2011/7/6 Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de:
Denis Chertykov wrote:
I have asked about example of *d instead of !d.
Just svn GCC with *d vs svn GCC !d.
Denis.
Is the patch ok with the original !d instead of *d ?
Ok.
Denis.
Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com writes:
On 07/06/11 20:06, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com writes:
At some point we've grown a shift_truncation_mask hook, but we're not
using it everywhere we're masking shift counts. This patch changes the
instances I
On 7 Jul 2011, at 00:15, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 07/03/11 22:01, Richard Henderson wrote:
Bernd's original patch to optimize dwarf2 cfi for shrink-wrapping
is difficult to analyze because that optimization was done via a
random debugging hook during final, and the cfi notes are deleted
at the
This patch fixes an ICE in smallest_mode_for_size on the attached testcase.
The smallest_mode_for_size call comes from this part of the reload
inheritance code in choose_reload_regs:
if (byte == 0)
need_mode = mode;
else
Let me try again:
I've prepared a patch for: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
It fixes the problem of tailcall optimization: check for stack
overlapping was not strict enough.
Patch adds another check for clobbered stack area. If address comes
from a register - we have no idea
OK for trunk, and for 4.6 in a few days if no problems?
This is OK.
Thanks,
Ramana
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit
PowerPC
calls through function pointers (or virtual function). Most of the languages
on the PowerPC do not need the static chain being
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
The %[] spec operator is marked as obsolete and not used by any specs
in GCC; I'm also not sure it would work properly now the canonical
form of -D options is defined to have separate argument. This patch
removes
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Hum. Can't the compiler figure this our itself per-call-site? At least
the name of the command-line switch -m[no-]r11 is meaningless to me.
Points-to information should be able to tell you if the function pointer
points to a
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 13:00, Brian Hackett bhackett1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, this patch adds a new plugin event FINISH_DECL, which is invoked
at every finish_decl in the C and C++ frontends. ?Previously there did
not
Hi,
Ok for mainline if that passes?
I'm going to trust you Rainer on this and it seems very safe on
x86_64-linux anyway. Please wait just one more day or so and then check
it in.
Thanks,
Paolo.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Hum. Can't the compiler figure this our itself per-call-site? At least
the name of the command-line switch -m[no-]r11 is meaningless to me.
Points-to
Hi Paolo,
Ok for mainline if that passes?
I'm going to trust you Rainer on this and it seems very safe on
x86_64-linux anyway. Please wait just one more day or so and then check it
in.
ok, will do. The x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu bootstrap has completed
without regressions and the correct
Denis Chertykov wrote:
2011/6/27 Georg-Johann Lay:
Denis Chertykov wrote:
The main problem for me is that the new addressing mode produce a
worse code in many tests.
You have an example source?
In attachment.
Denis.
Hi Denis.
I had a look at the sources you sent.
sort.c:
===
Rainer Orth r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de writes:
There has long been some clamoring for a amd64-*-solaris2 configuration
similar to sparcv9-sun-solaris2. I've resisted this for quite some
time, primarily because it doubles the maintenance effort of testing
both the 32-bit default and 64-bit
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Stubbs a...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 28/06/11 15:14, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 28/06/11 13:33, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 23/06/11 15:41, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
If one or both of the inputs to a widening multiply are of unsigned type
then the compiler will
Hi Frank,
I could either commit the current version with the MFWRAP_SPEC addition
and work from there, or wait until those failures are understood and
fixed, too.
Committing now would be fine, assuming no regressions on a primary
platform.
below is the patch I've actually comitted, after
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Andrew Stubbs a...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 28/06/11 16:08, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 23/06/11 15:41, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
This patch removes the restriction that the inputs to a widening
multiply must be of the same mode.
It does this by extending the
Hi, this patch add a new function allowing to add a pragma handler more
easily. In the past, we were directly modifying the :sysdata_meltpragmas
field of initial_system_data.
The pragma handler take a list of new pragma handler that we want to
add. The reason is that the field
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Andrew Stubbs a...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 28/06/11 16:30, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 23/06/11 15:42, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
This patch fixes the case where widening multiply-and-accumulate were
not recognised because the multiplication itself is not actually
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:36:02PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
And here is a version that passed bootstrap/regtest on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux:
2011-07-06 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
PR debug/49522
* df-problems.c (dead_debug_reset): Remove dead_debug_uses
On 07/07/11 10:58, Richard Guenther wrote:
I think you should assume that series of widenings, (int)(short)char_variable
are already combined. Thus I believe you only need to consider a single
conversion in valid_types_for_madd_p.
