on 2019/7/22 下午3:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
>>
>> I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have the
>> same starting value and step and type as another
可提供各种发票幵 1 36,922 275 95张【 有 】↓【3%-13%】【 増 】各【 发 】【 稙 】种【 票 】【 税 】真【 幵 】
如果你不想再收到该产品的 推荐邮件, 请点击这里退订
This patch is to fix PR91195. Is it OK for trunk?
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 711a31ea597..4db36644160 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2019-07-22 Jiangning Liu
+
+ PR middle-end/91195
+ * tree-ssa-phiopt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #79 from C. Heide ---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #75)
>
> I think a local patch might be doing this. Rebuild without it.
I did have some other patches applied from other PRs, from previous desperate
attempts to get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #18 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> I have a patch series to fix this - but it's not really appropriate this
> late in stage 4. So plan is to fix in early 10 stage 1 and back port.
It's early 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23610
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It's inherent in the transformation you're making. You're introducing loads on
paths where they didn't exist before.
Depending on the exact circumstances you may trigger an uninit warning. It's
worth
movl%esi, -8(%rsp,%rdi,4)
movl-4(%rsp), %eax
addl-8(%rsp), %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size test, .-test
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.0.0 20190722 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:50 PM Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:45 PM Ilia Diachkov
> wrote:
> > Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg01609.html
It looks good. I modified the ChangeLog entry a little to change
Added to New. I modified the doc entry to improve the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224
--- Comment #27 from Lewis Hyatt ---
Created attachment 46620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46620=edit
second attempt at posting the patch
Sorry, the previous patch I sent doesn't seem to show correctly in Bugzilla. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91230
Bug ID: 91230
Summary: Template function containing lambda expression that
has auto parameter and uses __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ does
not compile
Product: gcc
Version:
On 7/22/19 4:19 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/8/19 3:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch implements three new warnings:
* -Wstruct-not-pod triggers for struct definitions that are not
POD structs,
* -Wclass-is-pod triggers for class definitions that satisfy
the
This Go frontend patch by Than McIntosh is a revision to
https://golang.org/cl/185518
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg00821.html), which
added code to perform finalization of methods on types created by the
importer and not directly reachable until inlining is done.
The original
On 7/10/19 7:50 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
> The attached patch treats the intrinsic SIGN in the same way as MOD and
> DIM as it has the same arguments.
>
> Tested using make -j 8 check-fortran on x86_64
>
> Conditional compilation using #ifdef __GFC_REAL_16__ has been employed
> where
On 7/11/19 6:16 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2019 17:20, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> On 10 July 2019 17:52:40 CEST, Steve Kargl
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 02:50:47PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
The attached patch treats the intrinsic SIGN in the same way as MOD
On 7/10/19 9:52 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 02:50:47PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>> The attached patch treats the intrinsic SIGN in the same way as MOD and
>> DIM as it has the same arguments.
>>
>> Tested using make -j 8 check-fortran on x86_64
>>
>> Conditional
On 7/1/19 3:35 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>
> On 25/06/2019 14:17, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>>
>> On 25/06/2019 00:17, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 6/24/19 2:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM
On 7/16/19 12:37 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 7/9/19 5:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:28 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/4/19 6:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:17 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 7/3/19 7:08 AM, Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #78 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #77)
>
> I think you need to define _XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED. See for example
> config/pa/pa-hpux11.h.
Yep. I forgot about PR66319.
On Jul 22, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 7/8/19 3:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> The attached patch implements three new warnings:
>>
>> * -Wstruct-not-pod triggers for struct definitions that are not
>> POD structs,
>> * -Wclass-is-pod triggers for class definitions that
On 7/22/19 3:54 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> While resolving PR80545 - option -Wstringop-overflow not recognized
> by Fortran, I discovered that a command line options that's supported
> only by a subset of languages is considered as enabled when tested
> by the middle-end even when the current
On 7/22/19 9:40 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Given that they're not allowed to overlap, I would think not. If that
>> were allowed then the code which aggressively transforms strncpy to
>> memcpy would need to be disabled (or at least throttled back) as well.
>
> I think there's some (maybe too
On 7/22/19 3:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/19/19 4:04 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On targets with permissive alignment requirements GCC sometimes
lowers stores of short (between two and 16 bytes), power-of-two
char sequences to single integer stores of the corresponding
width. This happens for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gmail dot com
--- Comment #26
On 2/22/19 9:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi Jan, Uros,
>
> This patch fixes the wrong code bug:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
>
> Tested on AVX2 and AVX512 with and without --with-arch=native.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks.
>
> H.J.
> --
> i386 backend has
>
> INT_MODE
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:56:26PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> That still needs an explanation: why is this a good thing, why do you
> want that change? Sometimes that is obvious of course, but here it is
> not. It would be a lot more obvious if there was more context.
The trouble is to
from which header file are they(for, while, loops) called?
can you tell me where they(like the for or while loops) are stored? like
a iostream!
I wonder their source code. and I'll look(investigate ) at them and try
to write a new header.
