The fact it's not listed as a prerequesite has already been pointed
out as a problem with the docs.
As a consensual first step toward addressing this issue, I suggest the
following patch to the doc. I hope it is clear enough, but suggestions are
obviously welcome. (I haven't even compiled the
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20130728 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20130728/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On 7/28/13 8:16 AM, David Given wrote:
I am having a great deal of trouble getting register elimination (and
stack frame layouts in general) working properly on my architecture.
There is some fundamental issue I'm simply not getting here.
[...]
Weirdness (1): I never see ARG_POINTER_REGNUM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
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=51244
--- Comment #63 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30566
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30566action=edit
Reduced test
(In reply to Laurent Aflonsi from comment #58)
Created attachment 30524
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
Hello !
With GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130728 :
$ cat max.c
int a, b, c, d, e;
void f(void)
{
if(c)
goto lbl;
for(; 0; c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30567
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30567action=edit
Reduced test case
Reduced test case, which fails at least on my 86-64-gnu-linux system
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Bug ID: 58009
Summary: Elements with same value in vector subscript in
variable definition context
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
Hello !
Using GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130728 :
$ cat vect.c
short a, b, c, d;
void f(void)
{
short e;
for(; e; e++)
for(; b; b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
Using GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130728 :
$ cat seg.c
int a, b;
void f(unsigned p)
{
unsigned *pp = p;
if(!a)
p = 0;
for(b = 0; b 1; b++)
if(3 * p + 5 * *pp)
a = 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I also want to catch
a([i,j,i]) = ...
for which I cannot think of an algorithm which is O(n),
so I guess it will have to be O(n**2).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
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=58006
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
extern C float sqrtf (float);
extern int a;
extern int b;
struct Vector {
float i;
float j;
float Magnitude() const {
return sqrtf( i*i+j*j );
}
};
void f(){
int i = a;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #64 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Laurent Aflonsi from comment #61)
The movt(L2) and the tst(L3) are both removed, and that's coherent for that
run path, because it is preceded by the tst r2,r2.
But
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57435
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55789
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No, it does not work on 4.7.
I am inclined to say that it should be a WONTFIX.
Cheers
Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57435
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jul 28 14:13:17 2013
New Revision: 201293
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201293root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-07-28 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57435
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31016
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58012
Bug ID: 58012
Summary: Gcc bootstrap failed with cloog-isl: undefined
reference to std::istream::ignore(long)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57992
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Draft patch:
* Handles POINTER (- temporary), POINTER, CONTIGUOUS (- no temporary) and
ALLOCATABLE (-no temporary)
TODO
* Nonpointers, nonallocatables (like f3) are *not* handled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Yeah, any of those. I was inspired by glibc, which has for instance:
double
__fdim (double x,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #3 from shapero at uw dot edu ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
Created attachment 30567 [details]
Reduced test case
Reduced test case, which fails at least on my 86-64-gnu-linux system with a
recent GCC 4.9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58013
Bug ID: 58013
Summary: main() not generated in assembler output
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58003
--- Comment #3 from Chris Gilbreth cngilbreth at gmail dot com ---
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58006
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks Marc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58014
Bug ID: 58014
Summary: vshuf-v2si.C fails at -O3 on hppa64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58015
Bug ID: 58015
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/round_4.f90: Unsatisfied symbol
nextafterl
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #12 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #9)
I believe there are far fewer special cases (and thus
risks) with MPFR, but that would indeed require a suitable testsuite for all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
Bug ID: 58016
Summary: stdatomic.h missing in 4.8.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58017
Bug ID: 58017
Summary: [SH] Use shift and test for unsigned compare
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56791
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56668
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56307
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55625
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55626
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9702
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm*-* |arm*-* sh*-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
I don't know whether Andrew intends stdatomic.h to go in GCC or glibc, but
in any case I consider this a duplicate of bug 53769, which in turn I
don't really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58011
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52280
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail dot com ---
If GCC doesn't support C11, it should not claim to support C11 via
__STDC_VERSION__. The C11 standard definition isn't a recommendation from
which implementers can pick and choose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
4.9.0 20130728 (experimental) [trunk revision 201291] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.8 -O3 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘foo’:
small.c:9:6: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
void foo ()
^
0x7d4c4f crash_signal
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/toplev.c:334
Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com writes:
Index: gcc.dg/vect/pr57705.c
===
--- gcc.dg/vect/pr57705.c (revision 201177)
+++ gcc.dg/vect/pr57705.c (working copy)
@@ -61,5 +61,6 @@ main ()
return 0;
}
-/* {
On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 11:04 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
This patch is the hand-written part of the conversion of passes from
C structs to C++ classes. It does not work without the subsequent
autogenerated part, which is huge.
