Re: [PATCH 01/15] Selftest framework (unittests v4)

On 11/19/2015 10:04 AM, David Malcolm wrote: This patch adds a selftest.h/.c to gcc, with an API loosely modelled on gtest (though without the use of CamelCase): it supports enough of the gtest API to enable the tests that I wrote to run with minimal changes. I know it's small, but avoiding

Re: Port libvtv to Solaris

On 11/24/2015 03:24 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: Rainer Orth writes: >Now that init priority support on Solaris is on mainline, porting libvtv >proved to be relatively easy, though it discovered a couple of quirks on >a non-gld non-x86 platform. This patch has now

Re: [PATCH] ctype functions and signedness

On 11/16/2015 08:59 AM, Michael McConville wrote: Hi, everyone. While it often (usually?) isn't an issue, passing a signed char to ctype functions is undefined. Here's the CERT entry: https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/x/fAs This means that we need to cast chars to unsigned

Re: [PATCH] lround for PowerPC

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 07:04:33PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > Okay with those changes, after the cause of the SEGV is diagnosed and fixed. It must have a temporary failure (either in the source, or perhaps something was amiss on the machine I was building on). I checked out a new trunk, and

Pinging patches

Just a note to folks, we're well into stage3 in our development cycle right now. Richi, Bernd, Jason, myself and others are working through our queues of patches that were submitted before the deadline. If you are not currently iterating with a maintainer on a patch that was submitted

Re: Pinging patches

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > Just a note to folks, we're well into stage3 in our development cycle right > now. Richi, Bernd, Jason, myself and others are working through our queues > of patches that were submitted before the deadline. > > If you are not

[PTX] Adjust mode splitting

The PTX backend has a lot of helper functions that are almost but not quite the same. I've committed this patch to adjust maybe_split_mode, and thereby remove nvptx_split_reg_p. maybe_split_mode always returned 1 or 2, and (some) users checked the return value to learn whether splitting

Re: Pinging patches

On 11/24/2015 01:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jeff Law wrote: Just a note to folks, we're well into stage3 in our development cycle right now. Richi, Bernd, Jason, myself and others are working through our queues of patches that were submitted

[PATCH] Convert manual unsigned +/- overflow checking into {ADD,SUB}_OVERFLOW (PR target/67089)

Hi! This is the GIMPLE side of Richard's i?86 uadd/usub overflow testing improvements. If unsigned addition or subtraction result is used both normally and in a GIMPLE_COND/COND_EXPR/tcc_comparison that tests if unsigned overflow happened, the patch replaces it shortly before expansion with

[C++ PATCH] Fix ubsan downcast -fsanitize=vptr sanitization (PR c++/68508)

Hi! Since the introduction of -fsanitize=vptr we ICE on the attached testcase, because for -std=c++14 the FE has strict assumptions on what the trees from force_paren_expr should look like, but with -fsanitize=vptr there is extra sanitization (COMPOUND_EXPR with UBSAN_VPTR call and the ADDR_EXPR

Re: Pinging patches

On 11/24/2015 01:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: I believe hte interrupt patches really need to wait for the next stage1. jeff X86 interrupt attribute was first submitted in September and it is limited to x86 backend, except for TARGET_FUNCTION_INCOMING_ARG_RTL which is no-op for other backends. We

Re: [PATCH 02/15] Add selftests to bitmap.c

On 11/19/2015 10:04 AM, David Malcolm wrote: Jeff pre-approved the plugin version of this (as a new file unittests/test-bitmap.c): https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03284.html with: OK if/when prereqs are approved. Minor twiddling if we end up moving it elsewhere or

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68196 [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on function result with procedure pointer component

Committed to 5 branch as R230839. Will deal with 4.9 branch next. Paul On 7 November 2015 at 16:57, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 04:03:10PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: >> >> 2015-11-04 Paul Thomas >> >> PR

Re: [PATCH] Get rid of insn-codes.h in optabs-tree.c

On 11/19/2015 09:06 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: On 19 Nov 16:46, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 11/19/2015 03:28 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: This is a refactoring patch discussed in another thread [1]. It gets rid of CODE_FOR_nothing usage in optabs-tree.c by introducing boolean predicated in

