Re: [RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] [PATCH 1/4] Improve ranges for MINUS_EXPR and EXACT_DIV_EXPR

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > This is the first of a 4 part series to address the issues around 79095. > > This patch addresses improvements in determining ranges of binary > expressions in three ways. > > First if we are otherwise unable to find a range for the result of a > M

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > On 02/01/2017 01:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > +/* Nonzero if TYPE represents a (scalar) boolean type or type > > + in the middle-end compatible with it. */ > > + > > +#define INTEGRAL_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P(TYPE) \ > > + (TREE_CODE (TYPE) == BOOLEAN_TYPE

Re: New Port for RISC-V v3

On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 10:38:18AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > There have been a handful of changes since we submitted our v2 port: > > * Some documentation formatting fixes. > > * A documentation typo fix. > > * Some changes to wwwdocs, which have been mailed to the list. > > * The port

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 09:14:24AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > +/* Nonzero if TYPE represents a (scalar) boolean type or type > > > + in the middle-end compatible with it. */ > > > + > > > +#define INTEGRAL_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P(TYPE) \ > > > + (TREE_CODE (TYPE) == BOOLEAN_TYPE\ > >

Re: [Patch][ARM,AArch64] more poly64 intrinsics and tests

On 4 February 2017 at 22:54, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:13:07AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> Ping? >> >> James, I'm not sure whether your comment was a request for a new >> version of my patch or just FYI? > > Sorry that this was unclear. I was looking for a new versi

Re: [Patch][ARM,AArch64] more poly64 intrinsics and tests

Hi Christophe, On 06/02/17 08:31, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 4 February 2017 at 22:54, James Greenhalgh wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:13:07AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: Ping? James, I'm not sure whether your comment was a request for a new version of my patch or just FYI? Sorry that t

[wwwdocs] remove ftp.dti.ad.jp from mirrors.html

The mirror at ftp.dti.ad.jp is not reachable from my local systems nor from gcc.gnu.org itself, so for now I applied the patch below. ftp-admin / Takahiro-san, can you please let me know if I missed something? Thank you, Gerald Index: mirrors.html

[patch,avr] Tweak addhi3_zero_extend.

This patch adds an alternative to addhi3_zero_extend for the case where output operand and the 8-bit addend happen to reside the the same register. Without the patch this might lead to additional reloads to satisfy the constraints like uint16_t func (uint8_t x, uint16_t y) { return x + y; }

[wwwdocs] update two links on projects/gupc.html

The first was straightforward, via a permanent redirect, the second required googling since the ufl.edu service simply seems to have been deprovisioned. Applied. Gerald Index: projects/gupc.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdo

Ping#1: [patch,avr]: For PR78883 #3

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg00926.html On 13.01.2017 12:53, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: This is 3rd way to fix PR78883 by rejecting malicious expressions from the start. Ok for trunk? Johann gcc/ PR target/78883 * config/avr/avr.c (rtl-iter.h): Include it. (TARGET_LE

Re: [PATCH, PING 1] S/390: Use macros from hwint.h where possible.

Ping. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:45:23PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > The attached patch uses macros from hwint.h in the s390 backend > where possible. > > Bootstrapped and regression tested on a zEC12 with s390x biarch > and s390. > > Ciao > > Dominik ^_^ ^_^ > > -- > > Dominik Vogt > IBM

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

Pinging this for eight months now. :-/ On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > Patch: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01587.html > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C no longer fail with Glib

[libstdc++,doc] Link maintenance for doc/xml/manual/documentation_hacking.xml

Before GCC 7 branches, I am trying to get as many links in our (non-wwwdocs) documentation fixed as possible. Turns out libstdc++ has a fair number that need attention. In documentation_hacking.xml I could not find a replacement document for DocBook Publishing Tools. The other two changes wer

Re: Ping#1: [patch,avr]: For PR78883 #3

2017-02-06 14:06 GMT+04:00 Georg-Johann Lay : > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg00926.html > > On 13.01.2017 12:53, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >> >> This is 3rd way to fix PR78883 by rejecting malicious expressions >> from the start. >> >> Ok for trunk? >> >> Johann >> >> gcc/ >> PR

Re: [patch,avr] Tweak addhi3_zero_extend.