Hmm, I'm not so sure. I'll look into it a bit further.
+/*
The next patch in the `move to toplevel libgcc' series is hopefully
easier to get review and approval for. This one moves dfp-bit and
related build stuff to libgcc. I think it's completely straight
forward: it moves D{32, 64, 128}PBIT{, _FUNCS}, related Makefile
fragments, and the source files
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:10:30PM +0200, Pierre Vittet wrote:
Hi, this patch add a new function allowing to add a pragma handler
more easily. In the past, we were directly modifying the
:sysdata_meltpragmas field of initial_system_data.
2011-07-07 Pierre Vittet pier...@pvittet.com
On 07/07/11 11:04, Richard Guenther wrote:
Both types are equal, so please share the temporary variable you
create
+ rhs1 = build_and_insert_cast (gsi, gimple_location (stmt),
+ create_tmp_var (type1, NULL),
rhs1, type1);
+ rhs2 =
Hello,
this is the patch I posted yesterday on bugzilla at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49648#c8
The problem is a NULL pointer encountered during code generation when trying
to get the rank from the array spec.
The array ref's array spec is normally copied in resolve_ref from
Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org writes:
i[34567]86-*-linux* | i[34567]86-*-kfreebsd*-gnu |
i[34567]86-*-knetbsd*-gnu | i[34567]86-*-gnu* |
i[34567]86-*-kopensolaris*-gnu)
extra_parts=$extra_parts crtprec32.o crtprec64.o crtprec80.o
crtfastmath.o
-tmake_file=${tmake_file}
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Andrew Stubbs andrew.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/07/11 11:04, Richard Guenther wrote:
Both types are equal, so please share the temporary variable you
create
+ rhs1 = build_and_insert_cast (gsi, gimple_location (stmt),
+
This is the first of a series of enabling patches to make
POINTER_PLUS_EXPR not forcefully take a sizetype offset
(I'm still no 100% what requirements I will end up implementing,
but the first goal is to have less TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE types).
This patch removes the (T *)index +p (int)PTR - PTR +p
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
What remains is a couple of unrelated failures in the testsuite:
Epoll unexpected fd=0
pollServer: unexpected wakeup for fd=0 mode=w
panic: test timed out
../../../gcc-svn/trunk/libgo/testsuite/gotest: line 388: 7123
On Thursday 07 July 2011 07:35:07 Tobias Burnus wrote:
diff --git a/libgfortran/caf/mpi.c b/libgfortran/caf/mpi.c
index 83f39f6..2d4af6b 100644
--- a/libgfortran/caf/mpi.c
+++ b/libgfortran/caf/mpi.c
@@ -103,10 +110,19 @@ _gfortran_caf_register (ptrdiff_t size, caf_register_t
type,
/*
This tries to make sense of the comments and code in the code
doing the index - size multiplication in pointer-int-sum. It
also fixes a bogus integer-constant conversion which results
in not properly canonicalized integer constants.
The comment in the code claims the index - size multiplication
On 07/07/11 11:26, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 07/07/11 10:58, Richard Guenther wrote:
I think you should assume that series of widenings,
(int)(short)char_variable
are already combined. Thus I believe you only need to consider a single
conversion in valid_types_for_madd_p.
Hmm, I'm not so sure.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
What remains is a couple of unrelated failures in the testsuite:
../../../gcc-svn/trunk/libgo/testsuite/gotest: line 388: 13945
Segmentation fault ./a.out -test.short -test.timeout=$timeout
$@
FAIL: compress/flate
On 11-07-07 05:06 , Romain Geissler wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* plugin.def: Add event for finish_decl.
* plugin.c (register_callback, invoke_plugin_callbacks): Same.
* c-decl.c (finish_decl): Invoke callbacks on above event.
* doc/plugins.texi: Document above event.
Dear Mikael,
On 07/07/2011 12:42 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
this is the patch I posted yesterday on bugzilla at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49648#c8
This patch calls gfc_resolve_array_spec on sym-result, which calls
gfc_resolve_expr on every bound, which in turn calls resolve_ref
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Andrew Stubbs andrew.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/07/11 11:26, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 07/07/11 10:58, Richard Guenther wrote:
I think you should assume that series of widenings,
(int)(short)char_variable
are already combined. Thus I believe you only need
Hello!
diff --git a/libmudflap/testsuite/libmudflap.c/pass47-frag.c
b/libmudflap/testsuite/libmudflap.c/pass47-frag.c
--- a/libmudflap/testsuite/libmudflap.c/pass47-frag.c
+++ b/libmudflap/testsuite/libmudflap.c/pass47-frag.c
@@ -8,3 +8,5 @@ int main ()
tolower (buf[4]) ==
Hello!
