Re: [PING] [PATCH] [MSP430] PR79242: Implement Complex Partial Integers

On 02/08/2018 09:54 AM, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote: > ping x1 > > Complex Partial Integers are unimplemented, resulting in an ICE when > attempting to use them. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79242 > This results in GCC7/8 for msp430-elf failing to build. > > typedef _Complex __int20

Re: [PATCH] avoid warning for members declared both aligned and packed (PR 84108)

On 02/02/2018 11:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > The design of the attribute exclusion framework includes > support for different exclusions applying to different > kinds of declarations (functions, types, and variables > or fields), but the support is incomplete -- the logic > to consider these 

Re: PR84239, Reimplement CET intrinsics for rdssp/incssp insn

On 02/12/2018 07:16 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Sandra Loosemore [mailto:san...@codesourcery.com] >> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 7:42 PM >> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V ; gcc- >> patc...@gcc.gnu.org >> Cc: Uros Bizjak

Re: [PATCH] correct -Wrestrict handling of arrays of arrays (PR 84095)

On 02/01/2018 04:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > The previous patch didn't resolve all the false positives > in the Linux kernel.  The attached is an update that fixes > the remaining one having to do with multidimensional array > members: > >   struct S { char a[2][4]; }; > >   void f (struct S 

Re: [PATCH] make -Wrestrict for strcat more meaningful (PR 83698)

On 01/16/2018 01:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > PR 83698 - bogus offset in -Wrestrict messages for strcat of > unknown strings, points out that the offsets printed by > -Wrestrict for possibly overlapping strcat calls with unknown > strings don't look meaningful in some cases.  The root cause > of 

Re: [PATCH] make -Wrestrict for strcat more meaningful (PR 83698)

On 01/16/2018 05:35 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 01/16/2018 02:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 01:36:26PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> --- gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-restrict.c    (revision 256752) >>> +++ gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-restrict.c    (working copy) >>> @@ -384,6 +384,12 @@

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/13/2018 01:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> On 02/13/2018 12:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM,

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR84101, account for function ABI details in vectorization costs

On 01/30/2018 02:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > This patch tries to deal with the "easy" part of a function ABI, > the return value location, in vectorization costing. The testcase > shows that if we vectorize the returned value but the function > doesn't return in memory or in a vector

Re: [PR81611] improve auto-inc

On 01/23/2018 08:42 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > These two patches fix PR81611. > > The first one improves forwprop so that we avoid adding SSA conflicting > by forwpropping the iv increment, which may cause both the incremented > and the original value to be live, even when the iv is copied

PING^2: [PATCH] i386: Add __x86_indirect_thunk_nt_reg for -fcf-protection -mcet

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:09 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:54 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> nocf_check attribute can be used with -fcf-protection -mcet to disable >> control-flow check by adding NOTRACK prefix before indirect branch. >> When

PING^2: [PATCH] i386: Add TARGET_INDIRECT_BRANCH_REGISTER

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 2:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> For >>> >>> --- >>> struct C { >>> virtual ~C(); >>> virtual void f();

Re: [PATCH] FIx endless match.pd recursion on cst1 + cst2 + cst3 (PR tree-optimization/84334)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:28:25PM -0400, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On February 13, 2018 6:51:29 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek > > wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > On the following testcase, we recurse infinitely, because > > > we have

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84279, powerpc64le ICE on cvc4

On 2/13/18 5:51 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:07:26PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: >> It's up to you whether you want the backport because you don't trust >> me being able to create a failing test case. :-) > > We can backport without having a failing testcase. Let's

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84279, powerpc64le ICE on cvc4

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:07:26PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 2/13/18 4:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> This patch passed bootstrap and retesting on powerpc64le-linux with > >> no regressions. Ok for mainline? > > > > Okay, thanks! Does this need backports? > > Committed with your

[PATCH, rs6000] (v2) PR84220 remove RS6000_BTI_NOT_OPAQUE refs from builtins table

Hi, This is (v2), which is notably more comprehensive than (v1). Some of our builtin definitions were allowing invalid parameters, and a subsequent ICE (on invalid code) were the result. This is due to the use of RS6000_BTI_NOT_OPAQUE (which allowed vector arguments), where a RS6000_BTI_INTSI

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Begin deprecation of -maltivec=be

