,
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:26:49PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as the bug trail explains make_extraction is claiming but failing to
> > handle extractions that would go outside the underlying object. So, let's
> > not construct su
Hi,
This is actually the review suggestion for patch
@https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02341.html, but I forgot to
incorporate it when committing that patch. Here comes this one doing that, as
well as adding a missing convert keyword. Toolchain built successfully, is it
OK?
Than
I started review process in libsanitizer: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26965
And I have a question that was asked in the review: can we distinguish between
load and store
in case of having usage of ASAN_POISON?
Load looks as follows:
int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
char *ptr;
if (argc != 12
PING^2
On 11/14/2016 01:12 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> PING^1
>
> On 10/31/2016 01:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 10/31/2016 11:07 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
Using priority {cd}tors on a target that does not support that can cause
failures (see the PR).
Apart from th
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> As mentioned in the PR, another option I see is special case
> REFERENCE_REF_P INDIRECT_REFs and MEM_REFs into which they are gimplified
> in cp_genericize_r by not changing is_invisiref_parm decls if they are
> already wrapped in those.
Tha
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:57:07PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> I started review process in libsanitizer: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26965
> And I have a question that was asked in the review: can we distinguish
> between load and store
> in case of having usage of ASAN_POISON?
I think with ASAN_P
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01664.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 16/11/16 16:57, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
As the PR says we have an RTL checking failure that occurs when building libgcc
for aarch64.
The expander code for addsi3 takes the REGNO of a SUBREG in operands[1].
r242414, for PR77881, introduces some bugs (PR78390, PR78438, PR78477).
It all has the same root cause: that patch makes combine convert every
lowpart subreg of a logical shift right to a zero_extract. This cannot
work at all if it is not a constant shift, and it has to be a bit more
careful exact
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This is actually the review suggestion for patch
> @https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02341.html, but I forgot to
> incorporate it when committing that patch. Here comes this one doing that,
> as well as adding a missing con
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:45:23PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Shouldn't new_rtx be set to NULL_RTX if that condition is false? Otherwise
> > it will be whatever make_compound_operation returned. What about the break?
> > Shouldn't that be done only if the condition is true too?
>
> Hmm? The
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:11:02AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > As mentioned in the PR, another option I see is special case
> > REFERENCE_REF_P INDIRECT_REFs and MEM_REFs into which they are gimplified
> > in cp_genericize_r by not changi
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Bin Cheng wrote:
+(for cmp (lt le gt ge)
+ (simplify
+ (cond (cmp@0 (convert1? @1) INTEGER_CST@3) (convert2? @1) INTEGER_CST@2)
+ (with
+ {
+ tree from_type = TREE_TYPE (@1);
+ tree c1_type = TREE_TYPE (@3), c2_type = TREE_TYPE (@2);
+ enum tree_code code = TR
2016-11-23 Felix Morgner
Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/78494
* include/experimental/propagate_const (propagate_const::operator=):
Add missing return statements.
* testsuite/experimental/propagate_const/assignment/move_neg.cc:
Adjust dg-error
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Bin Cheng wrote:
>
> +(for cmp (lt le gt ge)
> + (simplify
> + (cond (cmp@0 (convert1? @1) INTEGER_CST@3) (convert2? @1) INTEGER_CST@2)
> + (with
> + {
> + tree from_type = TREE_TYPE (@1);
> + tree c1_type = TRE
Previously decimal floating-point types were created and laid
out as binary floating-point types, then the caller changed
the mode to a decimal mode later. The problem with that
approach is that not all targets support an equivalent binary
floating-point mode. When they didn't, we would give the
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is actually the review suggestion for patch
>> @https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02341.html, but I forgot to
>> incorporate it when committing that patch. Here
Hi!
Is there a reason why we don't return error_mark_node no matter what
complain contains?
At least on the testcase if we don't return error_mark_node for
the uses of var before deduction of auto, then we ICE later on in some
assertion that expects sane types on the variables. On the other testc
On 23/11/16 14:45 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
PR libstdc++/78494
Oops, that should have been 78490
Hi!