Committed.
Richard.
2011-07-07 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
* gcc.dg/graphite/pr37485.c: Add -floop-block.
Heh, you were faster by a minute!
Uros.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Andrew Stubbs andrew.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/07/11 11:26, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 07/07/11 10:58, Richard Guenther wrote:
I think you should assume that series of
On 07/07/2011 01:35 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
if (type == CAF_REGTYPE_COARRAY_STATIC)
{
This will return the same error (memory allocation failure) as in the case
just above. Is this expected or should it have an error of its own?
I think it is OK in either case.
Hi!
The attached testcase ICEs, because gimple_regimplify_operands ignores
lb: and sz: operands on ARRAY*_REF (and last operand on COMPONENT_REF),
assuming that if it is non-NULL, it is valid GIMPLE and doesn't need
further processing. That is true for gimplification, as FEs/generic
leave those
Hi!
For MULT_EXPR and TRUNC_DIV_EXPR, both sides of COMPLEX_EXPR contain
a copy of the non-complex operand, which means its side-effects can be
evaluated twice. For PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR they appear just in one of
the operands and thus it works fine as is.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:22 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:48 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Paolo, DJ, Nathanael, Alexandre, Ralf,
Is the change
.
*
Richard Sandiford wrote:
gcc/
* reload1.c (choose_reload_regs): Use mode sizes to check whether
an old relaod register completely defines the required value.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/arm/neon-modes-3.c: New test.
This is OK.
Thanks,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Paolo, DJ, Nathanael, Alexandre, Ralf,
Is the change
.
* configure.ac: Support --enable-x32.
* configure: Regenerated.
diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac
index 5f3641b..bddabeb 100644
---
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com writes:
Otherwise, the patch is unchanged from the original submission:
[build] Move unwinder to toplevel libgcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01452.html
Unfortunately, it hasn't seen much comment. I'm now looking for testers
On 7 July 2011 09:09, Richard Sandiford richard.sandif...@linaro.org wrote:
gcc/
* reload1.c (choose_reload_regs): Use mode sizes to check whether
an old relaod register completely defines the required value.
s/relaod/reload/
Jay.
Folding of $subject is currently broken (noticed that when playing
with types in pointer_int_sum). We happily ignore the fact
that the negate operates on an unsigned type and change it to
operate on a signed one - which may cause new undefined overflow.
Seen with the testcase below which aborts
Did you even _think_ of looking at the sh configury, and do something
vaguely similar for x86?
You should not duplicate t-linux64 at all. Instead, in config.gcc set
m64/m32 as the default value for with_multilib_list on i386 biarch and
x86_64. Pass $with_multilib_list to t-linux64 using
The following patch teaches VRP to disregard the intermediate
conversion in a sequence (T1)(T2)val if that sequence is
value-preserving for val. There are possibly some more
cases that could be handled when a sign-change is involved
but the following is a first safe step.
Bootstrapped on
On 7/6/2011 4:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
2011-07-06 Joseph Myersjos...@codesourcery.com
* config/i386/t-crtpic, config/i386/t-svr3dbx, config/pa/t-pa:
Remove.
Ok for pa.
Dave
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 05:36, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
We should add loop blocking flags (the same as in graphite.exp) if we
want to check graphite tree dump.
2011-07-07 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com
* gcc.dg/graphite/pr37485.c (dg-options): Add -floop-block
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ok, reworked version. The folding of X op X and !X op !X seems indeed
not being necessary. So function simplifies much.
Bootstrapped and regression tested for all standard languages (plus
Ada and Obj-C++). Ok for apply?
Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com writes:
This adds the actual optimization, and reworks the JUMP_LABEL handling
for return blocks. See the introduction mail or the new comment ahead of
thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns for more notes.
It seems a shame to have both (return) and
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
not overflow (what is actually the C semantics - is the
multiplication allowed to overflow for unsigned intop? If not
Overflow is not allowed. Formally the multiplication is as-if to infinite
precision, and then there is undefined behavior if the
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
For MULT_EXPR and TRUNC_DIV_EXPR, both sides of COMPLEX_EXPR contain
a copy of the non-complex operand, which means its side-effects can be
evaluated twice. For PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR they appear just in one of
the operands and thus it works fine
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
not overflow (what is actually the C semantics - is the
multiplication allowed to overflow for unsigned intop? If not
Overflow is not allowed. Formally the multiplication is as-if to infinite
On Jul 6, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Hi, I am struggling against hundreds of fails in the testsuite because
many cases are not carefully written, e.g. stull like shifting an int
by 19 bits if int is only 16 bits wide.