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:11:36PM -0600, Kelvin Nilsen wrote: > PR 78303 was recently marked RESOLVED, WONTFIX. The resolution was to > deprecate the troublesome command-line option. > > This patch begins the process of deprecation by issuing a warning > message when this command-line option is

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 02/13/2018 04:05 PM, David Malcolm wrote: On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:37 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 01:59 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 13 Feb 2018 5:58 pm, "Martin Sebor" > wrote: I wanted to make the _n() functions like

[PATCH, rs6000, committed] Fix PR84372: test case gcc.target/powerpc/lvsl-lvsr.c fails on power9

Same problem as PR84365 and same fix. Committed as obvious. Peter PR target/84372 * gcc.target/powerpc/lvsl-lvsr.c: Also match lxv when compiling with -mcpu=power9. Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/lvsl-lvsr.c

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] PR84220 fix altivec_vec_sld and vec_sldw intrinsic definitions

On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 17:48 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:14:59AM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote: > > Our VEC_SLD definitions were mistakenly allowing the third argument to be > > of an invalid type, triggering an ICE (on invalid code) later in the build > >

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84279, powerpc64le ICE on cvc4

On 2/13/18 4:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> This patch passed bootstrap and retesting on powerpc64le-linux with >> no regressions. Ok for mainline? > > Okay, thanks! Does this need backports? Committed with your suggested change below. Thanks! It'd be easy to backport and should be

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:37 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/13/2018 01:59 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > > > > > > On 13 Feb 2018 5:58 pm, "Martin Sebor" > > wrote: > > > > > > I wanted to make the _n() functions like warning_n() more > >

Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index

On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we >> should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has >> testcases to boot! His patch

Re: [RFC][AARCH64] Machine reorg pass for aarch64/Falkor to handle prefetcher tag collision

Hi Kyrill, On 13 February 2018 at 20:47, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Kugan, > > On 12/02/18 23:58, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote: >> >> Implements a machine reorg pass for aarch64/Falkor to handle >> prefetcher tag collision. This is strictly not part of the loop >>

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 02/13/2018 01:59 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 13 Feb 2018 5:58 pm, "Martin Sebor" > wrote: I wanted to make the _n() functions like warning_n() more robust by letting them accept a tree argument (as well as offset_int and

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84279, powerpc64le ICE on cvc4

Hi! On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 09:34:30PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > PR84279 is a similar problem to PR83399, in that we generate an altivec > load/store through an explicit call to the altivec_{l,st}vx_v4si_2op > pattern and then due to spilling, we end up calling recog() and we match > an

[PATCH, rs6000, committed] Fix PR80370: Invalid option used in test case gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-3-p9-runnable.c

This patch removes an undocumented option that has since been deprecated and removed and was causing this test case to FAIL. The obvious patch below was approved by Segher offline. Committed. Peter PR target/84370 * gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-3-p9-runnable.c: Remove deprecated

Re: [RFC] Adds a target hook

Hi Kyrill, Thanks for the review. On 13 February 2018 at 20:58, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Kugan, > > On 12/02/18 23:53, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote: >> >> Adds a target hook TARGET_HW_MAX_MEM_READ_STREAMS. Loop unroller, if >> defined, will try to limit the

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 01:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 12:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On

Re: [PATCH] combine: Update links correctly for new I2 (PR84169)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:12:20PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:59:05PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > If there is a LOG_LINK between two insns, this means those two insns > > can be combined, as far as dataflow is concerned. There never should > > be a LOG_LINK

[PATCH, rs6000] Begin deprecation of -maltivec=be

PR 78303 was recently marked RESOLVED, WONTFIX. The resolution was to deprecate the troublesome command-line option. This patch begins the process of deprecation by issuing a warning message when this command-line option is specified. The patch has bootstrapped and tested without regressions

[PATCH, rs6000, committed] Fix PR84365: gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-7-le.c fails on power9

The following patch was approved offline by Segher to fix PR84365. The problem is when compiling with -mcpu=power9, we don't generate the LE unfriendly lxvd2x and instead emit an LE friendly lxv insn. Peter PR target/84365 * gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-7-le.c: Also match lxv when

Re: Merge from trunk to gccgo branch

I merged trunk revision 257637 to the gccgo branch. Ian

[C++ PATCH] Fix -Weffc++ warning on return in assignment op in templates (PR c++/84364)

Hi! Before r253599 check_return_expr would: if (WILDCARD_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (current_function_decl))) || (retval != NULL_TREE && type_dependent_expression_p (retval))) return retval; when processing_template_decl, and thus not issue the warning,

[PATCH] Fix a brown paper bag bug in my recent match.pd change (PR middle-end/84309)

Hi! When changing my recent match.pd fix to defer the -> exp2 (log2 (C) * x) optimization until later, I've swapped the two patterns and changed the first one to use exps and logs, but forgot to change the second one to use exp2s and log2s. For the testcase in the patch it actually didn't make a

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix -Weffc++ warning on return in assignment op in templates (PR c++/84364)

OK.