Re: [PATCH 01/15] Selftest framework (unittests v4)

On 11/19/2015 10:35 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: In general I'm much happier with this approach, and I think this series is close to ready, but I want to bring up some questions that could use wider discussion. This patch adds a selftest.h/.c to gcc, with an API loosely modelled on gtest (though

Re: Pinging patches

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/24/2015 01:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> >>> Just a note to folks, we're well into stage3 in our development cycle >>> right >>> now. Richi, Bernd,

Re: [patch] FreeBSD x86_64/i386 apply r125920

On 18.11.15 21:49, Andreas Tobler wrote: On 16.11.15 23:20, Andreas Tobler wrote: Hi all, I'm going to apply the below patch to trunk if there are no objections. There are no regressions. From our pov, we should be in sync with Linux here. Also, I'm going to push this one out to 5.x after

Re: Pinging patches

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/24/2015 01:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >>> I believe hte interrupt patches really need to wait for the next stage1. >>> jeff >>> >> >> X86 interrupt attribute was first submitted in September and it >> is limited to x86

Re: Port libvtv to Solaris

(Trying this again; the mailer daemon rejected my first message) All of the patch looks good to me, but I can only approve the libvtv portion (which I do). Someone else will need to approve the rest. -- Caroline Tice cmt...@google.com On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Rainer Orth

Re: [PATCH 01/02] PR/62314: add ability to add fixit-hints

On 11/18/2015 03:25 PM, David Malcolm wrote: What is the purpose of the #if 0 code in the various tests? Did you mean to leave those in? Presumably you're referring to the bodies of the functions test_fixit_insert test_fixit_remove test_fixit_replace within:

Re: [PATCH 01/15] Selftest framework (unittests v4)

On 11/19/2015 11:44 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 11/19/2015 07:08 PM, David Malcolm wrote: gcc_assert terminates the process and no further testing is done, whereas the approach the kit tries to run as much of the testsuite as possible, and then fail if any errors occurred. Yeah, but let's say

Re: [ARM] Fix PR middle-end/65958

Richard, > Revised version attached, which addresses all your comments and in > particular removes the > > +#if PROBE_INTERVAL > 4096 > +#error Cannot use indexed addressing mode for stack probing > +#endif > > compile-time assertion. Any objection to me applying this revised version? I'd

Re: [PATCH 01/15] Selftest framework (unittests v4)

On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 13:44 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/19/2015 11:44 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > On 11/19/2015 07:08 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > >> gcc_assert terminates the process and no further testing is done, > >> whereas the approach the kit tries to run as much of the testsuite as > >>

Re: update acc routines in fortran

On 11/20/2015 02:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 08:26:45AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: >> (gfc_oacc_routine_name): New struct; > > Full stop instead of semicolon. Fixed. >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-nested.c b/gcc/tree-nested.c >> index 1f6311c..e321072 100644 >> ---

Re: [PATCH AArch64]Handle REG+REG+CONST and REG+NON_REG+CONST in legitimize address

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote: The aarch64's problem is we don't define addptr3 pattern, and we don't >> have direct insn pattern describing the "x + y << z". According to >> gcc

Re: [PATCH 01/15] Selftest framework (unittests v4)

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:44:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/19/2015 11:44 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >On 11/19/2015 07:08 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > >>gcc_assert terminates the process and no further testing is done, > >>whereas the approach the kit tries to run as much of the testsuite as >

Re: [PATCH] Convert manual unsigned +/- overflow checking into {ADD,SUB}_OVERFLOW (PR target/67089)

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: This is the GIMPLE side of Richard's i?86 uadd/usub overflow testing improvements. If unsigned addition or subtraction result is used both normally and in a GIMPLE_COND/COND_EXPR/tcc_comparison that tests if unsigned overflow happened, the patch

[hsa] Back-end enhancement

Hi. Following small series enhances HSA back-end in following manner: 1) HSA: support alloca builtin 2) HSA: dump alignment of mem and alloca instructions 3) HSA: write back OMP arguments after a kernel dispatch All patches have been committed to the branch. Martin >From

[PATCH 2/2] [graphite] fix PR67984: check for constants in rename map

--- gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c| 98 - gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/pr67984.c | 17 ++ 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/pr67984.c diff --git a/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c

