Hello!
Recent patch introduced 10% runtime regression on x86_64 targets in
rnflow Polyhedron benchmark [1]. Did somebody alread bisected to the
offending patch?
[1] http://gcc.opensuse.org/c++bench/polyhedron/polyhedron-summary.txt-2-0.html
Uros.
Hi Uros,
Recent patch introduced 10% runtime regression on x86_64 targets in
rnflow Polyhedron benchmark [1]. Did somebody alread bisected to the
offending patch?
I see it since some time. It is on my TODO list to open a new PR.
You can suppress the slowdown with -fno-tree-loop-if-convert.
I
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
All changes need explicit release manager approval until the final
release of GCC 4.7.2 which should happen roughly one week after
the release candidate if no issues show up with it.
The backport of changes required to
On 2012-09-14 16:17:43 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
round-to-odd would be a good solution if it were provided directly
in hardware. Otherwise a direct implementation would probably be
more efficient (in particular when the implementation of the
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Then, between implementing round-to-odd and implementing a direct
formatOf operation, I don't think there is much difference concerning
the work to do (I would even say that round-to-odd could require more
work).
The difference would probably be
Hello,
HelloGcc Working Group was set up in 2007 by Chinese free software
fans and developers in Beijing. With the goal of constructing a free,
open, sharing technical community, we not only discuss and learn about
GNU toolchains (such as GCC, GDB, Binutils etc) and QEMU, LLVM, etc,
provide helps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54222
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
07:59:34 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Sep 17 07:59:29 2012
New Revision: 191376
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191376
Log:
PR target/54222
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54605
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54595
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54592
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54604
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54564
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
09:16:47 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 17 09:16:39 2012
New Revision: 191377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191377
Log:
PR target/54564
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54589
--- Comment #2 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com 2012-09-17 09:18:16 UTC ---
FWIW, in my original code, func() is a part of a loop body (it keeps reading
values from src in a loop). It doesn't really change anything in the generated
code, though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54563
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
09:18:44 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 17 09:18:35 2012
New Revision: 191378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191378
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54563
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54592
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54599
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54598
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54603
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
12:30:29 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Sep 17 12:30:16 2012
New Revision: 191382
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191382
Log:
2012-09-17 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54603
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54285
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17 12:50:40 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Sep 17 12:50:34 2012
New Revision: 191383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191383
Log:
2012-09-17 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54285
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54606
Bug #: 54606
Summary: reference assignment failing/points at previous object
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54606
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54601
--- Comment #4 from Perry Smith pedzsan at gmail dot com 2012-09-17 14:18:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
To be included the patch needs to be against trunk.
I don't mind trying to redo this against trunk but I need some help learning
how
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54607
Bug #: 54607
Summary: [avr]: Canadian cross build fails because
gen-avr-mmcu-texi.c is compiled with the wrong
compiler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54607
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
15:22:56 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Sep 17 15:22:37 2012
New Revision: 191390
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191390
Log:
PR target/54607
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54608
Bug #: 54608
Summary: Wrong-code with SCAN and VERIFY
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54575
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53661
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
15:42:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
7.2p7 starts as For an enumeration whose underlying type is
fixed,, so does not apply.
That's just the first sentence; the rest of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54607
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54598
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
16:03:53 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Sep 17 16:03:44 2012
New Revision: 191394
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191394
Log:
PR lto/54598
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53661
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
16:06:10 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Sep 17 16:06:03 2012
New Revision: 191395
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191395
Log:
PR c++/53661
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54598
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53661
--- Comment #12 from Harald van Dijk harald at gigawatt dot nl 2012-09-17
16:25:09 UTC ---
Oops, quite right, sorry about that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53661
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
16:41:49 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Sep 17 16:41:41 2012
New Revision: 191398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191398
Log:
PR c++/53661
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53661
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53661
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
-4.8-20120917/libbacktrace -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-Wmissing-format-attribute -Wcast-qual -Werror -I
../../gcc-4.8-20120917/libbacktrace/../include -I ../libgcc -g -MT unknown.lo
-MD -MP -MF .deps/unknown.Tpo -c ../../gcc-4.8-20120917
../../gcc-4.8-20120917/libbacktrace -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-Wmissing-format-attribute -Wcast-qual -Werror -I
../../gcc-4.8-20120917/libbacktrace/../include -I ../libgcc -g -MT unknown.lo
-MD -MP -MF .deps/unknown.Tpo -c ../../gcc-4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54609
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-09-17
17:19:35 UTC ---
../gcc-4.8-20120917/configure --prefix=/sw --prefix=/sw/lib/gcc4.8
--mandir=/sw/share/man --infodir=/sw/lib/gcc4.8/info
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
Generated with...