Re: [PATCH] jit: fix link on OS X and Solaris (PR jit/64089 and PR jit/84288)

Hi David, > libgccjit fails to link on OS X and Solaris due to jit/Make-lang.in, > due to the assumption there that the linker is GNU ld. Specifically, > jit/Make-lang.in hardcodes the use of two options: --version-script > and -soname. > > * on Darwin, --version-script doesn't seem to exist in

Re: [Patch, Fortran, F08] PR 84313: reject procedure pointers in COMMON blocks

2018-02-13 20:55 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener : > On February 13, 2018 8:14:33 PM GMT+01:00, Steve Kargl > wrote: >>On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:24:35PM +0100, Janus Weil wrote: >>> >>> As my last submission, this fixes fallout from >>>

Go patch committed: Don't export function descriptors for unexported names

The patch changes the Go frontend to not export function descriptors for unexported names. They aren't needed, and could potentially cause unlikely symbol name collisions. Also, the runtime package's reference to main could cause the runtime package to define main.main..f, which could also be

[PATCH] jit: fix link on OS X and Solaris (PR jit/64089 and PR jit/84288)

libgccjit fails to link on OS X and Solaris due to jit/Make-lang.in, due to the assumption there that the linker is GNU ld. Specifically, jit/Make-lang.in hardcodes the use of two options: --version-script and -soname. * on Darwin, --version-script doesn't seem to exist in the linker, and it

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: > Bug 84207 - Hard coded plural in gimple-fold.c points out one > of a number of warning_at() calls where warning_n() should have > been used. The attached patch both replaces the calls and also > changes the signatures of the warning_n(), error_n(), and

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 13 Feb 2018 5:58 pm, "Martin Sebor" wrote: I wanted to make the _n() functions like warning_n() more robust by letting them accept a tree argument (as well as offset_int and wide_int) in addition to HOST_WIDE_INT but I can't do it if they can't work with these types.

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/13/2018 12:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 12:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin

Re: [Patch, Fortran, F08] PR 84313: reject procedure pointers in COMMON blocks

On February 13, 2018 8:14:33 PM GMT+01:00, Steve Kargl wrote: >On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:24:35PM +0100, Janus Weil wrote: >> >> As my last submission, this fixes fallout from >>

New French PO file for 'gcc' (version 8.1-b20180128)

Hello, gentle maintainer. This is a message from the Translation Project robot. A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted by the French team of translators. The file is available at: http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/fr.po (This file, 'gcc-8.1-b20180128.fr.po',

Re: [PATCH] FIx endless match.pd recursion on cst1 + cst2 + cst3 (PR tree-optimization/84334)

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Richard Biener wrote: On February 13, 2018 6:51:29 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! On the following testcase, we recurse infinitely, because we have float re-association enabled, but also rounding-math, so we try to optimize (cst1 + cst2) + cst3

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >> On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor

Re: [Patch, Fortran, F08] PR 84313: reject procedure pointers in COMMON blocks

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:24:35PM +0100, Janus Weil wrote: > > As my last submission, this fixes fallout from > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/AIHRQ2kJv3c. > As the last one, it is a very simple fix for an accepts-invalid > problem (which is not a

Re: [PATCH] avoid warning for members declared both aligned and packed (PR 84108)

Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00125.html On 02/02/2018 11:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: The design of the attribute exclusion framework includes support for different exclusions applying to different kinds of declarations (functions, types, and variables or fields), but the

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:08:24PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > PR sanitizer/84307 > * gcc.dg/asan/pr84307.c: New test. BTW, your testcase shows a more severe problem, that we actually don't handle compound literals correctly. C99 says that: "If the compound literal occurs outside

Re: [PATCH] Fix handling of variable length fields in structures (PR c/82210)