2017-02-06 14:03 GMT+04:00 Georg-Johann Lay : > This patch adds an alternative to addhi3_zero_extend for the case > where output operand and the 8-bit addend happen to reside > the the same register. Without the patch this might lead > to additional reloads to satisfy the constraints like > > > ui

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS may help; let me do that for you. That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, not requiring a approval? Gerald On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Dominik Vogt wrote: > Pinging this for eight months now. :-/ >

Re: [libstdc++,doc] Link maintenance for doc/xml/manual/documentation_hacking.xml

On 06/02/17 11:28 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Before GCC 7 branches, I am trying to get as many links in our (non-wwwdocs) documentation fixed as possible. Turns out libstdc++ has a fair number that need attention. In documentation_hacking.xml I could not find a replacement document for DocBoo

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

Hi Gerald, > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS > may help; let me do that for you. > > That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, > not requiring a approval? it's not: while it may XPASS with newer glibc versions, it still XFAILs

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Use macros from hwint.h where possible.

On 01/26/2017 09:45 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote: * config/s390/predicates.md ("larl_operand"): Use macros from hwint.h. * config/s390/s390.c (s390_const_operand_ok) (s390_canonicalize_comparison, s390_extract_part) (s390_single_part, s390_contiguous_bitmask_nowrap_p)

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS > > may help; let me do that for you. > > > > That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, > > not requiring a approval? > > it's not

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

Hi Dominik, > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: >> > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS >> > may help; let me do that for you. >> > >> > That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, >> > not requiring a app

Re: [RFA] [PR tree-optimization/79095][PATCH 2/4] Add infrastructure to detect overflow checks

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > This is the second in the 4 part series to address 79095. This patch > introduces a new function into tree-vrp.c to allow for the detection of > overflow checks of the form A OP A + CST (for unsigned/wrapping A). > > This is implemented by first

Re: [RFA] [PR tree-optimization/79095][PATCH 3/4] Improve ASSERT_EXPRs and simplification of overflow tests

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > This is the actual optimization piece of the patchseries and uses the > overflow test detection function in patch #2. > > First, when we detect an overflow test, we register additional ASSERT_EXPRs > for the given name. So instead of an ASSERT_E

Re: C++ Modules branch

On 02/05/2017 02:58 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote: As some have already noticed, I created a c++-modules branch yesterday. Don't get too excited, that doesn't mean I have an implementation to commit there. Are you planning to add this to svn.html (where we

Re: Fix PR c++/79360

OK. On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > This patch fixes PR c++/79360, a regression from PR c++/70347. > > The TYPE_FIELDS of a type may contain TYPE_DECLs and CONST_DECLs as well > as FIELD_DECLs, but when looking for an NSDMI we are only interested in > the FIELD_DECLs. Oth

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 2 C++ patches: - P1 PR79232 - ICEs and wrong-code with COMPOUND_EXPR on lhs of assignment http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg02341.html - P1 PR79288 - wrong default TLS model for __thread static data members http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg02349.ht

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:12:32AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 02/01/2017 03:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > I agree. But this means we should look for a vectorizer-local fix > > > without a new global predicate then (there seem to be subtly

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 09:14:24AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > +/* Nonzero if TYPE represents a (scalar) boolean type or type > > > > + in the middle-end compatible with it. */ > > > > + > > > > +#define INTEGRAL_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P(TYPE) \ > > > >

Re: Fix profile updating in ifcombine

Hi, On 3 February 2017 at 08:56, Jeff Law wrote: > On 02/02/2017 01:29 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> Hi, >> this patches fixes profile updating in the ifcombine. This is not hard to >> do >> and ifcombine is #2 profile update offender out of tree passes (#1 is the >> vectorizer). >> >> I think t

[PATCH] PR 78348: Limit amount of unrolling in test.

The attached patch fixes the s390x test failure reported here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348 Tested on s390x biarch. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt IBM Germany gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog-pr78348 PR 78348 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ldist-24.c: Add "--param max-c

Re: [PATCH] PR 78348: Limit amount of unrolling in test.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote: > The attached patch fixes the s390x test failure reported here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348 > Tested on s390x biarch. Ok. Richard. > Ciao > > Dominik ^_^ ^_^ > > -- > > Dominik Vogt > IBM Germany

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Dominik, > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS > >> > may help; let me do that for you. > >> > > >> > That said, if this fai

Re: [PATCH] PR 78348: Limit amount of unrolling in test.