[PATCH 1/2] [graphite] move all declarations to a same .h file

--- gcc/graphite-dependences.c | 2 +- gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c | 3 +- gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.h | 26 --- gcc/graphite-optimize-isl.c | 2 +- gcc/graphite-poly.c | 2 +- gcc/graphite-poly.h | 466 --

Re: [PATCH], Add power9 support to GCC, patch #10 (SFmode/DFmode d-form addressing)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Michael Meissner wrote: > This patch d-form addressing to float/double scalars for the PowerPC that was > added in ISA 3.0 (power9). This patch does not yet turn on D-form addressing > as default. It is likely that patch #11, which

[PATCH] shrink-wrap: Fix thinko (PR68520)

Part of the shrink-wrapping algorithm has this comment: /* Now see if we can put the prologue at the start of PRO. Putting it there might require duplicating a block that cannot be duplicated, or in some cases we cannot insert the prologue there at all. If PRO wont't do, try

Re: [PATCH] shrink-wrap: Fix thinko (PR68520)

On 11/24/2015 07:13 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: PR rtl-optimization/68520 * shrink-wrap.c (try_shrink_wrapping): Don't push a block to VEC if its bit was already set in BB_WITH. Ok. Bernd

RE: [Patch, MIPS] Frame header optimization for MIPS (part 2)

> -Original Message- > From: Steve Ellcey [mailto:sell...@imgtec.com] > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:08 PM > To: Myers, Joseph > Cc: Bernd Schmidt; Mike Stump; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; > matthew.fort...@imgtec.com; Moore, Catherine > Subject: Re: [Patch, MIPS] Frame header

Re: [PATCH] lround for PowerPC

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 07:04:33PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > I would prefer that you reverse the meaning of "Fv" and "Fv2". "Fv" > corresponds to VSX2 and "Fv2" corresponds to VSX, which is confusing > for anyone trying to make sense of this in the future. > > Also, the lrounddi2 pattern

Re: Fix verify_type ICE during Ada bootstrap

> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > Hi, > > this patch fixes verify_type ICE while building Ada. The problem is that > > we end up with INTEGER_TYPE that has TYPE_ALIAS_SET buts its main variant > > is integer_type_node that is built in LTO and has non-zero alias set. > > > > This

Re: [PATCH] Add LANG_HOOKS_EMPTY_RECORD_P for C++ empty class

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:53 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Richard Biener >>>

Re: [PATCH, PING*4] Track indirect calls for call site information in debug info.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:31:11PM +0100, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > On 11/23/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > >Jakub, since DW_TAG_GNU_call_site is your feature, could you review this? > > As Jeff Law suggested in the “GCC 6 Status Report” thread, I’ve added > Alexandre Oliva to the

Re: [PATCH] Add LANG_HOOKS_EMPTY_RECORD_P for C++ empty class

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:53 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:53 PM, H.J. Lu

Re: [PATCH, PING*4] PR debug/53927: fix value for DW_AT_static_link

On 08/31/2015 09:28 AM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: Ping for the patch submitted in . As Jason noticed in another thread, I forgot to attach the patch here (although it’s filed in the bug tracker). Here it is! Rebased against trunk,

Re: [PATCH 12/12] always define ENABLE_OFFLOADING

Hi! On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:52:08 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote: > There are 2 new uses of "#ifdef ENABLE_OFFLOADING" in c_parser_oacc_declare > and > cp_parser_oacc_declare. > I don't know how to properly test OpenACC, so here is untested patch. "make check"? ;-) (Offloading

Re: [PATCH, PING*4] Track indirect calls for call site information in debug info.

On 11/23/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: Jakub, since DW_TAG_GNU_call_site is your feature, could you review this? As Jeff Law suggested in the “GCC 6 Status Report” thread, I’ve added Alexandre Oliva to the discussion to review the var-tracking part. Also, I’ve

Re: [PATCH, PING*3] DWARF: materialize subprogram renamings in Ada as imported declarations

On 11/23/2015 10:00 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: DWARF changes are OK. The other changes are in the Ada front-end. Eric approved them offline already, so I’ve pushed them. By the way, a lot of changes were already merged by Arnaud Charlet a couple of days ago. Thank you both for the review!

