Hey Sho,
I totally agree with this point.
Currently, I'm planning to implement tied task using breath-first
scheduler wrote in
section 3.1 of Evaluation of OpenMP Task Scheduling Strategies by Nanos
Group.
http://www.sarc-ip.org/files/null/Workshop/1234128788173__TSchedStrat-iwomp08.pdf
My target needs a scratch register to store a register in one register class
and it needs to use memory to copy from one register class to another.
I have store and reload_out patterns for those registers. When reload
tries to copy data from one register class to another, it just stores the
H.J. Lu schrieb:
My target needs a scratch register to store a register in one register class
and it needs to use memory to copy from one register class to another.
I have store and reload_out patterns for those registers. When reload
tries to copy data from one register class to another, it
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de wrote:
H.J. Lu schrieb:
My target needs a scratch register to store a register in one register
class
and it needs to use memory to copy from one register class to another.
I have store and reload_out patterns for those
Hello again Andreas,
(I just forgot to Cc to GCC ML, so resending this email)
Right, start with distributing the queues and then think about load
balancing.
OK.
I would say don't worry too much about cut-offs at this point. Finding a
good cut-off strategy that works without drawbacks is
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20110430 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20110430/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
The GCC Steering Committee appointed me to the role of GCC Release
Manager on March 22, 2000, as part of the GCC 3.0 release cycle. Eleven
years and umpteen releases later, it's time for me to relinquish that
position. I am just as interested in GCC as ever, but I simply no
longer have the time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48809
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
06:54:06 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Apr 30 06:54:02 2011
New Revision: 173207
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173207
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48809
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
06:55:15 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Apr 30 06:55:11 2011
New Revision: 173208
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173208
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48809
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7|[4.4/4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
08:19:25 UTC ---
Thanks. The missing bit was -std=gnu++0x, now it reproduces for me. Sorry for
the confussion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-04-30 08:46:55
UTC ---
Hi,
i am atesting the attached fix.
Index: ipa-inline.c
===
--- ipa-inline.c(revision 173189)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48831
Summary: check.c: Constant expression (PARAMETER array element)
rejected as nonconstant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48786
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
10:04:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
If one modifies the program (cf. attachment 24110 [details]) as follows,
gfortran 4.7 segfaults
The reason is that in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.5.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
11:01:29 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Apr 30 11:01:26 2011
New Revision: 173211
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173211
Log:
PR middle-end/48752
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
11:12:29 UTC ---
Hi Paul,
the least I can do is to supply you with a more complete test case :-)
program main
implicit none
integer, parameter :: m=4, n=3, count=2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30 11:46:34
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 30 11:46:31 2011
New Revision: 173213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173213
Log:
2011-04-30 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-04-30 11:58:36 UTC ---
I think for rounding up we need to test if ALL the cut off digits are zeros.
One more thought: It might be (statistically) faster to scan the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48832
Summary: -O2 does not imply -fomit-frame-pointer, contrary to
--help=optimizers -v -Q
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30 12:00:53
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 30 12:00:50 2011
New Revision: 173214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173214
Log:
2011-04-30 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48462
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30 12:00:53
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 30 12:00:50 2011
New Revision: 173214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173214
Log:
2011-04-30 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48462
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48825
--- Comment #4 from Josef Mutzenbacher wkor97gy0eef1fr at i dot mintemail.com
2011-04-30 12:33:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
xgcc is invoked for target libraries; libiberty is built as a target
library.
may i ask why this is being built
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
12:43:47 UTC ---
The trick here is figuring out the limits of the scan on the left end of the
string. We can have things like.
2345638418
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48833
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c FAILs with -flto
-fipa-cp-clone -fno-merge-all-constants
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #8 from Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org 2011-04-30 13:36:17
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
manually. The more serious problem I found is that the final gnat executables
segfault on the m68k target.
Even with no argument,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-04-30
13:49:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
manually. The more serious problem I found is that the final gnat
executables
segfault on the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48834
Summary: [4.7 Regression] -fno-exceptions causes wrong code
generation on C++ code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #10 from Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org 2011-04-30 13:56:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
to be an issue of bootstrapping from amd64, which platform did you use?
i686-linux.
Ok, then I can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-04-30
15:09:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
At a first glance, there’s a lot of system-linux-*.ads but none for m68k.
Should I have a look in that area, or is that not an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48834
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-04-30 15:20:08
UTC ---
It started with r173056, PR40975 fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg02184.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #12 from Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org 2011-04-30 15:20:08
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
It will be an issue, but I got the segfaults even with such a file, so I think
the problem is more fundamental than that.