On 02/06/2017 03:43 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote: > The attached patch fixes the s390x test failure reported here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348 > Tested on s390x biarch. > > Ciao > > Dominik ^_^ ^_^ > Applied. Thanks! -Andreas-

Re: [RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] [PATCH 1/4] Improve ranges for MINUS_EXPR and EXACT_DIV_EXPR

On 02/06/2017 01:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote: This is the first of a 4 part series to address the issues around 79095. This patch addresses improvements in determining ranges of binary expressions in three ways. First if we are otherwise unable

Re: [RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] [PATCH 1/4] Improve ranges for MINUS_EXPR and EXACT_DIV_EXPR

On 02/06/2017 08:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote: On 02/06/2017 01:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote: This is the first of a 4 part series to address the issues around 79095. This patch addresses improvements in determining ranges of binary expressions in three

RE: [PATCH] MIPS: Fix mode mismatch error between Loongson builtin arguments and insn operands.

Matthew Fortune writes: > > That's not what I hoped but is what I was concerned about as I believe it > means we have a change of behaviour. It boils down to simply ignoring the > argument type of unsigned char. My guess is that a zero extension is > created but then immediately eliminated becau

Re: [GIMPLE FE] Avoid ICE with __builtin_abs

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > On Sat, 4 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > Hi, > > The following test-case ICE's with -fgimple: > > > > int __GIMPLE foo(int a) > > { > > int t1; > > t1_1 = __builtin_abs (a); > > return t1_1; > > } > > > > gimplefe-2.c:4:3: internal c

Re: Fix profile updating in ifcombine

> > After this patch (r245151), I've noticed regressions on aarch64: > gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c scan-assembler-times ldr\tx30, > \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 2 > gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19, > x30, \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 1 > gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c scan-a

Re: [RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] [PATCH 1/4] Improve ranges for MINUS_EXPR and EXACT_DIV_EXPR

On 02/06/2017 01:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote: This is the first of a 4 part series to address the issues around 79095. This patch addresses improvements in determining ranges of binary expressions in three ways. First if we are otherwise unable

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:26:01PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > Works for me. Like VECT_SCALAR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P () to not confuse it > with VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P? So like this if it passes bootstrap/regtest? 2017-02-06 Jakub Jelinek PR tree-optimization/79284 * tree-vectorize

Re: [RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] [PATCH 1/4] Improve ranges for MINUS_EXPR and EXACT_DIV_EXPR

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 02/06/2017 08:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> On 02/06/2017 01:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote: This is the first of a 4 part series to address the issues around 79095. This p

Re: [RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] [PATCH 1/4] Improve ranges for MINUS_EXPR and EXACT_DIV_EXPR

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 02/06/2017 01:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> This is the first of a 4 part series to address the issues around 79095. >>> >>> This patch addresses improvements in determining ranges of

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On 02/06/2017 07:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:12:32AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: On 02/01/2017 03:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: I agree. But this means we should look for a vectorizer-local fix without a new global predicate the

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:26:01PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > Works for me. Like VECT_SCALAR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P () to not confuse it > > with VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P? > > So like this if it passes bootstrap/regtest? Ok. Richard. > 2017-02-06 Jakub J

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On 02/02/2017 03:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:12:32AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: On 02/01/2017 03:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: I agree. But this means we should look for a vectorizer-local fix without a new global predicate then (there seem to be subtly different needs a

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On 02/06/2017 08:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:26:01PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: Works for me. Like VECT_SCALAR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P () to not confuse it with VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P? So like this if it passes bootstrap/regtest?

RE: [PATCH] MIPS: Fix mode mismatch error between Loongson builtin arguments and insn operands.

Toma Tabacu writes: > Matthew Fortune writes: > > > > That's not what I hoped but is what I was concerned about as I believe > > it means we have a change of behaviour. It boils down to simply > > ignoring the argument type of unsigned char. My guess is that a zero > > extension is created but t

Re: [RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] [PATCH 1/4] Improve ranges for MINUS_EXPR and EXACT_DIV_EXPR

On 02/06/2017 08:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 02/06/2017 08:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote: On 02/06/2017 01:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote: This is the first of a 4 part series to address the issues a

Re: Fix profile updating in ifcombine

On 06/02/17 15:26, Jan Hubicka wrote: I think it is not a regression, just the testcase if fragile and depends on outcome of ifcombine. It seems it was updated several time in the past. I am not quite sure what the test is testing. They are tring to make sure optimal stack adjustment decision