On 02/08/2018 11:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > When placing a variable length field into a structure, we need to update > rli->offset_align for the next field. We do: > rli->offset_align = MIN (rli->offset_align, desired_align); > which updates it according to the start of that VLA

[committed][PATCH] Fix another minor rl78 build failure

This is enough to get it to build cc1. Installed on the trunk. Jeff * config/rl/rl78.c (rl78_attribute_table): Fix terminator and entry for "vector". diff --git a/gcc/config/rl78/rl78.c b/gcc/config/rl78/rl78.c index 5158e83c364..8346c9c31e0 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rl78/rl78.c

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/13/2018 07:47 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> I really don't think it's helpful to try to force noreturn >>> to match between the primary

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: While testing my fix for 83871 (handling attributes on explicit specializations) I

[Patch, Fortran, F08] PR 84313: reject procedure pointers in COMMON blocks

Hi all, as the subject line says, the attached patch rejects procedure pointers in COMMON blocks (which is forbidden in F08). Since it's apparently legal in F03, I'm still accepting it with -std=f2003 and add that flag to a test case where this 'feature' is used. In another one, I'm adding the

[PATCH][committed] Fix trivial rl78 failure

I don't think this is sufficient to bring the rl78 back to a working state, but it's a necessary step. ARGS is unused in rl78_handle_func_attribute, but wasn't marked appropriately. Fixed in the obvious way. Committed to the trunk. Jeff commit 5c38c127433adad901f70bac0b9cff258ae831cd Author:

Re: Reduce inline limits a bit to compensate changes in inlining metrics

> Hi. > > I see quite SPEC 2006 benchmark changes for -Ofast -march=native: > (note that size changes are not presented all) Thanks! It is interesting that I do not see similar observations on Czerny which also runs spec2006. In partiuclar both AMD machines agrees on soplex milc and bwaves.

Re: [PATCH] FIx endless match.pd recursion on cst1 + cst2 + cst3 (PR tree-optimization/84334)

On February 13, 2018 6:51:29 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >On the following testcase, we recurse infinitely, because >we have float re-association enabled, but also rounding-math, so >we try to optimize (cst1 + cst2) + cst3 as (cst2 + cst3) + cst1 >but (cst2 +

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

On 02/13/2018 07:47 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I really don't think it's helpful to try to force noreturn to match between the primary and its specializations. I continue to disagree. Can you explain what use case you are

Re: [PATCH] Fix a brown paper bag bug in my recent match.pd change (PR middle-end/84309)

On February 13, 2018 6:54:36 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >When changing my recent match.pd fix to defer the -> exp2 (log2 (C) * >x) >optimization until later, I've swapped the two patterns and changed >the first one to use exps and logs, but forgot to change the

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 02/13/2018 10:07 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 13/02/18 03:10, Martin Sebor wrote: PS Is there any reason why diagnostic-core.h and diagnostic.c does not/should not include tree.h and other GCC headers? The short reason is that we want to keep the core diagnostics as independent of the

[PATCH] FIx endless match.pd recursion on cst1 + cst2 + cst3 (PR tree-optimization/84334)

Hi! On the following testcase, we recurse infinitely, because we have float re-association enabled, but also rounding-math, so we try to optimize (cst1 + cst2) + cst3 as (cst2 + cst3) + cst1 but (cst2 + cst3) doesn't simplify and we try again and optimize it as (cst3 + cst1) + cst2 and then (cst1

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

On 02/13/2018 08:59 AM, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: Removing noreturn from the whitelist means having to prevent the attribute from causing conflicts with the attributes on the blacklist. E.g., in this: template [[malloc]] void* allocate (int);

Re: [PATCH] adjust warning_n() to take uhwi (PR 84207)

On 13/02/18 03:10, Martin Sebor wrote: PS Is there any reason why diagnostic-core.h and diagnostic.c does not/should not include tree.h and other GCC headers? The short reason is that we want to keep the core diagnostics as independent of the rest of the compiler as possible so that using it

Re: [RX] Fix PR 83831 -- Unused bclr, bnot, bset insns

Hi Oleg, > OK for trunk? > gcc/ChangeLog: > > PR target/83831 > * config/rx/rx-protos.h (rx_reg_dead_or_unused_after_insn, > rx_copy_reg_dead_or_unused_notes, rx_fuse_in_memory_bitop): New > declarations. > (set_of_reg): New struct. > (rx_find_set_of_reg,