During cp_fold, we see a call to constructor and because the ctor
is DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P, when optimizing we call maybe_constant_value
on it. But as when evaluating that we don't have an object, it returns
the initializer of the var, rather than an assignment of the initializer to
the v
On 11/21/2016 04:50 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> OK,
> thanks!
> Honza
Hi.
Patch to trunk is already installed. Equal patch can be installed to gcc-6
branch,
however gcc-5 branch needs more hunks to be adjusted. I did so, both patches
survive
regression tests and the patch for gcc-5 provides equal
Hi,
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> r242414, for PR77881, introduces some bugs (PR78390, PR78438, PR78477).
> It all has the same root cause: that patch makes combine convert every
> lowpart subreg of a logical shift right to a zero_extract. This cannot
> work at all if it is no
I accidentally backported tests using { target c++11 } to the branch,
but that only works on trunk. One test was also using C++14-only
features, but is meant to be valid in C++11.
* testsuite/24_iterators/reverse_iterator/71771.cc: Replace calls to
C++14 std::rbeing and std::rend.
On 23/11/16 15:25 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I accidentally backported tests using { target c++11 } to the branch,
but that only works on trunk. One test was also using C++14-only
features, but is meant to be valid in C++11.
Also committed this version to gcc-5-branch.
commit 597074d529972
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:38:18PM +1100, kugan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was relying on ipa_get_callee_param_type to get type of parameter and then
> convert arguments to this type while computing jump functions. However, in
> cases like shown in PR78365, ipa_get_callee_param_type, instead of givin
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:24:37PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> > r242414, for PR77881, introduces some bugs (PR78390, PR78438, PR78477).
> > It all has the same root cause: that patch makes combine convert every
> > lowpart subreg of a logical shift right to a zero_extract. This cannot
> > work a
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Is there a reason why we don't return error_mark_node no matter what
> complain contains?
In some cases, outside of SFINAE context we can give an error and then
continue to do something reasonable.
> At least on the testcase if we don't ret
OK, but I wonder why we don't do constant initialization of that variable...
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> During cp_fold, we see a call to constructor and because the ctor
> is DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P, when optimizing we call maybe_constant_value
> on it. But
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:11:02AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > As mentioned in the PR, another option I see is special case
>> > REFERENCE_REF_P INDIRECT_REFs and MEM_REFs into wh
Hi, this causes an illegal code issue on avr.
Test case (reduced from gcc.dg/builtins-32.c):
extern int signbitf (float);
int test (float x)
{
return signbitf (x);
}
Before combine, the dump reads
(note 4 0 19 2 [bb 2] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn 19 4 3 2 (set (reg:QI 51 [ x+3 ])
(
Hi,
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Even with non-constant shifts it remains an extract and make_extraction
> > does support variable start positions (which is the shift amount), as does
> > the zero_extract pattern (depending on target of course).
>
> Sure, but the extracti
Hello.
As described in the PR, the patch fixes profiled bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. And
profiled bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu finishes successfully.
Ready to be installed?
Martin
>From 8b7cd9a83cd14f7a15f39e105ccd78e1
Hi Christophe,
This is not a regression per se; the patch causes the test case to generate one
less instruction overall, but one additional 'and'. Trunk before the patch
(-O2):
foo:
and w0, w0, 255
lsl w1, w0, 20
orr w0, w1, w0, lsl 8
mov w1, 6502
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:58:22PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Hi, this causes an illegal code issue on avr.
Sorry about that.
[ snip ]
> Trying 19 -> 7:
> Failed to match this instruction:
> (set (reg:HI 45 [ x+3 ])
> (zero_extend:HI (reg:QI 25 r25 [ x+3 ])))
> Successfully matched thi
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:42:57AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> OK, but I wonder why we don't do constant initialization of that variable...
Dunno either, check_initializer simply returns the call to the constructor
for the var. I've tried something like:
--- gcc/cp/decl.c.jj2016-11-21 19:4
Segher Boessenkool schrieb:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:58:22PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Hi, this causes an illegal code issue on avr.
Sorry about that.