Re: [PATCH] avoid overwriting minimum length of unknown strings (PR 79376)

On 02/04/2017 10:37 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: There's a "thinko" in the get_range_strlen() function that computes the range of possible string lengths for a character pointer that may point to an array holding a string of unknown length and a string literal. The bug lets the function return the le

[PATCH] Fix test failure at -O0 by pruning output

PR libstdc++/79323 * testsuite/20_util/duration/literals/range.cc: Prune extra output at -O0. Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk. commit c090246da29b04f260a31886537f1e4790652f08 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date: Mon Feb 6 14:13:51 2017 + Fix test failure at -

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:33 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Hi Gerald, > >> Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS >> may help; let me do that for you. >> >> That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, >> not requiring a approval? > > it's n

Re: Fix profile updating in ifcombine

On 06/02/17 15:54, Jiong Wang wrote: > On 06/02/17 15:26, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> I think it is not a regression, just the testcase if fragile and >> depends on outcome >> of ifcombine. It seems it was updated several time in the past. I am >> not quite >> sure what the test is testing. > > They ar

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

For the record the test XPASS on darwin16 since at least r244095, but not on darwin10: XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++11 execution test XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++14 execution test XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++11 execution test XPASS: g+

[wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

This patch adds a description of something I noticed while doing the Fedora mass rebuild. Do we want to say more about the invalidity of the incomplete type case? Furthermore I noticed that the testcase below doesn't compile anymore since r240874; Nathan, is that desirable? class C { public:

[wwwdocs] Fix four references to Intel instruction set references

Intel's webmasters were at it again (or rather not). One old link in svn.html contained "319433-020" in its file name, the new one I found shows "319433-028" on the title page, so I assume this is a newer version of the same? Similar for the olther old link in svn.html which has "319433-015.pdf"

[wwwdocs] readings.html - remove alpha

I've been looking for replacement links for these for a while, but if you look at the domain names and what has happened in the industry the last 15 years, it's kinda clear why I haven't found a whole lot. ;-) And it's not like this architecture hasn't been EOLed a while ago, so I went ahead and c

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > This patch adds a description of something I noticed while doing the > Fedora mass rebuild. Do we want to say more about the invalidity of > the incomplete type case? Here's the relevant rule in the standard: 14.6/8: "If a hypothetical ins

Re: [wwwdocs] Fix four references to Intel instruction set references

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 06:44:30PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Intel's webmasters were at it again (or rather not). > > One old link in svn.html contained "319433-020" in its file name, the > new one I found shows "319433-028" on the title page, so I assume this > is a newer version of the sam

Re: [PATCH 2/6] RISC-V Port: gcc

On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 21:36:29 PST (-0800), san...@codesourcery.com wrote: > I didn't see a v3 with the documentation patches go by yet, and I had > some nit-picky comments on v2 (in addition to the ones Joseph already > asked for): No problem. > > diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke

Re: [PATCH] PR target/66144, PowerPC improve vector compare

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 06:07:56PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:25:00PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > > +;; Return 1 if operand is either a vector constant of all 0 bits of a > > vector > > +;; constant of all 1 bits. > > +(define_predicate "vector_int_same_bit"

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On 2017.02.06 at 18:13 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > This patch adds a description of something I noticed while doing the > Fedora mass rebuild. Do we want to say more about the invalidity of > the incomplete type case? > + > +GCC 7 no longer accepts ill-formed code involving use of an incomplete

[PATCH] Fix fixincludes for canadian cross builds

Hi, I noticed that there is a subtle problem with build!=host configurations. That is, the fixinclude machinery is using the path that would work on the target system to find the headers that need to be fixed, but the build machine can have different header files than the target machine, even if

[PATCH 1/2] Use two spaces to separate options in the RISC-V docs

gcc/ChangeLog: 2017-02-06 Palmer Dabbelt * doc/invoke.texi (RISC-V Options): Use two spaces to separate options. --- gcc/ChangeLog | 5 + gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 12 ++-- 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/Chang

RISC-V Post-v3 Documentation Fixups

A few problems in the RISC-V documentation were found as part of the submission. Here's some fixes to them, which I'll commit on top of the rest of the RISC-V port which has already been accepted. Thanks for noticing this!