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On 02/13/2018 04:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 13/02/2018 14:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: The issue is that the ASAN_CHECK doesn't exist at early DSE time, and thus

Re: [PATCH][i386][3/3] PR target/84164: Make *cmpqi_ext_ patterns accept more zero_extract modes

On 02/09/2018 07:50 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Uros, > > On 08/02/18 22:54, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Kyrill  Tkachov >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This patch fixes some fallout in the i386 testsuite that occurs after >>> the >>>

Re: [PATCH v6] aarch64: Add split-stack support

Hi Adhemerval, A few comments on the assembly code: +# This function is called with non-standard calling convention: on entry +# x10 is the requested stack pointer, x11 is previous stack pointer (if +# functions has stacked arguments which needs to be restored), and x12 is +# the caller link

[RX] Fix PR 83831 -- Unused bclr, bnot, bset insns

Hi, The attached patch fixes the deficits mentioned in PR 83831 which is about unused bclr, bnot and bset instructions. For some simple cases, the combine pass can successfully fuse a load- modify-store insn sequence into an insn that operates on a memory directly.  However, in some cases where

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: While testing my fix for 83871 (handling attributes on explicit specializations) I noticed another old regression: while GCC 4.4

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 9/9] [IEPM] Introduce inline entry point markers

On 02/13/2018 06:43 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Feb 12, 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> This patch supersedes the previous one. Testing underway... Ok if it >> succeeds? > > I failed to update the patch I posted after making a correct to symbol > poisoning, that had

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84333 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with ternary operator in template function")

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 13/02/2018 15:35, Jason Merrill wrote: > Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't think I sent a complete solution for these > issues. In fact we would still ICE on: > > template int foo() > { > return sizeof(T) > 1 ? :

Re: [PATCH] RX TARGET_RTX_COSTS function

Hi, On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:54 +, Sebastian Perta wrote: >  > The patch required some changes (the prototype, second param more > exactly, has changed) in order to compile in the trunk. Could you please send the patch as an attachment?  The formatting looks a bit off (tabs spaces etc). >

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

Hi, On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: > >> Removing noreturn from the whitelist means having to prevent > >> the attribute from causing conflicts with the attributes on > >> the blacklist. E.g., in this: > >> > >> template [[malloc]] void* allocate (int); > >> > >> template <>

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84333 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with ternary operator in template function")

.. I should honestly add that now I don't really believe - as stated by Volker - that the issue, in any substantive way, is a recent, post 6.1.0, regression: for the GNU extension build_conditional_expr was definitely copying arg2 = arg1 before that release and using save_expr on arg1 and the

C++ PATCH for c++/84080, ICE with return type deduction and specialization

In this testcase, we were deducing T to be auto, which is nonsensical. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit e8579febf0ce4e02b6b9c447c0f3adec56c66abc Author: Jason Merrill Date: Tue Feb 13 10:09:38 2018 -0500 PR c++/84080 - ICE with return type

[PATCH] RX TARGET_RTX_COSTS function

Hello, DJ has posted a patch a few years ago which implements TARGET_RTX_COSTS for RX: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg8.html Nick has accepted the patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00012.html But it was never made it into the trunk. The patch required some

Re: Fix VR_ANTI_RANGE handling in intersect_range_with_nonzero_bits (PR 84321)

On 02/13/2018 08:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> VR_ANTI_RANGE is basically a union of two ranges, and although >> intersect_range_with_nonzero_bits had code to deal with the upper >> one being empty, it

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84333 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with ternary operator in template function")

Hi Jason, On 13/02/2018 15:35, Jason Merrill wrote: OK. Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't think I sent a complete solution for these issues. In fact we would still ICE on: template int foo() {   return sizeof(T) > 1 ? : 1; } because type_contains_placeholder_p doesn't know how to handle a

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On 02/13/2018 07:40 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: While testing my fix for 83871 (handling attributes on explicit specializations) I noticed another old regression: while GCC 4.4 would diagnose declarations of explicit

Re: Fix VR_ANTI_RANGE handling in intersect_range_with_nonzero_bits (PR 84321)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > VR_ANTI_RANGE is basically a union of two ranges, and although > intersect_range_with_nonzero_bits had code to deal with the upper > one being empty, it didn't handle the lower one being empty. > There were