Ok to commit?
Ok.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
Did you even _think_ of looking at the sh configury, and do something
vaguely similar for x86?
You should not duplicate t-linux64 at all. Instead, in config.gcc set
m64/m32 as the default value for with_multilib_list on
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 02:55:45PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For MULT_EXPR and TRUNC_DIV_EXPR, both sides of COMPLEX_EXPR contain
a copy of the non-complex operand, which means its side-effects can be
evaluated twice. For PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com writes:
On 29/06/11 12:28, Richard Sandiford wrote:
ARM has an option called -mwords-little-endian that provides big-endian
compatibility with pre-2.8 compilers. When I asked Richard about it,
he seemed to think it had outlived its usefulness, so this patch
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 17:12, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:02 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you even _think_ of looking at the sh configury, and do something
vaguely similar for x86?
You should not duplicate t-linux64 at all. Instead, in
Whee! Thanks for reviewing (reviving?) this old thing.
I should be posting an up-to-date version of this, but for the moment it
has to wait until dwarf2out is sorted out, and I'm rather busy with
other stuff. I hope to squeeze this in in the not too distant future.
I'll try to answer some of the
On 07/07/11 16:18, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com writes:
On 29/06/11 12:28, Richard Sandiford wrote:
ARM has an option called -mwords-little-endian that provides big-endian
compatibility with pre-2.8 compilers. When I asked Richard about it,
he seemed to think it
On 07/05/11 21:25, Richard Sandiford wrote:
(Could you bootstrap this on x86_64 to check for things like that?
That has no loop_end pattern so it wouldn't be much of a test, but a
x86_64 x bfin compiler has no warnings in this file with the intptr_t
thing fixed.
A C bootstrap only should be
Hi,
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
Index: gcc/fold-const.c
===
--- gcc/fold-const.c (revision 175962)
+++ gcc/fold-const.c (working copy)
@@ -7561,7 +7561,7 @@ fold_unary_loc (location_t loc, enum tre
if
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit
PowerPC
calls through function pointers (or virtual function).
Ping. This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg02408.html is pending
review.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
So, here is a new patch which doesn't need two loops, just might go a
little bit backwards to unchain dead_debug_use for the reset insn.
It still needs the change of the gcc_assert (reg) into if (reg == NULL)
return;, because the dead-used bitmap is with this sometimes a false
positive
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 15:08 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com writes:
Otherwise, the patch is unchanged from the original submission:
[build] Move unwinder to toplevel libgcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01452.html
Unfortunately,
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This patch adds an option to not load the static chain
On 07/07/11 15:34, Richard Sandiford wrote:
It seems a shame to have both (return) and (simple_return). You said
that we need the distinction in order to cope with targets like ARM,
whose (return) instruction actually performs some of the epilogue too.
It feels like the load of the saved
Hi,
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
+ tree rhs1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt);
+ gimple def_stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (rhs1);
+ value_range_t *final, *inner;
+
+ /* Obtain final and inner value-ranges for a conversion
+ sequence
On 06/07/11 18:33, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 06/29/2011 06:25 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 23/06/11 22:38, Janis Johnson wrote:
Tests wmul-[1234].c and mla-2.c in gcc.target/arm require support that
the arm backend identifies as TARGET_DSP_MULTIPLY. The tests all
specify a -march option with
Hi,
patch is long, so let me review it in more passes.
2011-06-22 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
* ipa-prop.h: Include alloc-pool.h.
(ipa_lattice_type): Removed.
(ipcp_value_source): New type.
(ipcp_value): Likewise.
(ipcp_values_pool): Declare.
Hello,
This patch - first of series - adds to fold and some helper routines support
for one-bit precision bitwise folding and detection.
This patch is necessary for - next patch of series - boolification of
comparisons.
Bootstrapped and regression tested for all standard-languages (plus
Ada and
Hello,
This patch - second of series - adds boolification of comparisions in
gimplifier. For this
casts from/to boolean are marked as not-useless. And in fold_unary_loc
casts to non-boolean integral types are preserved.
The hunk in tree-ssa-forwprop.c in combine_cond-expr_cond is not strictly
Hello,
This patch - third of series - fixes vrp to handle bitwise one-bit
precision typed operations.
And it introduces a second - limitted to non-switch-statement range - vrp pass.