Re: [PATCH] lround for PowerPC

Whoops, I forgot to update the ChangeLog after reversing Fv and Fv2. 2015-11-24 David Edelsohn Michael Meissner * config/rs6000/rs6000.md (UNSPEC_XSRDPI): New unspec. (Fv2): New mode attribute to be used when ISA

Re: Enable pointer TBAA for LTO

> > Now alias set of the initialization is alias set of "struct a". The alias > > set > > of of the pointer store is "float *". We ask alias oracle if "struct a" can > > conflict with "float *" and answer is no, because "int *" (component of > > struct > > b) and "float *" are not conflicting.

Re: [PATCH] lround for PowerPC

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Michael Meissner wrote: > Whoops, I forgot to update the ChangeLog after reversing Fv and Fv2. > > 2015-11-24 David Edelsohn > Michael Meissner > > *

Re: Use TBAA for lto-symtab decl merging warnings

On November 24, 2015 7:23:40 AM GMT+01:00, Jan Hubicka wrote: >Hi, Doc talks about COMMON, parm is COMMON_OR_EXTERN. > static int >-warn_type_compatibility_p (tree prevailing_type, tree type) >+warn_type_compatibility_p (tree prevailing_type, tree type, >+

Re: Fix verify_type ICE during Ada bootstrap

> > > > We do already wrap all bases into MEM_REFs at streaming time, it would > > be easy to adjust it to make it effectively alias-set zero. But of > > course the overhead and the downstream effects of having more MEM_REFs > > (we strip the unneeded ones at stream-in) are unknown (compared to

Re: Use TBAA for lto-symtab decl merging warnings

On November 24, 2015 8:29:10 PM GMT+01:00, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >On November 24, 2015 7:23:40 AM GMT+01:00, Jan Hubicka >wrote: >>Hi, > >Doc talks about COMMON, parm is COMMON_OR_EXTERN. > >> static int >>-warn_type_compatibility_p (tree

Re: [PATCH][RTL-ifcvt] PR rtl-optimization/68435 Allow (c ? x++ : x--) form

On 11/23/2015 08:35 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, In this PR we fail to if-convert a case where in the expression x = c ? a : b; 'a' and 'b' are something like x + 1 and x - 1. So x appears in a and b. The code that checks that nothing from the else block modifies the registers used in a

Re: [ptx] Fix sso tests

Hi! On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:16:12 -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > The gcc.dg/sso tests gratuitously fail on PTX because they use IO facilities > that don't exist there. This patch changes the dumping to use the putchar > function call (and not a macro), and not use fputs. >

Fix verify_type ICE during Ada bootstrap

Hi, this patch fixes verify_type ICE while building Ada. The problem is that we end up with INTEGER_TYPE that has TYPE_ALIAS_SET buts its main variant is integer_type_node that is built in LTO and has non-zero alias set. This is will lead to wrong code if function using integer built with

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r253555.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:51:05AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > Ok, I posted a fix to upstream (http://reviews.llvm.org/D14921) yesterday, > but it's still not reviewed. So, I'm wondering if I should fix the issue > locally? > Attaching proposed fix following Jakub's suggestion. > > Christophe

Re: Enable pointer TBAA for LTO

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > Please in future leave patches for review again if you do such > > big changes before committing... > > Uhm, sorry, next time I will be more cureful. It seemed rather easy after > debugging it but indeed it is somewhat surprising issue. > > > >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] remove val_ssa_equiv_hash_traits

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote: > From: Trevor Saunders > > Hi, > > this is pretty trivial cleanup after the previous patch, but could wait for > next stage 1 if people don't like the very small risk. > > boostrappped + regtested on

Re: [PATCH 1/2] destroy values as well as keys when removing them from hash maps

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote: > From: Trevor Saunders > > Hi, > > This fixes several leaks where a hash_map user expected deleting the map to > destruct the value part of entries as well as the key. A couple of these bugs > have already been

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r253555.

