Hi Richi,
On 2021/4/21 19:54, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/4/15 19:34, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>>
Thanks,
On 2021/4/14 14:41, Richard Biener wrote:
>> "#538,#235,#234,#233" will all
On 5/13/21 10:26 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi,
The update to libsanitizer broke bootstrap on Darwin, since the upstream
sources assume building with clang on Darwin and make use of a header
depending on a builtin that GCC does not currently implement.
Hello.
Thank you for the fix. Btw. is it som
Move some functionality into a procedure of its own. This is only so that when
the patch for ctf comes along, the gcc-dg-debug-runtest procedure looks bit
more uniform.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (gcc-dg-target-supports-debug-format): New procedure.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/g
This patch introduces a dwarf2int.h header, to be used by code that
needs access to the internal DIE structures and their attributes.
The following functions which were previously defined as static in
dwarf2out.c are now non-static, and extern prototypes for them have
been added to dwarf2int.h:
-
This patch introduces a dwarf_debuginfo_p predicate that abstracts and
replaces complex checks on write_symbols.
2021-04-14 Indu Bhagat
gcc/ChangeLog
* flags.h (dwarf_debuginfo_p): New function declaration.
* opts.c (dwarf_debuginfo_p): New function definition.
* confi
[Notes for V8:
- In order to not disturb the on-going review, this series is still
based on the two already accepted preparatory patches:
+ dwarf: new dwarf_debuginfo_p predicate
+ dwarf: add a dwarf2int.h internal interface
Instead of being based on the patch:
+ opts: change write_symbol
This patch changes the BPF GCC backend in order to use the DWARF debug
hooks and therefore enables the user to generate BTF debugging
information with -gbtf. Generating BTF is crucial when compiling BPF
programs, since the CO-RE (compile-once, run-everwhere) mechanism
used by the kernel BPF loader
This commit adds a new testsuite for the CTF debug format.
2021-05-14 Indu Bhagat
David Faust
gcc/testsuite/
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (gcc-dg-frontend-supports-ctf): New procedure.
(gcc-dg-debug-runtest): Add -gctf support.
* gcc.dg/debug/btf/btf-1.c: New test.
This commit documents the new command line options introduced by the
CTF and BTF debug formats.
2021-05-14 Indu Bhagat
* doc/invoke.texi: Document the CTF and BTF debug info options.
---
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 20
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/
Test SPEC2017 Ofast P8LE for this patch : 511.povray_r +1.14%,
526.blender_r +1.72%, no obvious changes to others.
On 2021/5/6 10:36, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Gentle ping, thanks.
On 2021/4/16 15:10, Xiong Hu Luo wrote:
fmod/fmodf and remainder/remainderf could be expanded instead
On May 14, 2021 4:52:56 AM GMT+02:00, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>As discussed in the PR, Richard mentioned the method to
>figure out which VAR was not set TREE_ADDRESSABLE, and
>then cause this failure. It is address_expression which
>build addr_expr (build_fold_addr_expr_loc), but not set
>TREE_ADDRESSAB
Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/13/21 10:26 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi,
The update to libsanitizer broke bootstrap on Darwin, since the upstream
sources assume building with clang on Darwin and make use of a header
depending on a builtin that GCC does not currently implement.
Thank you for the fix.
> Right now, 2/3 of Ada manuals are both in .texi and .rst. I would like to port
> a small gnat-style manual based on [1].
>
> Ready for master?
OK, thanks.
> [1] https://github.com/davidmalcolm/texi2rst
>
> gcc/ada/ChangeLog:
>
> * doc/Makefile: Add gnat-style target.
> * doc/shar
On 2021-05-14 15:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On May 14, 2021 4:52:56 AM GMT+02:00, Jiufu Guo
wrote:
As discussed in the PR, Richard mentioned the method to
figure out which VAR was not set TREE_ADDRESSABLE, and
then cause this failure. It is address_expression which
build addr_expr (build_fold_a
Hi,
They are at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/568731.html
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/568916.html
I can devise a gnat.dg/ testcase for each of them if need be, although they
will be exercised by the GDB testsuite.
Thanks in advance.