gcc-fsf-4.7 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../gcc-4.8-20120917/libbacktrace -W -Wall
-Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-Wmissing-format-attribute -Wcast-qual -Werror -I
../../gcc-4.8-20120917/libbacktrace/../include -I ../libgcc -g -MT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54610
Bug #: 54610
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c
(internal compiler error) on x86 AVX targets
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54610
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54604
--- Comment #2 from Jordan DeLong delong.j at fb dot com 2012-09-17 17:35:34
UTC ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54609
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
17:43:32 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Sep 17 17:43:26 2012
New Revision: 191402
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191402
Log:
PR bootstrap/54609
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54609
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54608
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
17:53:48 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Sep 17 17:53:37 2012
New Revision: 191403
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191403
Log:
2012-09-17 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29234
poletti.marco at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||poletti.marco at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29234
--- Comment #5 from poletti.marco at gmail dot com 2012-09-17 17:55:54 UTC ---
Still an issue with GCC 4.7.1.
Clang does not have this issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29234
--- Comment #6 from poletti.marco at gmail dot com 2012-09-17 17:57:58 UTC ---
Still an issue with GCC 4.7.1.
Clang does not have this issue.
Yet another example:
struct C {
void operator[](C) {
}
};
void f() {
C x;
(C()[x]);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54608
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
--- Comment #30 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 2012-09-17 19:28:19
UTC ---
Created attachment 28205
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28205
Build patched Sourcery (Mentor Graphics) CodeBench Lite GCC 4.6-2011.09-23 for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54611
Bug #: 54611
Summary: [4.8 regression] Bootstrap failure: conflicting typ
es for 'backtrace_simple'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54611
--- Comment #1 from gerald at gcc dot gnu.org gerald at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-17 20:57:21 UTC ---
Author: gerald
Date: Mon Sep 17 20:57:16 2012
New Revision: 191405
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191405
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54611
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
21:14:55 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Sep 17 21:14:51 2012
New Revision: 191408
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191408
Log:
PR bootstrap/54611
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54611
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54508
--- Comment #2 from Paul Koning paul_koning at dell dot com 2012-09-17
21:31:29 UTC ---
I just submitted a proposed fix to the gcc-patches list.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
--- Comment #31 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 2012-09-17 21:44:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 28206
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28206
Patches for GCC 4.6.3
Patches to fix stack limit checking for GCC 4.6.3 for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Alexander Kornienko alexfh at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexfh at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52483
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54591
Uenal Mutlu temp78593 at mutluit dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |MOVED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-17
23:29:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 28207
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28207
Arithmetic right shift rework
I have tried to apply the same strategies to
Hello libiberty experts,
I don't see anything saying that sha1_process_block() has a size limit
on its input buffer, and if the length of the buffer is big (e.g.,
2^32 on a 64-bit machine) then this code won't correctly add a 64-bit
number to 64-bit number:
/* First increment the byte count.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
--- Comment #32 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 2012-09-18 02:16:32
UTC ---
Created attachment 28208
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28208
Build patched GNU GCC 4.6.3 for ColdFire uClinux
Shell script to download,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54584
--- Comment #2 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 2012-09-18 02:44:43 UTC
---
The Sourcery (Mentor Graphics) ColdFire uClinux SDK I use uses binutils-1.21.