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On 13/02/2018 14:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> The issue is that the ASAN_CHECK doesn't exist at early DSE time, and >>> thus causes the store to disappear. >> >> If it

Re: [PATCH v6] aarch64: Add split-stack support

On 07/02/18 18:07, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: 5. The TCB support on GLIBC is meant to be included in version 2.28. ... +/* -fsplit-stack uses a TCB field available on glibc-2.27. GLIBC also + exports symbol, __tcb_private_ss, to signal it has the field available + on TCB bloc. This aims

patch for PR84359

The following patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84359 Committed as rev. 257628. Index: testsuite/ChangeLog === --- testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 257627) +++ testsuite/ChangeLog (working copy) @@ -1,3

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 13/02/2018 10:32, Martin Liška wrote: > > > Hello. > > > > > > It caused PR84340, I'm suggesting following fix: > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > I really don't think it's helpful to try to force noreturn > to match between the primary and its specializations. I continue to disagree. Jason

Re: [PATCH] diagnose specializations of deprecated templates (PR c++/84318)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > While testing my fix for 83871 (handling attributes on explicit > specializations) I noticed another old regression: while GCC 4.4 > would diagnose declarations of explicit specializations of all > primary templates declared

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84333 ("[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with ternary operator in template function")

OK. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > this ICE on valid happens only with checking enabled - that explains why we > didn't notice it so far - but I think points to a minor but substantive > correctness issue. In short, we ICE when

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On 13/02/2018 14:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> Certainly, for now I'll revert. > Reversion is not the right thing, the "fn spec" attributes were clearly > incorrect. So, we should change them to something more conservative that > will work. That would only be "all dots", that is no fnspec at all.

C++ PATCH for more variadic capture issues

This patch fixes two issues: 1) We were failing to capture a parameter pack used by a pack expansion which needs to use PACK_EXPANSION_EXTRA_ARGS, because in that case we defer actual substitution until we have all the arguments we need. But by that time we're inside an instantiation of the

C++ PATCH for c++/84338, wrong variadic sizeof

Here sizeof... was improperly being resolved early on an argument pack consisting of a single pack expansion, when the sizeof... is still dependent. This turned out to be because of our handling of partial instantiation of a function parameter pack: I had previously changed extract_fnparm_pack to

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 9/9] [IEPM] Introduce inline entry point markers

On Feb 12, 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > This patch supersedes the previous one. Testing underway... Ok if it > succeeds? I failed to update the patch I posted after making a correct to symbol poisoning, that had caused builds to fail right away, sorry. Thanks, Rainer,

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:15:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 13/02/2018 10:32, Martin Liška wrote: > > Hello. > > > > It caused PR84340, I'm suggesting following fix: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84340#c3 > > I don't think EAF_DIRECT is the issue. You could think of

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:55:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 13/02/2018 00:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 09/02/2018 19:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:01:08PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH] WebAssembly: Disable subdirectory configuration for unsupported LD

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > * configure.ac (noconfigdirs): Add `ld'. > * configure: Regenerate. I have now committed this change to both repos. Maciej

Re: Reduce inline limits a bit to compensate changes in inlining metrics

Hi. I see quite SPEC 2006 benchmark changes for -Ofast -march=native: (note that size changes are not presented all) 1) gillan (AMD bulldozer): +--+---+--+--+---+---+---+ | Performance Regressions - Execution Time | Δ |

Re: [RFC] Tree loop unroller pass

Hi Kugan, > Based on the previous discussions, I tried to implement a tree loop > unroller for partial unrolling. I would like to queue this RFC patches > for next stage1 review. This is a great plan - GCC urgently requires a good unroller! > * Cost-model for selecting the loop uses the same

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On 13/02/2018 00:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 09/02/2018 19:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:01:08PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > which indeed fixes the testcase and seems not to break asan.exp.

Re: [PATCH] Improve dead code elimination with -fsanitize=address (PR84307)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 09/02/2018 19:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:01:08PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> which indeed fixes the testcase and seems not to break asan.exp. > >> > >> Huh. Need to double check why that makes

Re: Fallout: PR84340

On 13/02/2018 10:32, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > It caused PR84340, I'm suggesting following fix: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84340#c3 I don't think EAF_DIRECT is the issue. You could think of ASAN_MARK as writing a global variable, which it can do because it's not

  1   2   >