[PATCH 2/2] Alphebetize RISC-V Options section

2017-02-06 Palmer Dabbelt * docs/inwvoke.texi (RISC-V Options): Alphabetize. --- gcc/ChangeLog | 4 ++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 158 ++-- 2 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog

Mising Patch #2 from the RISC-V v3 Submission

Sorry, I'm not sure what happened to this patch. Here's patch #2 from of v3 submission which I seem to have dropped.

Re: Mising Patch #2 from the RISC-V v3 Submission

I think this got dropped because it was over the size limit for this mailing list. I've attached a gzip'd version of the patch instead. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > Sorry, I'm not sure what happened to this patch. Here's patch #2 from of v3 > submission which I seem

Re: New Port for RISC-V v3

On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:21:36 PST (-0800), ja...@redhat.com wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 10:38:18AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> There have been a handful of changes since we submitted our v2 port: >> >> * Some documentation formatting fixes. >> >> * A documentation typo fix. >> >> * Some

Re: New Port for RISC-V v3

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > OK, great! I think we're all set: > > * Here's the responses to the documentation comments >, >. > > * I

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:26:04PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 19:54 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly > > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. > > After an off-list OK by Jakub

Re: [PATCH] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 06:28:21PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:31:58PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > >+@deftypefn {Target Hook} bool TARGET_SCHED_CAN_SPECULATE_INSN (rtx_insn > > >*@var{insn}) > > >+Some instructions should never be speculated by the schedulers, usua

[C++ PATCH] Fix ICEs with #pragma GCC ivdep (PR c++/79379)

Hi! #pragma GCC ivdep can make it through into potential_constant_expression_1 as the following testcase shows. As it is just a hint to the compiler, I think it isn't needed to make loops with that pragma non-constexpr, so the patch just ignores the hint for determination of what is a potential c

[C++ PATCH] Fix ICE with -fpermissive on post{inc,dec}rement (PR c++/79377)

Hi! As the testcase shows, with -fpermissive we call operator++() or operator--() if operator++(int) or operator--(int) is not available, but the new code in build_min_non_dep_op_overload wasn't expecting such a change. Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for t

[C++ PATCH] Fix ICE in invalid decomposition (PR c++/79372)

Hi! The following patch fixes ICE when cp_finish_decomp already when parsing template manages to diagnose the decomposition as errorneous, then the types of all the decls for the decomp identifiers are all error_mark_node, but they don't have DECL_VALUE_EXPR tsubst_decl_names has been asserting.

[PATCH] Fix cprop ICE with conditional asserts becoming non-conditional (PR rtl-optimization/79386)

Hi! The recent r244993 change where bypass_conditional_jumps is called only after splitting blocks for unconditional traps can result in ICEs during bypass_conditional_jumps, because on the (unreachable, to be removed later) new basic blocks created by that splitting we don't have cprop per-bb dat

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 09:07:23AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > You've committed the patch unnecessarily complicated, see above. > The following gives the same testsuite result. > > dirtype is one of the standard {un,}signed {char,short,int,long,long long} > types, all of them have 0 in their ran

[PATCH, i386]: Simplify vector modes -> vec_extract* splitter

No functional changes. 2017-02-06 Uros Bizjak * config/i386/sse.md (vector modes -> vec_extract* splitter): Use explicit subreg RTX with operand 1. Use VECTOR_MODE_P predicate to simplify split condition. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32}. Committed

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix ICE in invalid decomposition (PR c++/79372)

OK. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > The following patch fixes ICE when cp_finish_decomp already when parsing > template manages to diagnose the decomposition as errorneous, then > the types of all the decls for the decomp identifiers are all > error_mark_node, but t

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix ICE with -fpermissive on post{inc,dec}rement (PR c++/79377)

OK. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > As the testcase shows, with -fpermissive we call operator++() or > operator--() if operator++(int) or operator--(int) is not available, > but the new code in build_min_non_dep_op_overload wasn't expecting > such a change. Fixed t

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix ICEs with #pragma GCC ivdep (PR c++/79379)

OK. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > #pragma GCC ivdep can make it through into potential_constant_expression_1 > as the following testcase shows. As it is just a hint to the compiler, > I think it isn't needed to make loops with that pragma non-constexpr, so > the

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > I'll copy Jason to see if he recalls any systems where this might still fail. Not particularly; I expected it to fail everywhere except recent glibc, but apparently that isn't the case. Jason