On 24/11/15 11:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:51:05AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Ok, I posted a fix to upstream (http://reviews.llvm.org/D14921) yesterday, but it's still not reviewed. So, I'm wondering if I should fix the issue locally? Attaching proposed fix following

Re: Enable pointer TBAA for LTO

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > On November 23, 2015 5:50:25 PM GMT+01:00, Jan Hubicka > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I think it also causes the following and one related ICE > > >> > > >> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr62021.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (internal > > >compiler > >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r253555.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:36:20AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > Ok, does it look better now? Sure, this is ok for trunk. > diff --git a/libsanitizer/ChangeLog b/libsanitizer/ChangeLog > index b97fc7d..c392c57 100644 > --- a/libsanitizer/ChangeLog > +++ b/libsanitizer/ChangeLog > @@ -1,3 +1,7

[gomp4] Re: [OpenACC] declare directive

Hi! On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:37:20 +0100, I wrote: > A few things I noticed when working on merging your trunk r230275 into > gomp-4_0-branch. [...] I have now committed the merge of your trunk r230275 into gomp-4_0-branch, in r230787. This was non-trivial: the implementation of OpenACC declare

[Ada] Fix C++ interfacing bug on 32-bit Windows

This fixes a regression present on mainline and 5 branch pertaining to the calling convention used for an imported function with CPP convention on 32-bit Windows. This platform is special because C++ methods use a special calling convention ("thiscall") and we obviously need to do the same on

Add a way to free tree node

Hi, while looking into the earlier bug I noticed that type_hash_canon is used to avoid producing type duplicates. The type is however created, then looked up in the cache and if it exists it is never used. The function takes care to remove the code found memory stats but never actually free it.

[Ada] Fix crash on renaming of unconstrained array in ASIS mode

This fixes a crash in an obscure case in ASIS mode. Tested on x86-64/Linux, applied on the mainline. 2015-11-24 Eric Botcazou * gcc-interface/trans.c (gnat_to_gnu): In type_annotate_only mode, do not build a NULL_EXPR for an N_Expanded_Name. -- Eric

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r253555.

On 24/11/15 11:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:36:20AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Ok, does it look better now? Sure, this is ok for trunk. diff --git a/libsanitizer/ChangeLog b/libsanitizer/ChangeLog index b97fc7d..c392c57 100644 --- a/libsanitizer/ChangeLog +++

Re: Fix verify_type ICE during Ada bootstrap

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > this patch fixes verify_type ICE while building Ada. The problem is that > we end up with INTEGER_TYPE that has TYPE_ALIAS_SET buts its main variant > is integer_type_node that is built in LTO and has non-zero alias set. > > This is will lead to

[Ada] Process entry, protected and task bodies in ASIS mode.

Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline. 2015-11-24 Eric Botcazou * gcc-interface/decl.c (gnat_to_gnu_entity) : In ASIS mode, do a minimal translation for root types with discriminants. * gcc-interface/trans.c (gnat_to_gnu) : Move

Re: Fix computation of TYPE_CANONICAL of VECTOR_TYPE

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > this patch fixes ICE triggered by extra sanity check I added while fixing > another type checking ICE during Ada bootstrap. > > The canonical types of verctor typs are not constructed correctly. If > make_vector_type is called with INNERTYPE being

Re: [PATCHES, PING*5] Enhance standard DWARF for Ada

On 11/23/2015 10:08 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/23/2015 08:53 AM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: Do you think the other patches could make it before the branch? (if they could, I will rebase+retest them as quick as possible). Probably, yes. I can't find the DW_AT_static_link patch, though;

Re: [PATCH,RFC] Introduce RUN_UNDER_VALGRIND in test-suite

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, Martin Li?ka wrote: > On 11/21/2015 05:26 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Martin Li?ka wrote: > >> Hello. > >> > >> In last two weeks I've removed couple of memory leaks, mainly tight to > >> middle-end. > >> Currently, a user of the GCC compiler can

Re: [RFC] Combine vectorized loops with its scalar remainder.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Did you have a chance to look at this? It's on my list - I'm still swamped with patches to review. Richard. > Thanks. > Yuri. > > 2015-11-13 13:35 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev : >> Hi

Re: Add a way to free tree node

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > while looking into the earlier bug I noticed that type_hash_canon is used to > avoid producing type duplicates. The type is however created, then looked up > in the cache and if it exists it is never used. The function

Re: [PATCH AArch64]Handle REG+REG+CONST and REG+NON_REG+CONST in legitimize address