I installed binutils-2.22 and the latest uClinux elf2flt (downloaded 20120730).
$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54575
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-18
03:47:39 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Sep 18 03:47:35 2012
New Revision: 191412
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191412
Log:
PR c++/54575
* pt.c
This patch fixes some of the issues collected in the PR.
Some remarks to the changed in the attached patch:
- gcc_assert (*format++ == '$');
That code gets executed when
some error message with value %d for string %s
gets translated into
some error message for string %2$s with
Hello Michael,
On 12 Sep 2012, at 23:43, Michael Meissner wrote:
It would be nice to know if this doesn't break the other ppc
environments (AIX, Darwin) before I commit it. Are there any problems with
this patch?
For powerpc-darwin9, there are a couple of issues which I've hacked around
Now with the patch properly attached.
Apologies.
Sofiane
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Sofiane Naci
Sent: 13 September 2012 13:18
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [AArch64, AArch64-4.7] Fix target
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi!
As discussed in the PR, this patch fixes the ICE by calling
gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges if the last stmt has been replaced by the pass.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
Still, I
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
All changes need explicit release manager approval until the final
release of GCC 4.7.2 which should happen roughly one week after
the release candidate if no issues show up with it.
The backport of changes required to
On 09/05/2012 07:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
This patches fixes an integer overflow in libiberty, which leads to
crashes in binutils. The long version of the objalloc_alloc macro
would have needed another
On 08/21/2012 12:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I don't think there are any callers out there, but let's fix this for
completeness.
A compiler emitting code to call this function would still have to
perform overflow checks for the new T[n][m] case, so this interface is
not as helpful as it looks
On 17/09/2012 09:47, Tobias Burnus wrote:
This patch fixes some of the issues collected in the PR.
Some remarks to the changed in the attached patch:
- gcc_assert (*format++ == '$');
That code gets executed when
some error message with value %d for string %s
gets
On 14/09/12 19:02, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Hello,
this patch changes the ARM back-end to use vld1.64/vst1.64 instructions
instead of vldm/vstm -where possible- to implement double-word moves.
The main benefit of this is that it allows the compiler to provide
appropriate alignment hints,
On 14/09/12 21:34, Ben Cheng wrote:
Hi,
Recently we found out that the .interp section starts to show up in
ARM executables compiled with -shared -static and the gold linker
from binutils 2.22. We tracked down the origin of the dynamic linker
commands and they are always explicitly
Hi,
On 09/17/2012 11:51 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 08/21/2012 12:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I don't think there are any callers out there, but let's fix this for
completeness.
A compiler emitting code to call this function would still have to
perform overflow checks for the new T[n][m]
On 14/09/12 19:03, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Hello,
following up on the prior patch, this patch exploits more opportunities to
generate the vld1 / vst1 family of instructions, this time to implement the
vec_set and vec_extract patterns with memory scalar operands.
Without the patch,
Dear Tobias,
The following test case doesn't work; it should print Overloaded - and
does so with crayftn. But with your patch, it doesn't.
For some reason, I guess, the attribute defined_assign_comp is not
getting passed along to type 'b'.
+ build_assignment (gfc_exec_op op, gfc_expr *expr1,
Yes - now cfg_cleanup does that (and it really shouldn't be its job). That
was the improvement I talked about - reducing the number of BBs a lot.
OK, I removed the code and compiled the testcase of PR 43186 with --param max-
completely-peel-loop-nest-depth=32 and got back the explosion.
On 09/17/2012 12:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 09/17/2012 11:51 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 08/21/2012 12:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I don't think there are any callers out there, but let's fix this for
completeness.
A compiler emitting code to call this function would still have to
Hi all,
here is another proc-ptr patch, which allows to submit calls to
procedure-pointer components which have a procedure-pointer result.
This sounds a bit twisted (and I guess one has to suffer from some
very special form of mental illness in order to feel the urge to do
something like this),
The subject says it all:
Add CONST_FIXED_P predicate macro similar to CONST_INT_P to rtl.h.