--
On 2021-05-14 15:39, guojiufu via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 2021-05-14 15:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On May 14, 2021 4:52:56 AM GMT+02:00, Jiufu Guo
wrote:
As discussed in the PR, Richard mentioned the method to
figure out which VAR was not set TREE_ADDRESSABLE, and
then cause this failure. It is
For an instance of a non-POD class, can I always assume that any
operation on it should be type-safe, any wrong or even trick code
to violate this is UB in C++ spec? For example, here are some ways:
union {
Type1 *p1;
Type2 *p2;
};
or
union {
Type1 t1;
Type2 t2;
};
or
void
Pushed to master. It handles e.g. commit
f1a68574b1f8d2961d3a676dbcf0cc24b6368578:
libstdc++: Define __cpp_lib_to_chars for C++20 [PR 100146]
This defines the feature test macro when uselocale is available, because
the floating-point std::from_chars support currently depends
OG11 = devel/omp/gcc-11, a branch with some OpenMP/OpenACC/offload patches
which are not yet on mainline. Additionally, patches in this area are
cherry-picked from mainline (currently, only those listed below).
Hence, I pushed those new commits:
dfdb3550cc5 openmp: Add testcases to verify OpenMP
Hi all,
The sqdmlal2 patterns are hidden beneath the SBINQOPS iterator and
unfortunately they don't match
canonical RTL because the simple accumulate operand comes in the first arm of
the SS_PLUS.
This patch splits the SS_PLUS and SS_MINUS forms with the SS_PLUS operands set
up to match
the can
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 05:37:36PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> So, do you want something like (I've deleted the old comment as I think
>> the new one is enough, but am open to keep both) the patch below, where
>> it REG_CAN_CHANGE_MODE_P is false, we punt (return), other
On 14/05/2021 04:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 20:33, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/05/2021 12:05, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 16:02, Richard Earnshaw
>>> wrote:
On 12/05/2021 08:46, Prathamesh Kulkarn
On 5/13/21 11:33 PM, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
Hello,
While running my script[1] parsing gcc/c-family/c.opt to extract
information about the new warnings for C++ programs, I've noticed that a
couple of new warnings in gcc 11 don't use the "Warning" flag which, I had
assumed, would be used for all
Excerpts from Bernd Edlinger's message of May 14, 2021 7:19 am:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed that a couple temp files are leaked after each full
> gcc test-suite run.
>
> I'd like to fix that by the following patch.
>
>
> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> Is it OK for trunk?
>
T
On 5/13/21 7:10 PM, Michael de Lang wrote:
|Thanks for updating LLVM to upstream. I've added the rebased patch below.|
Thanks, I've just tested and pushed your commit:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=80b4ce1a5190ebe764b1009afae57dcef45f92c2
Martin
Hi Iain,
On 5/14/21 11:55 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Excerpts from Bernd Edlinger's message of May 14, 2021 7:19 am:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've noticed that a couple temp files are leaked after each full
>> gcc test-suite run.
>>
>> I'd like to fix that by the following patch.
>>
>>
>> Bootstrapped and reg-t
Excerpts from Bernd Edlinger's message of May 14, 2021 12:43 pm:
> Hi Iain,
>
> On 5/14/21 11:55 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> Excerpts from Bernd Edlinger's message of May 14, 2021 7:19 am:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've noticed that a couple temp files are leaked after each full
>>> gcc test-suite run.
>>>
>>
On 5/14/21 1:54 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
> Oops, sorry I meant src/MERGE, druntime has nothing to do with it.
>
> So yes, please add 63f4caa900e17c541042617b2fa187059b86bf88 to
> libphobos/src/MERGE and it's good to go.
>
Okay, so this is what I've pushed now:
commit cb787efa45782adab764575a2e
On 2021/5/11 11:15 , Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Chung-Lin!
On 2021-05-11T19:28:04+0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
This patch largely implements three pieces of functionality:
(1) Per discussion and clarification on the omp-lang mailing list,
standards conforming behavior for mapping array sectio
abebeos via Gcc-patches schrieb:
Again, just heavily fascinating to see how you ignore the overall essence
of this, which is of course directly related to gcc.
(bountysource is just a secondary disaster, it all starts here, at gcc.