Given that the autogenerated part of the conversion is very large
Hi,
On 07/28/2013 06:13 AM, Tim Shen wrote:
Refractor the whole Thompson matcher using the queue-based(BFS)
Bellman-Ford algorithm. Fix the grouping problem.
Refactor, refactoring, etc, no 'r'.
If the grouping problem is now fixed, would it make sense to add
corresponding testcases?
Paolo.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
Refactor, refactoring, etc, no 'r'.
Thanks :)
If the grouping problem is now fixed, would it make sense to add
corresponding testcases?
They are already added by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-07/msg00643.html
Hi Maintainers,
This patch adds supports to handle return address via. frame pointer.
gcc/ChangeLog
-
2013-07-28 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_return_addr): Handle returning
address from a frame.
Hello world,
this patch yields an error for identical values in vector expression
subscripts. The algorithm is O(n**2) because
a) It would be impossible to detect a([i,i]) otherwise
b) This is not likely to be a performance bottleneck because
people don't use large vector indices.
(as
Hi,
On 07/28/2013 12:18 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
They are already added by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-07/msg00643.html (though I found
the changelog entry used old file names, I'll fix it later). This time
it's the BFS approach that can correctly handle the problem instead of
the DFS one.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
I see. I was wondering if in this development stage it would be convenient
to have somewhere a parameter allowing to switch by hand such internal
details, useful for testing purposes too. Eventually may or may not go
Hello Thomas,
Thomas Koenig wrote:
this patch yields an error for identical values in vector expression
Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
+ {
+ if (n-iterator != NULL)
+ continue;
+
+
I'm not aware of any significant use of -g1. It is very rare for
anyone
to mention it in a bug report for instance. Once upon a time (before
2002-03-19), it was used for compiling libgcc, but that was just to
ensure that it got tested somewhere. From my Cisco experience, I
would
agree
This patch fixes PR middle-end/56382 on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11. The
patch prevents moving a complex float by parts if we can't
create pseudos. On a big endian 64-bit target, we need a psuedo to
move a complex float and this fails during reload.
OK for trunk?
Dave
--
John David Anglin
That doesn't work on ia64.
Yeah, there are so many vectorizer failures on IA-64 that I gave up looking at
them some time ago. Maybe vect_pack_trunc should be false there too. At least
bb-slp-32.c now passes, so the overall number of failures hasn't increased. :-)
--
Eric Botcazou
On 07/27/13 15:18, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments.
I updated the patch:
2013/7/9 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
* It looks rather like microblaze*-*-* don't use elfos.h, so meaning
semantics aren't preserved for those (non-Linux) targets either.
Le 28/07/2013 14:57, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
Hello world,
this patch yields an error for identical values in vector expression
subscripts. The algorithm is O(n**2) because
a) It would be impossible to detect a([i,i]) otherwise
b) This is not likely to be a performance bottleneck because
On 07/28/2013 05:50 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
I see. I was wondering if in this development stage it would be convenient
to have somewhere a parameter allowing to switch by hand such internal
details, useful for testing
Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com writes:
At least bb-slp-32.c now passes, so the overall number of failures
hasn't increased. :-)
It's still an XFAIL, though.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
And
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
What it doesn't do:
* It doesn't implement the stdatomic.h header - do you intend that to be
provided by GCC or glibc?
(Substantive review of the full patch still to come.)
* It doesn't implement the C11 expression expansion into atomic
Hi Tobias and Mikael,
Something went wrong with the indentation of the last two lines.
Fixed.
Additionally: How about simply returning with an return false;?
After some more thinking, I used the option that you suggested. We'll
see if we get feedback from users who want something else, if
While verifying license compliance for GCC and its libraries I noticed that
several libgcc files that end up in the final library are licensed under
GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception.
This is, obviously, was not the intention of developers who just copied wrong
boilerplate text,
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
Oh well, thanks. But then I expect specific testcases to come with it, for
the various values of the parameter, both the default and the other other
values. Otherwise, the idea isn't really immediately useful. See
On 07/27/2013 05:31 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
trunk, but it depends on the OMP_SIMD patch which is also awaiting
review (actually, just the vectorizer bits since Jakub wrote and can
pre-approve the actual OMP changes):
Oh, right.
I can rebase off a more recent trunk if you prefer, or I can
2013/7/28 Michael Eager ea...@eagerm.com:
On 07/27/13 15:18, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments.
I updated the patch:
2013/7/9 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
* It looks rather like microblaze*-*-* don't use elfos.h, so meaning
semantics aren't
Hi Maintainers,
This patch defines some macros that are needed for profile generation
support in Aarch64.
I tested this patch on top of the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01333.html
Regression tested with aarch64-none-elf with V8 foundation model after
re basing to latest
72 matches
Mail list logo