On 24/11/15 09:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote: The aarch64's problem is we don't define addptr3 pattern, and we don't >> have direct insn pattern describing the "x + y << z". According to >> gcc internal: >> >> ‘addptrm3’ >> Like addm3

Re: Port libvtv to Solaris

Rainer Orth writes: > Now that init priority support on Solaris is on mainline, porting libvtv > proved to be relatively easy, though it discovered a couple of quirks on > a non-gld non-x86 platform. This patch has now remained unreviewed for a week. With both

Re: [PATCH] GCC system.h and Graphite header order

I note doc/install.texi says that gcc uses "ISL Library version 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, or 0.12.2". This patch breaks the build with 0.12.2 (a subset of errors below), but seems fine with 0.14. I haven't tested 0.13. Do we want to update install.texi ? Cheers, Alan In file included from

Re: [Aarch64] Use vector wide add for mixed-mode adds

This is a followup patch which addresses formatting comments posted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02611.html 2015-11-24 Michael Collison * config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (widen_ssum, widen_usum) (aarch64_w_internal): New patterns *

Re: [PATCH][AArch64][v2] Improve comparison with complex immediates followed by branch/cset

On 23/11/15 15:01, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 23/11/15 14:58, James Greenhalgh wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:33:01AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 12/11/15 12:05, James Greenhalgh wrote: On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:43:24PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, Bootstrapped and tested on

Re: [PATCH AArch64]Handle REG+REG+CONST and REG+NON_REG+CONST in legitimize address

On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> The aarch64's problem is we don't define addptr3 pattern, and we don't >>> >> have direct insn pattern describing the "x + y << z". According to >>> >> gcc internal: >>> >> >>> >> ‘addptrm3’ >>> >> Like addm3 but is guaranteed to only be used for address

Re: RFA: PATCH to match.pd for c++/68385

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 11/21/2015 01:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> What happens if we remove the nops stripping from integer_zerop? Do other >> integer predicates strip nops? > > > Many predicates do, but removing that doesn't break

Re: [PATCH/RFC] C++ FE: expression ranges (v2)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 11/23/2015 12:07 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:53:40AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote: Does the following look like

Re: [PATCH 4/4][AArch64] Add cost model for Exynos M1

On 06/11/15 00:09, Evandro Menezes wrote: 2015-10-25 Evandro Menezes gcc/ * config/aarch64/aarch64-cores.def: Use the Exynos M1 cost model. * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (exynosm1_addrcost_table): New variable. (exynosm1_regmove_cost): Likewise.

Re: [PATCH/RFC] C++ FE: expression ranges (v2)

On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 10:40 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 11/23/2015 12:07 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at

Re: [PATCH][cfgloop] PR middle-end/68375: Restructure get_loop_body_in_bfs_order to handle loops with only a header

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > The ICE in this PR occurs when trying to dump the CFG to a .dot file. > The i > vc assert at the bottom of the loop in get_loop_body_in_bfs_order > gets triggered when i == 1 and vc == 1. This is not a

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r253555.

On 24 November 2015 at 09:58, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > On 24/11/15 11:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:36:20AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: >>> >>> Ok, does it look better now? >> >> Sure, this is ok for trunk. >> >>> diff --git

Unreviewed libstdc++ patch

The following libstdc++ patch [v3] Handle C++11 overloads on Solaris 12 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02075.html has remained unreviewed for a week. It fixes a Solaris 12 bootstrap failure and is especially important for the gcc-5 branch at this point. With the

Re: [AARCH64][PATCH 3/3] Adding tests to check proper error reporting of out of bounds accesses to vmulx_lane* NEON intrinsics

I've made the change you've requested. Changelog & patch description are below. Thanks, Bilyan --- This patch from the series adds tests that check for the proper error reporting of out of bounds accesses to all the vmulx_lane NEON intrinsics variants. The tests were added separately from the

[PATCH, libgomp] Rewire OpenACC async

Hi, this patch reworks some of the way that asynchronous copyouts are implemented for OpenACC in libgomp. Before this patch, we had a somewhat confusing way of implementing this by having two refcounts for each mapping: refcount and async_refcount, which I never got working again after the last