[ snip ]
Trying 19 -> 7:
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:HI 45 [ x+3 ])
(zero_extend:HI (reg:QI 25 r25 [ x+3 ])))
Suc
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:19:35AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 18/11/16 18:19, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:37:17PM +, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>This patch set enables the _Float16 type specified in ISO/IEC TS 18661-3
> >>for AArch64 and ARM. The
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> This loop:
>>
>> /* Make sure the tail invocation of this function does not refer
>> to local variables. */
>> FOR_EACH_LOCAL_DECL (cfun, idx, var)
>> {
>> if (TREE_CODE (var) != PARM_DECL
On 11/10/2016 02:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Any takers for the RTL implementation?
Do you have a testcase you think can be optimized?
Bernd
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 08:01:32PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > Yep, I do see new test execution failures with both Intel MIC and PTX
> > offloading
> > on device-1.f90, device-3.f90 and target2.f90. Here's an actually-tested
> > patch
> > f
On November 23, 2016 6:25:43 PM GMT+01:00, Bernd Schmidt
wrote:
>On 11/10/2016 02:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Any takers for the RTL implementation?
>
>Do you have a testcase you think can be optimized?
The forwrop test case I XFAILed with the patch.
Richard.
>
>Bernd
The recent rtx_insn * changes mucked up ia64 in a trivial way. The
definition of ia64_emit_insn_before was changed, but not the prototype.
This results in a build error.
Fixed in the obvious way. Applying to the trunk.
Jeff
commit f491be0d30b8e0063e54972497b8e049482f03b8
Author: law
Date:
On 11/23/2016 05:26 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/23/2016 11:18 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 23/11/2016 10:35, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I now wonder
whether this also matters for !WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS targets, e.g.
x86:
(set (reg1:DI) ...
...
(set (reg1:QI) (expression
On 23 November 2016 at 17:51, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 23 November 2016 at 17:21, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 23 November 2016 at 15:16, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 22 No
The XXX in boolean context warning is now triggering on a bit of code in
the iq2000 backend. I'm trying to guess Stan's intent from 2003. If
I've got it wrong, the worst that happens in an incorrect cost computation.
Installing on the trunk.
Jeff
commit 6ed89ddbdbbde3ffd42b2ab6fad61a76e85
PR78458 shows a problem in LRA spilling caused by HARD_REGNO_CALLER_SAVE_MODE()
returning a bogus mode (IFmode). This patch solves the problem by just
returning MODE if MODE is wide enough to save and restore NREGS itself.
This patch passed bootstrap and regtesting on powerpc64le-linux as well
as
Another prototype that didn't get fixed in the rtx_insn * changes.
Installing on the trunk as obvious.
Jeff
commit 9fb780b14647e3c0d4232029b9f1b7d6de6103d6
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Nov 23 11:15:03 2016 -0700
* config/mcore/mcore.c (emit_new_cond_insn): Fix prototype.
diff --git a
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:42:57AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> OK, but I wonder why we don't do constant initialization of that variable...
>
> Dunno either, check_initializer simply returns the call to the constructor
> for the var. I'v
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:38:17PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi James,
> diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/fp16.c b/libgcc/config/arm/fp16.c
> index 39c863c..ba89796 100644
> --- a/libgcc/config/arm/fp16.c
> +++ b/libgcc/config/arm/fp16.c
> @@ -22,40 +22,74 @@
> see the files COPYING3 and COP
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:00:12PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> <...>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.md b/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
> index 8393f65..4074773 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
> @@ -5177,20 +5177,35 @@
>""
> )
> -;; DFmode to HFmode conversio
On 11/23/2016 10:09 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
This loop:
/* Make sure the tail invocation of this function does not refer
to local variables. */
FOR_EACH_LOCAL_DECL (cfun, idx, var)
{
if
On 11/23/2016 09:53 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Segher Boessenkool schrieb:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:58:22PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Hi, this causes an illegal code issue on avr.
Sorry about that.
[ snip ]
Trying 19 -> 7:
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:HI 45 [ x+3 ])
My only real concern here is that if we call compute_builtin_object_size
without having initialized the passes, then we initialize, compute, then
finalize. Subsequent calls will go through the same process -- the key
being each one re-computes the internal state which might get expensive.
Wouldn
On 11/23/2016 09:13 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
As described in the PR, the patch fixes profiled bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. And
profiled bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu finishes successfully.
Ready to be installed?
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