OK, I’ll
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #13 from Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org 2011-04-30 15:31:06
UTC ---
Ah well. I found out that Ada doesn’t compile if you have a style error õÕ
and that “make clean” doesn’t clean all stampfiles… got a crosscompiler now,
let’s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48030
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48030
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
15:25:00 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Apr 30 15:24:57 2011
New Revision: 173218
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173218
Log:
2011-04-30 Jerry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-04-30
15:40:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Should we open up another bugreport for _that_ (port GNAT to GNU/Linux/m68k)
though, since it doesn’t really belong here?
Yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Summary: Porting GNAT to GNU/Linux/m68k
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #15 from Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org 2011-04-30 15:48:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
Should we open up another bugreport for _that_ (port GNAT to GNU/Linux/m68k)
though, since it doesn’t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48800
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
15:54:52 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Apr 30 15:54:49 2011
New Revision: 173219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173219
Log:
2011-04-30 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-04-30 15:56:35 UTC ---
The start to scan is the digit corresponding to d+1.
e.g.
PRINT (RU,F0.4), .162548148
- .1626 because48148 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48774
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
16:14:52 UTC ---
Tiny bit more simplified, without the GRAPH_IS_EDGE and related macros:
unsigned long int s[12][2]
= { { 12, 2114 }, { 12, 37 }, { 12, 1034 }, { 12, 532 },
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48836
Summary: internal compiler error: in execute_todo, at
passes.c:1261
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48800
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
16:24:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
New Revision: 173219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173219
Wrong bug number; that was for PR 48821.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48836
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
16:32:30 UTC ---
The reason why we conclude updating is needed is redirecting of callees:
#0 0x006abdd4 in bitmap_element_link (head=0x7539b760,
bit=Unhandled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48821
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
16:28:54 UTC ---
The commit went to PR 48800:
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173219
Log:
2011-04-30 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48821
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
16:33:51 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Apr 30 16:33:47 2011
New Revision: 173221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173221
Log:
2011-04-30 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48821
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
--- Comment #9 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-04-30 19:01:44 UTC ---
The last part of the 4.4.6 failure:
--
libtool: link: (cd .libs rm -f libgcj-tools.so.10 ln -s
libgcj-tools.so.10.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48811
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
19:24:45 UTC ---
Building like that is completely unsupported. If anything is worth fixing here
it would be to strip any -std option from the library build flags, to ensure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48829
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
19:52:08 UTC ---
The string case calls a function (the overloaded operator+ or std::string) so
is actually closer to:
int f(int);
int i = f(i);
which doesn't warn either
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48811
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48811
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-30
20:00:39 UTC ---
I don't know, but we also want to strip -pipe from the testsuite flags for PR
48565 so we need to figure out some way to do it :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
--- Comment #10 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-04-30 20:46:02 UTC ---
Just upgrading from libtool 2.2 to 2.4 to see if that works. This looks
relevant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
Summary: Wrong optimization of recursive function calls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dewar at gnat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|m68k-linux |
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #4 from Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org 2011-04-30 22:17:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
apparently not treated as a pointer, thus the value is returned in %d0. But
the caller expects the returned value in %a0.
Ah, I see.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #5 from Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org 2011-04-30 22:28:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
the caller expects the returned value in %a0.
It’s even worse, __gnat_malloc contains:
jsr malloc
addq.l #4,%sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48811
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rwild at
: expected primary-expression before '' token
kdevtest2.cpp:13:52: error: expected primary-expression before ')' token
fails with
gcc 4.6.1 20110430 rev. 173224
works fine with
gcc 4.5.2
(some people told me that it also works fine with 4.6.1 20110329)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48838
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |hp at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.6 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-01
01:50:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 24156
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24156
Tentative patch fixing subreg_get_info, untested.
This likely has fallout
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-01
01:52:16 UTC ---
Either patch fixes the test-case. Both should eventually be applied to trunk,
but perhaps just the sparc one to branches.
Dear Thomas,
there's another point: The sizes are also not set correctly.
Oh dear, oh dear! I am losing it in my old age. :-(
Thanks
Paul
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 04:33, Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@frontier.com wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch does some cleanup and a check for trailing zeros to
decide whether or not to round.
I have added the additional test cases posted on the bugzilla to the
existing test case round_3.f08.
On 28 April 2011 02:37, Doug Kwan (關振德) wrote:
* include/Makefile.in: Regnerate.
Typo: Regenerate
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Honza,
I continue to receive an ICE:
/farm/dje/src/src/libstdc++-v3/include/precompiled/stdc++.h:94:0:
/tmp/20110427/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/libstdc++-v3/include/valarray:1163:1:
internal compiler error: vector
Committed revision 173213 as obvious (in fact it reverts to original
treatment of bounds).