Currently, CONST_FIXED_P is not used in the compiler, except in avr.c that does
#ifndef CONST_FIXED_P
#define CONST_FIXED_P(X) (CONST_FIXED == GET_CODE (X))
#endif
Ok for trunk?
If this change is fine,
structure constructures with proc-pointer arguments were either leading
to wrong results or to ICEs.
I use now the same condition as in gfc_trans_pointer_assignment.
Build and regtested on x86-64-linux.
OK for the trunk?
Tobias
2012-09-17 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR fortran/54603
*
On 09/17/2012 01:39 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
here is another proc-ptr patch, which allows to submit calls to
procedure-pointer components which have a procedure-pointer result.
This sounds a bit twisted (and I guess one has to suffer from some
Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk?
2012/9/15 Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de:
Canadian cross build fails because the wrong compiler is used to compile
gen-avr-mmcu-texi. This small tool must run on build and not on host, thus
the right compiler is CC_FOR_BUILD.
Just changing the compiler is not enough because files like
Hi Tobias,
structure constructures with proc-pointer arguments were either leading to
wrong results or to ICEs.
I use now the same condition as in gfc_trans_pointer_assignment.
Build and regtested on x86-64-linux.
OK for the trunk?
looks good to me. Thanks!
The scan-tree-dump-times
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
Yes - now cfg_cleanup does that (and it really shouldn't be its job). That
was the improvement I talked about - reducing the number of BBs a lot.
OK, I removed the code and compiled the testcase of PR 43186 with
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de wrote:
The subject says it all:
Add CONST_FIXED_P predicate macro similar to CONST_INT_P to rtl.h.
Currently, CONST_FIXED_P is not used in the compiler, except in avr.c that
does
#ifndef CONST_FIXED_P
#define
Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk?
Looks OK. Thanks for the patch.
Thanks a bunch. Committed as r191383.
Cheers,
Janus
2012-09-17 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/54285
* expr.c (gfc_check_pointer_assign): Correctly handle procedure
pointers
On 05/09/12 23:14, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hello,
Although the recent optimization I have committed to use Neon vext
instruction for suitable builtin_shuffle calls does not support
big-endian yet, I have written a patch to the existing testcases such
they now support big-endian mode.
I
Add __builtin_ppc_get_timebase and __builtin_ppc_mftb to read the Time
Base Register on PowerPC.
They are required by applications that measure time at high frequencies
with high precision that can't afford a syscall.
__builtin_ppc_get_timebase returns the 64 bits of the Time Base Register
while
Looks OK to me, though I have no authority to approve it
except SH specific part.
Is there any more comments? Can it be committed in trank?
Regards,
Vladimir
2012/9/14 Kaz Kojima kkoj...@rr.iij4u.or.jp:
Vladimir Yakovlev vbyakov...@gmail.com wrote:
I reproduced the failure and found reason
This makes use of the new builtin functions for FILE, LINE and FUNCTION
to turn gimple_build_assign_with_ops/gimple_build_assign_with_ops3 into
two overloads of gimple_build_assign_with_ops (in theory the _stats
function can go and we could move the inlines to gimple.c instead,
eventually
On 2012-09-17 09:25 , Richard Guenther wrote:
This makes use of the new builtin functions for FILE, LINE and FUNCTION
to turn gimple_build_assign_with_ops/gimple_build_assign_with_ops3 into
two overloads of gimple_build_assign_with_ops (in theory the _stats
function can go and we could move the
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 2012-09-17 09:25 , Richard Guenther wrote:
This makes use of the new builtin functions for FILE, LINE and FUNCTION
to turn gimple_build_assign_with_ops/gimple_build_assign_with_ops3 into
two overloads of gimple_build_assign_with_ops (in
OK for 4.7 as well?
-Original Message-
From: Richard Earnshaw
Sent: 14 September 2012 18:18
To: Ian Bolton
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, AArch64] Implement fnma, fms and fnms standard
patterns
On 14/09/12 18:05, Ian Bolton wrote:
The following standard
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