[PATCH][cfgloop] PR middle-end/68375: Restructure get_loop_body_in_bfs_order to handle loops with only a header

Hi all, The ICE in this PR occurs when trying to dump the CFG to a .dot file. The i > vc assert at the bottom of the loop in get_loop_body_in_bfs_order gets triggered when i == 1 and vc == 1. This is not a problem for that loop because it contains only a header and it's not going to go around

Re: [Aarch64] Use vector wide add for mixed-mode adds

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:24:30AM -0700, Michael Collison wrote: > This is a followup patch which addresses formatting comments posted here: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02611.html > > 2015-11-24 Michael Collison > *

Re: [PATCH, 10/16] Add pass_oacc_kernels pass group in passes.def

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 24/11/15 14:13, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > > >On 23/11/15 11:02, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > >On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 20/11/15 14:29, Richard Biener

Re: update zlib to 1.2.8

> No, just a packaging issue with somebody mentioning a static binutils build. > That's when I saw the outdated version. > > Now updated in the GCC VCS. OK, if you have updated the GCC sources, would you mind updating the binutils-gdb.git as well? We should really keep the two as much in sync as

Re: [PATCH AArch64]Handle REG+REG+CONST and REG+NON_REG+CONST in legitimize address

On 24/11/15 13:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 24/11/15 13:06, Jiong Wang wrote: On 24/11/15 10:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote: I presume you are aware of the canonicalization rules for add? That is, for a shift-and-add operation, the shift operand must appear first. Ie. (plus (shift (op,

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve add immediate expansion

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 12:44:40PM +0100, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > This patch improves add immediate expansion by always expanding complex adds > into a move immediate > and an add. This enables CSE of all complex immediates. A separate split > pattern enables combine to > emit a 2-instruction

Re: [PATCH AArch64]Handle REG+REG+CONST and REG+NON_REG+CONST in legitimize address

On 24/11/15 14:36, Jiong Wang wrote: > > > On 24/11/15 13:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> On 24/11/15 13:06, Jiong Wang wrote: >>> >>> On 24/11/15 10:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote: I presume you are aware of the canonicalization rules for add? That is, for a shift-and-add operation,

[PING^2][PATCH] Improve C++ loop's backward-jump location

Ping? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg01192.html I guess we want C and C++ behave the same here? > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > * cp-gimplify.c (genericize_cp_loop): Change LOOP_EXPR's location > to start of loop body instead of start of loop. > >

[hsa] Redesign busy loop waiting so that a kernel dispatch signal can be reused

Hello. Following patch is a workaround for Carrizo devices that tend to have problems with propagation of signal values due to an issue with L2. Commited to the branch. Martin >From ca4475aedb47e49b4bdc0a8980f200ec93b31d61 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date: Tue, 24 Nov

Re: [PATCH, 10/16] Add pass_oacc_kernels pass group in passes.def

On 24/11/15 15:33, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: On 24/11/15 14:13, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: On 23/11/15 11:02, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: On 20/11/15 14:29, Richard Biener wrote:

Re: [PATCH][ARM] PR 49526: Add support for smmul,smmla,smmls instructions

Hi Kyrill, On 24 November 2015 at 14:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Ping. > > Thanks, > Kyrill > > > > On 13/11/15 11:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> >> Ping. >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg00686.html >> >> Thanks, >> Kyrill >> >> On 06/11/15 17:05, Kyrill

[PATCH] Improve verification of loop->latch in verify_loop_structure

[ was: Re: [PATCH] Check NULL loop->latch in verify_loop_structure ] On 23/11/15 11:28, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: Hi, In verify_loop_structure, we stop checking the latch once we find that it's NULL. This patch tries a bit harder: - if

Re: [PATCH 1/4 v2][AArch64] Generalize CCMP support

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:35:36PM +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > Sent: 17 November 2015 22:16 > > To: Wilco Dijkstra; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4][AArch64] Generalize CCMP support > > > > On 11/13/2015 05:02 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > > > *

Re: [PATCH] [ARM] neon-testgen.ml typo

On 13 November 2015 at 14:36, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 13 November 2015 at 12:24, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> >> On 13/11/15 11:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: Hmm. I hadn't noticed that the crypto intrinsics tests where generated by

  1   2   >