* You postet a patch to gcc-patches@.
* You did not answer an
Hi Jakub,
This is a version of patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569665.html
for mainline trunk.
This patch implements relaxing the requirements when a map with the implicit
attribute encounters
an overlapping existing map. As the OpenMP 5.0 spec describes on page 320,
l
Fixes the build fail:
../../gcc/genversion.c:37:20: error: ‘BASEVER’ was not declared in this scope
char basever[] = BASEVER;
when doing a cross compilation.
Cf. patch for details.
OK for mainline?
(The runstatedir appears when not using 2.69 but a newer subrelease.
[I think it was 2.69b?].)
Hi!
While going through [8 Regression] PRs that weren't fixed in 8.5 and
thus will remain broken in 8.x forever I've committed following 4
testcases into the testsuite after testing them on x86_64-linux.
Jakub
testsuite: Add testcase for already fixed PR [PR88872]
2021-05-14 Jakub Jelin
On 5/13/21 10:53 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 5/14/21 12:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/13/21 11:36 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/13/21 11:20 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 5/13/21 3:55 AM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
A logic bug in the handling of PHI arguments in compute_objsize
that
Hi there IT-fascists, clowns, master-clowns,
totally-confused-incompetent-code-plumbers,
activity-trapped-silent-high-performers,
stay-out-of-trouble-silent-high-performers! (Guess where G.J. Lay fits in
the collection...).
Please be aware that I do not read any messages here (including the one I'
I've refined the patch as below.
This patch is checking "unsigned type" adn iv.no_overflow.
While I'm thinking to use "number_of_iterations_exit (loop, e, &niter,
false, false, NULL)"
and "niter.control.no_overflow" to check overflow/wrap, which maybe
more accurate, but relative "expensive".
"n
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:34:54PM -0500, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> +mprivileged
> +Target Var(rs6000_privileged) Init(0)
> +Enable generation of instructions that require privileged state.
That isn't quite it -- it will generate "p" insns instead of the usual
ones, it isn't just that
On 5/4/21 5:13 AM, Matthias Kretz wrote:
From: Matthias Kretz
This attribute overrides the diagnostics output string for the entity it
appertains to. The motivation is to improve QoI for library TS
implementations, where diagnostics have a very bad signal-to-noise ratio
due to the long namespace
Comparing DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION like the GCC 11 patch for PR 95870 will also
work for user-defined functions, if we update their location when
instantiating. Another option would be to use LAMBDA_EXPR_REGEN_INFO for
lambdas, but this way is even simpler.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to tru
Found when working on another patch. Variables in the specification
part of a module – but also in a main program are implicitly SAVE.
Likewise for variables with initialization - but that was already
handled.
OK for mainline and GCC 11?
Tobias
-
Mentor Graphics (Deutschland) G
(Testcase requires just posted "Fortran/OpenMP: Handle
implicit SAVE for variables in main" patch.)
(Found when looking the testcases generated for PR 99928
but otherwise not related to that PR.)
"omp parallel master" was unsupported; while the it becomes more
useful once taskloop is also supp
Hi,
I noticed we were missing out on LD1 + UXT combinations in some cases
and found it was because of inconsistent use of the unspec enum
UNSPEC_LD1_SVE. The combine pattern for LD1[S][BHWD] uses UNSPEC_LD1_SVE
whereas one of the LD1 expanders was using UNSPEC_PRED_X. I wasn't sure
whether to
On 5/13/21 5:17 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> On 5/13/2021 6:23 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When SRA transforms an assignment where the RHS is an aggregate decl
>> that it creates replacements for, the (least efficient) fallback
>> method of dealing with them is to store all th
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 06:13:55PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Found when working on another patch. Variables in the specification
> part of a module – but also in a main program are implicitly SAVE.
>
> Likewise for variables with initialization - but that was already
> handled.
>
> OK for mai
> Looks like this caused:
>
> === acats tests ===
> FAIL: c41325a
> FAIL: c45347d
> FAIL: c74402a
> FAIL: c95085m
> FAIL: cc3601a
>
> === gnat tests ===
>
> FAIL: gnat.dg/addr12.adb (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gnat.dg/addr12.adb compilation fa
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 06:15:15PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> (Testcase requires just posted "Fortran/OpenMP: Handle
> implicit SAVE for variables in main" patch.)