2011-04-30 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/48746
* trans-expr.c (fcncall_realloc_result): Set the bounds and the
offset so that the lbounds are one.
Fixed on 4.6 together with PR48746 in revision 173214.
2011-04-30 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/48462
PR fortran/48746
* trans-expr.c ( arrayfunc_assign_needs_temporary): Need a temp
if automatic reallocation on assignement is active, the lhs is a
If really desired, we can reinstate the original look via CSS, though
I'd like to keep things consistent across all GCC pages.
Gerald
2011-04-26 Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com
* projects.html: Use regular h2 markup for section headers
instead of fake tables.
Index:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:49, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
OK.
Thanks. Committed to trunk rev 173217.
Committed revision 173218.
Regression tested on x86-64.
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Apr 30 15:24:57 2011
New Revision: 173218
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173218
Log:
2011-04-30 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
Backport from mainline:
PR libgfortran/48030
Hi Jakub,
This patch includes assorted OpenMP 3.1 changes for Fortran.
Haven't changed COPYIN with not allocated allocatables yet, waiting
for explanation on OpenMP forum there.
I'm not an OpenMP expert, but I'd say this is OK for trunk (unless
somebody else speaks up, quickly :-)
Thomas Koenig wrote:
This patch includes assorted OpenMP 3.1 changes for Fortran.
Haven't changed COPYIN with not allocated allocatables yet, waiting
for explanation on OpenMP forum there.
I'm not an OpenMP expert, but I'd say this is OK for trunk (unless
somebody else speaks up, quickly :-)
Honza,
This patch appears to fix the failure on AIX: my build progressed past
libstdc++.
Thanks, David
2011/4/30 Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Honza,
I continue to receive an ICE:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 19:59, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
2011-04-29 Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/alias_bug.c: New test.
OK if the test works.
Diego.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 19:08, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
This test case was extracted from kernel source exposed in some older
version of gcc. Works fine in trunk, but need to add a test for it.
Ok for trunk?
OK.
Diego.
Am 30.04.2011 17:31, schrieb Jerry DeLisle:
On 04/29/2011 02:45 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Nearly obvious patch. Build and regtested on x86-64-linux.
OK for the trunk?
Thats a oneliner. OK
Thanks for the review! Unfortunately, I had submitted/committed the
wrong test case. (Both test cases
The patch adds the directory
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray/
All files in this directory are compiled/linked/run with
-fcoarray=single and -fcoarray=lib -lcaf_single. The compilation is
only done with -O2 - instead of cycling through all optimization
options; however, one could change
Now with the .exp file - for those with broken crystal balls ...
Sorry for the initial omission,
Tobias
Tobias Burnus wrote:
The patch adds the directory
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray/
All files in this directory are compiled/linked/run with
-fcoarray=single and -fcoarray=lib
On Saturday 23 April 2011 09:35:38 Uros Bizjak wrote:
Index: i386.c
===
--- i386.c(revision 172866)
+++ i386.c(working copy)
@@ -10149,7 +10149,7 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (const HOST_
/* Even if the stack
Hello world,
I committed the attached patch as obvious (revision 173223) after
regression-testing. No test case because we can't do that for the
Fortran dumps (yet).
With this patch, variables inside a BLOCK construct are displayed with
their attributes, for example
program main
block
Makes -S output more easily preprocessable -- otherwise, the __i686 in
__i686.get_pc_think.reg chokes things.
bootstrapped x86_64-linux for C/C++ native on Ubunutu Lucid (x86-64),
no diff in testsuite output before/after.
(c, c++, libgomp, libmudflap, libstdc++ tested.)
Also manually tested:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2011-04-30 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com
* gnatvsn.ads (Library_Version): Bump to 4.7.
(Current_Year): Bump to 2011.
--
Eric Botcazou
Index: gnatvsn.ads
The testcase in PR 47994, as well as one of the tests in 47919, exposed
our failure to skip debug insns when testing whether it is safe to split
the unrecognizable insn resulting from combining 3 insns.
Unfortunately, both testcases are far too sensitive to other changes in
the compiler, to
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
On Saturday 23 April 2011 09:35:38 Uros Bizjak wrote:
Index: i386.c
===
--- i386.c (revision 172866)
+++ i386.c (working copy)
@@ -10149,7
This code aligns stack to 32byte for AVX.
Right, the strange line is the next one.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
This code aligns stack to 32byte for AVX.
Right, the strange line is the next one.
What is wrong? x86-64 has 128byte redzone.
--
H.J.
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
