Re: Types are confused in inlining

2020-09-02 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:19 PM Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote: > > I'm not accusing inlining of having problems but I really > need to understand what's going on in this situation so I can > fix my optimization. > > The error given is: > main.c: In function ‘main’: > main.c:5:1: error: non-trivial con

git hooks update

2020-09-02 Thread Joseph Myers
I've updated the gcc-reposurgeon-8 test repository (git+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/home/gccadmin/gcc-reposurgeon-8.git) to use the same copy of the git hooks as used by binutils-gdb, glibc and other repositories on sourceware. All the features from local hook changes are now handled, with this new vers

Re: Future debug options: -f* or -g*?

2020-09-02 Thread David Blaikie via Gcc
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:12 AM Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi David, > > On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 20:10 -0700, David Blaikie wrote: > > Hey Mark - saw a little of/bits about your presentation at LPC 2020 GNU > > Tools Track (& your thread on on the gdb list about debug_names). > Wondering > > if you (or

Types are confused in inlining

2020-09-02 Thread Gary Oblock via Gcc
I'm not accusing inlining of having problems but I really need to understand what's going on in this situation so I can fix my optimization. The error given is: main.c: In function ‘main’: main.c:5:1: error: non-trivial conversion in ‘ssa_name’ 5 | main(void) | ^ struct type_t * unsigned

Re: Avoiding truncate/sign-extend of POImode on ppc target

2020-09-02 Thread Aaron Sawdey via Gcc
Meant to CC a few people, oops. Aaron Sawdey, Ph.D. saw...@linux.ibm.com IBM Linux on POWER Toolchain > On Sep 2, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Aaron Sawdey via Gcc wrote: > > > PR96791 is happening because DSE is trying to truncate a > POImode reg down to DImode. The POImode is created by a > structure

Avoiding truncate/sign-extend of POImode on ppc target

2020-09-02 Thread Aaron Sawdey via Gcc
PR96791 is happening because DSE is trying to truncate a POImode reg down to DImode. The POImode is created by a structure copy that gets inline expanded using lxvp/stxvp which we have defined using POImode. DSE recognizes that a following load overlaps with the stxvp and can be satisfied by a tr

Re: Future debug options: -f* or -g*?

2020-09-02 Thread Mark Wielaard
Hi David, On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 20:10 -0700, David Blaikie wrote: > Hey Mark - saw a little of/bits about your presentation at LPC 2020 GNU > Tools Track (& your thread on on the gdb list about debug_names). Wondering > if you (or anyone else you know who's contributing to debug info in GCC) > hav

Re: Question about exporting omputing alias sets

2020-09-02 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:04 AM Erick Ochoa wrote: > > Hello, > > I am trying to find out all pointers which alias a pointer and place > them in a set. > > I am using `ptr_derefs_may_alias_p` to find out if two pointers may > point to the same memory location. I think this yields conservative > re

Question about exporting omputing alias sets

2020-09-02 Thread Erick Ochoa
Hello, I am trying to find out all pointers which alias a pointer and place them in a set. I am using `ptr_derefs_may_alias_p` to find out if two pointers may point to the same memory location. I think this yields conservative results (i.e., when it cannot be proven that to pointers may alia

Re: [RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

2020-09-02 Thread Alexander Monakov via Gcc
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > Or we could decide that the extra multiplication is not that bad if it > > saves an addition, simplifies the expression, possibly gains more insn > > parallelism, etc, in which case we could just drop the existing hard > > single_use check... >

Re: [RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

2020-09-02 Thread Feng Xue OS via Gcc
>> >> > >> >> >> >> >> There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of >> >> >> code like: >> >> >> >> >> >> int foo (int n) >> >> >> { >> >> >> int t1 = 8 * n; >> >> >> int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); >> >> >> >> >> >> return t1 - t2; >> >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> It

Re: [RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

2020-09-02 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:35 AM Feng Xue OS wrote: > > > > >> > >> >> There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code > >> >> like: > >> >> > >> >> int foo (int n) > >> >> { > >> >> int t1 = 8 * n; > >> >> int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); > >> >> > >> >> return t1 -

Re: [RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

2020-09-02 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:27 AM Marc Glisse wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2020, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 8:20 AM Feng Xue OS via Gcc wrote: > >> > There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code > like: > > int foo (int n

Re: [RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

2020-09-02 Thread Feng Xue OS via Gcc
> >> >> >> There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code >> >> like: >> >> >> >> int foo (int n) >> >> { >> >> int t1 = 8 * n; >> >> int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); >> >> >> >> return t1 - t2; >> >> } >> >> >> >> It can be perfectly caught by the rule "(A * C)

Re: [RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

2020-09-02 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 8:20 AM Feng Xue OS via Gcc wrote: There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code like: int foo (int n) { int t1 = 8 * n; int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); return t1 - t2; } It can