> (Found when looking the testcases generated for PR 99928
> but otherwise not related to that PR.)
>
>
> "omp parallel master"
On 13/05/21 18:54 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
From: Thomas Rodgers
Please ignore the previous patch. This one removes the need to carry any
extra state in the case of a 'laundered' atomic wait.
libstdc++/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/atomic_wait.h (__waiter::_M_do_wait_v): loop
un
"Andre Vieira (lists)" writes:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed we were missing out on LD1 + UXT combinations in some cases
> and found it was because of inconsistent use of the unspec enum
> UNSPEC_LD1_SVE. The combine pattern for LD1[S][BHWD] uses UNSPEC_LD1_SVE
> whereas one of the LD1 expanders was usin
On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:42:41PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> We can probably do it in 2 steps, first something like
>
> (for cmp (eq ne)
> (simplify
> (cmp (bit_and:c @0 @1) @0)
> (cmp (@0 (bit_not! @1)) { build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (@0)); })))
>
> to get rid of the double use, and then sim
r11-8053 rewrote the range adaptor implementation in conformance with
P2281, making partial application act like a SFINAE-friendly perfect
forwarding call wrapper. Making SFINAE-friendliness coexist with
perfect forwarding here requires adding fallback deleted operator()
overloads (as described in
Hi!
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:34:55PM -0500, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> +;; ROP mitigation instructions.
> +
> +(define_insn "hashst"
> + [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "simple_offsettable_mem_operand" "=m")
> +(unspec:DI [(match_operand:DI 1 "int_reg_operand" "r")]
> +
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:34:56PM -0500, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (rs6000_target_modify_macros): Define
> __ROP_PROTECT__ if -mrop-protect is selected.
Okay for trunk and 11.
Segher
On 5/14/21 1:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Please make this an unspec_volatile?
Oops! Sorry for missing that the first time.
Thanks for the review!!
Bill
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:34:57PM -0500, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> gcc/testsuite/
> * gcc.target/powerpc/rop-1.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/rop-2.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/rop-3.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/rop-4.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/rop
On 4/30/21 1:44 PM, Jeff Chapman wrote:
Hello! Looping back around to this. re:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567334.html
On 3/25/21, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/1/21 8:12 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote:
On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote:
P
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 04:54:10PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Please add an overview of the implementation strategy to the top of
> cxx-contracts.c. Particularly to discuss the why and how of
> pre/post/guarded/unguarded functions.
And I think let's please name the file contrac
Hi,
This patch series reworks how indirect struct (or class or derived-type)
component mappings are lowered for OpenMP and OpenACC. I previously
posted this against the og10 branch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570058.html
This version of the series, rebased to trunk, in
For historical reasons, it seems that extract_base_bit_offset
unnecessarily used two different ways to strip ARRAY_REF/INDIRECT_REF
nodes from component accesses. I verified that the two ways of performing
the operation gave the same results across the whole testsuite (and
several additional benchm
This patch is a second attempt at refactoring struct component mapping
handling for OpenACC/OpenMP during gimplification, after the patch I
posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2018-November/510503.html
And improved here, post-review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patch
It never makes sense for a GOMP_MAP_ATTACH_DETACH mapping to survive
beyond gimplify.c, and with OpenMP making use of that mapping type too
now alongside OpenACC, there are cases where it was making it through
to omp-low.c. This patch rewrites such mappings to GOMP_MAP_ATTACH or
GOMP_MAP_DETACH un
This patch reworks indirect struct handling in gimplify.c (i.e. for struct
components mapped with "mystruct->a[0:n]", "mystruct->b", etc.), for
both OpenACC and OpenMP. The key observation leading to these changes
was that component mappings of references-to-structures is already
implemented and w
GCC currently raises a parse error for indirect accesses to struct
members, where the base of the access is a reference to a pointer.
This patch fixes that case.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Julian
2021-05-14 Julian Brown
gcc/cp/
* semantics.c (finish_omp_clauses): Handle components of ref
62 matches
Mail list logo