Bootstrapped and regression tested for all standard-languages (plus
Ada and Obj-C++) on host x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
For three tests in gcc.target/arm that don't depend on processor-specific
behavior, don't specify the -march option. This makes dg-prune-output
for warnings about conflicts unnecessary, so remove it.
Two of these tests are for internal compiler errors
[...]
On Jul 7, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
I certainly can call the switch -mno-static-chain, which is perhaps more
meaningful (at least to us compiler folk, I'm not sure static chain means
On 07/01/2011 10:50 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 26.05.2011 17:32, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 25.05.2011 19:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute because nobody
will
care to mark all offending
2011/7/7 Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
On 07/07/2011 06:07 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
+ /* We redo folding here one time for allowing to inspect more
+ complex reductions. */
+ substitute_and_fold (op_with_constant_singleton_value_range,
+ vrp_fold_stmt, false);
+ /*
As discussed at the Google GCC gathering, disable the build of static libraries
in libjava, which should cut the build time of libjava by 50%. The static
libjava build isn't useful out of the box, and I don't see it packaged by Linux
distributions either.
The AC_PROG_LIBTOOL check is needed to
On 07/07/2011 09:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
Index: gcc.target/arm/pr41679.c
I think this should just be moved to gcc.c-torture/compile. There
doesn't seem to be anything processor-specific here.
Index: gcc.target/arm/pr46883.c
Likewise.
On 07/07/11 00:28, Janis Johnson wrote:
This patch removes -march= from nine tests that also check for relevant
effective targets. If -march is removed there is no need to ignore
compiler warnings about conflicting options with dg-prune-output, so the
patch removes that from the tests.
OK
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 15:08 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
In that case, perhaps Steve could have a look? I'd finally like to make
some progress on this patch.
Thanks.
Rainer
It looks like the GCC build is trying to compile unwind-ia64.c on IA64
HP-UX even though it should not use or
On 07/07/11 17:30, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 07/07/2011 09:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
Index: gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c
===
--- gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c(revision 175921)
+++
On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
...
It'd also be nice to get rid of all these big blocks of code that are
conditional on preprocessor macros, but I realise you're just following
existing practice in the surrounding code, so again it can be left to
a future cleanup.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/07/11 10:58, Paul Koning wrote:
On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
...
It'd also be nice to get rid of all these big blocks of code that are
conditional on preprocessor macros, but I realise you're just following
On 07/07/2011 09:57 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 07/07/2011 06:51 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 07/07/2011 09:27 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
As discussed at the Google GCC gathering, disable the build of static libraries
in libjava, which should cut the build time of libjava by 50%. The static
On Jul 7, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/07/11 10:58, Paul Koning wrote:
On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
...
It'd also be nice to get rid of all these big blocks of code that are
conditional on preprocessor
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 15:08 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
In that case, perhaps Steve could have a look? I'd finally like to make
some progress on this patch.
Thanks.
Rainer
When doing an IA64 Linux build (where I do need to compile
unwind-ia64.c) I am dying with this failure:
In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/07/11 11:05, Paul Koning wrote:
On Jul 7, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 07/07/11 10:58, Paul Koning wrote:
On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
...
It'd also be
On 07/01/11 16:50, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 26.05.2011 17:32, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 25.05.2011 19:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute because nobody
will
care to mark all offending insns
On 07/07/11 19:05, Paul Koning wrote:
From a note by Richard Henderson (June 30, 2011) it sounds like
rs6000 is the other platform that still generates asm prologues. But
yes, I said I would do this. It sounds like doing it soon would help
Bernd a lot. Let me try to accelerate it.
Maybe
Hi,
On Linux/x86-64, when we pass
RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board='unix{-mx32}'
to GCC tests, we can't check lp64/ilp32 for availability of 64bit x86
instructions. This patch adds ia32 and x32 effetive targets. OK for
trunk?
Thanks.
H.J.
---
2011-07-07 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
*
On 07/07/2011 09:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 07/07/11 17:30, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 07/07/2011 09:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
Index: gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c
===
---
On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:29 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Linux/x86-64, when we pass
RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board='unix{-mx32}'
to GCC tests, we can't check lp64/ilp32 for availability of 64bit x86
instructions. This patch adds ia32 and x32 effetive targets. OK for
trunk?
Ok.
Hi,
First there are two cleanup patches independent of the fix:
Start counting nesting level from 0.
Do not compute twice type, lb, and ub.
Then the patch that fixes PR47654:
Fix PR47654: Compute LB and UB of a CLAST expression.
One of the reasons we cannot determine the IV type only
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