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On 02/06/2017 01:03 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: No, this is a bug. Yup. -- Nathan Sidwell

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On 02/03/2017 05:44 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On 02/02/17 15:21, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 14:48 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote: This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly lock-free atomic loads based o

Re: [PATCH] PR target/66144, PowerPC improve vector compare

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 01:28:29PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > Can I check it into the trunk? Yes please. Thanks, Segher > 2017-02-06 Michael Meissner > > PR target/66144 > * config/rs6000/vector.md (vcond): Allow the true and > false values to be constant vectors wi

C++ PATCH for c++/71193 (incomplete error in template)

71193 is a case where we now properly treat as non-dependent some expressions that we previously considered type-dependent, and as a result try to resolve their containing expressions, which can lead to incomplete type errors that weren't seen before even though the code was ill-formed. This patch

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:00:38PM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 02/06/2017 01:03 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > No, this is a bug. > > Yup. I've opened PR79393. Marek

Re: New Port for RISC-V v3

On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:19:56 PST (-0800), ja...@redhat.com wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> OK, great! I think we're all set: >> >> * Here's the responses to the documentation comments >>, >>

Add Ada support for aarch64-*-freebsd*

The attached patch to gcc trunk enables Ada support on aarch64-*-freebsd*. All tests pass except those affected by the currently missing unwind support (c52103x, c52104x, c52104y, cb1010a, cb1010c, cb1010d, gnat.dg/null_pointer_deref* (3)). I'd also like to get this patch backported to the g

Re: [RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] [PATCH 1/4] Improve ranges for MINUS_EXPR and EXACT_DIV_EXPR

On 02/06/2017 08:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote: ah, indeed vr0type is VR_ANTI_RANGE and yes we have the case of a range with an anti-range "inside". This also covers [-1,1] v ~[0,0] where you choose the much larger anti-range now. So at least we want to have some idea about the sizes of the rang

[PATCH] PR68972: g++.dg/cpp1y/vla-initlist1.C test case fails on power

The test g++.dg/cpp1y/vla-initlist1.C makes assumptions that the memory used to represent the private temporary variables of neighboring control blocks at the same control nesting level is: 1. found at the same address, and 2. not overwritten between when the first block ends and the second block

Re: [RFA] [PR tree-optimization/79095][PATCH 2/4] Add infrastructure to detect overflow checks

On 02/06/2017 05:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote: + /* Now look at the defining statement of OP1 to see if it adds +or subtracts a nonzero constant from another operand. */ + if (op1_def + && is_gimple_assign (op1_def) + && gimple_assign_rhs_code (op1_def) == PLUS_E

Re: [PATCH] PR68972: g++.dg/cpp1y/vla-initlist1.C test case fails on power

Kelvin Nilsen writes: > Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla-initlist1.C > === > --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla-initlist1.C(revision 245156) > +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla-initlist1.C(working copy) > @@ -1,

Re: [RFA] [PR tree-optimization/79095][PATCH 3/4] Improve ASSERT_EXPRs and simplification of overflow tests

On 02/06/2017 06:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote: + /* If OP0 CODE OP1 is an overflow comparison, if it can be expressed + as a simple equality test, then prefer that over its current form + for evaluation. + + An overflow test which collapses to an equality test can always be + exp

[PATCH] avoid ICE when attempting to init a flexible array member (PR c++/79363)

The attached patch avoids another ICE (in addition to the already fixed bug 72775) in flexible array member NSDMI. To avoid code duplication and for consistency I factored the diagnostic code out of perform_member_init and into a new helper. Martin PR c++/79363 - ICE with NSDMI and array gcc/cp

[PATCH] Fix target selector in builtin-apply-2.c

Revision r245228 introduced a syntax error in a target selector in builtin-apply-2.c: || wants a single expression on each side, you cannot have "{a} || {b} || {c}", instead you need to write this as "{a} || {{b} || {c}}". In this testcase b and c are real target selectors (not effect target keywo

[PATCH, Fortran, 29229, v1] [7 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1 with -fcheck=mem

Hi all, attached patch fixes the issue of 79229 (which is not a regression). The issue was that the code generating the checking was expecting a pointer type, but got an indirect ref to it. This is fixed now. Bootstraps and regtests ok on x86_64-linux/f25. Ok for trunk? Regards, Andre --