On 7/8/19 3:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The attached patch implements three new warnings:
>
> * -Wstruct-not-pod triggers for struct definitions that are not
> POD structs,
> * -Wclass-is-pod triggers for class definitions that satisfy
> the requirements on POD structs, and
> *
On 7/22/19 3:47 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Hi Fredrik,
>
>> I'm glad to hear from you again!
>
> I'm not dead, just distracted.
>
>>> I think that should be a GAS warning really (similarly to macros that
>>> expand to multiple instructions in a delay slot) as people ought to be
>>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80545
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg01457.html
While resolving PR80545 - option -Wstringop-overflow not recognized
by Fortran, I discovered that a command line options that's supported
only by a subset of languages is considered as enabled when tested
by the middle-end even when the current language doesn't support
the option.
When the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The issue here (of course) is that aarch64 has a different set of defaults for
when to open-code vs loop vs function call. My attempts to pick a better size
for the objects results in failures on other
On 7/9/19 10:23 AM, claz...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Please find attached the updated patch.
>
> What is new:
> - mailing list feedback is taken into account.
> - some comments are updated.
> - a new test is added.
> - the ARC AUX registers used by ZOL (hardware loop) and FPX (a custom
>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:45 PM Ilia Diachkov
wrote:
> Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg01609.html
I'm looking at this now. I've been busy dealing with far too many
problems, but have mostly caught up on my backlog, at least enough
that I can deal with this now. I think the
On 7/10/19 5:16 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 7/10/19 1:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 01:08:52PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> --- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
>>> @@ -24460,6 +24460,13 @@ gen_producer_string (void)
>>>case OPT_fchecking_:
>>> /*
Hi Fredrik,
> I'm glad to hear from you again!
I'm not dead, just distracted.
> > I think that should be a GAS warning really (similarly to macros that
> > expand to multiple instructions in a delay slot) as people ought to be
> > allowed to do what they wish, and then `-Werror' can be used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #77 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-07-22 4:47 p.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> Getting further. Now erroring out with:
> /opt/build/china/gcc-8.3.0/.obj/./prev-gcc/xg++
>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:18:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
> >
> > I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have the
> > same starting value
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:00:08AM -0500, Paul Clarke wrote:
>
> 2019-07-21 Paul A. Clarke
>
> [gcc]
>
> * doc/extend.texi: Add documentation for __builtin_mtfsf.
It should mention the section this is in... That is "Basic PowerPC
Built-in Functions Available on all Configurations" I
On 7/19/19 4:04 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On targets with permissive alignment requirements GCC sometimes
> lowers stores of short (between two and 16 bytes), power-of-two
> char sequences to single integer stores of the corresponding
> width. This happens for sequences of ordinary character
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91229
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 46617
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46617=edit
proposed patch to change ABI and warn for affected structs
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:59:39PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:42:13AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:13:08PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > 2019-07-20 Michael Meissner
> > >
> > > * config/rs6000/rs6000-internal.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #76 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #75)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #74)
> >
> > I'm getting further in the build on HP-UX 11.31/IA but when linking
> > libstdc++.la, I get
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg01609.html
Andrew, Palmer,
I think all issues was fixed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg01689.html . Do you have
any concerns about the patch?
Best regards,
Ilia.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91229
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91229
Bug ID: 91229
Summary: RISC-V ABI problem with zero-length bit-fields and
float struct fields
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:36:00PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:41:51PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:13:08PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > I will be iterating on patch #9 and sending out a replacement shortly.
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:34:53PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:28:34PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > This patch needs to add rs6000-internal.h to tm_file in gcc/config.gcc
> > for all of the powerpc/rs6000 targets. It also may need tm_p_file and
> > tm_d_file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91228
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: *-*-solaris2.*
Between 20190720 (r273633) and 20190722 (r273698
On Jul 19, 2019, at 1:57 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 5/15/19 1:39 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Some tests have the "nonpic" guard, but pass on
>> arm*-*-uclinuxfdpiceabi because it is in PIE mode by default. Rather
>> than adding this target to all these tests, add the "pie_enabled"
>>
On Jul 19, 2019, at 1:56 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 5/15/19 1:39 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Add *-*-uclinux* to tests that work on this target.
>>
>> 2019-XX-XX Christophe Lyon
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>> * g++.dg/abi/forced.C: Add *-*-uclinux*.
>> *
> Yes, you can look up the definition.
> gomp_ barrier_last_thread is just a bit in the state bitmask passed to the
> routine, it is set on the last thread that encounters the barrier, which is
> figured out by doing atomic subtraction from the counter.
I saw the implementation, just wanted to be
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:42:13AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:13:08PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > 2019-07-20 Michael Meissner
> >
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000-internal.h (rs6000_hard_regno_mode_ok_p):
> > Move various declarations
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:05 AM Maxim Blinov wrote:
> Is it possible, in the arch.opt file, to have GCC generate a bitmask
> relative to a user-defined variable without an associated name? To
> illustrate my problem, consider the following option file snippet:
> ...
> But, I don't want the user
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 04:46:33PM +0900, 김규래 wrote:
> About the snippet below,
>
> if (gomp_barrier_last_thread (state))
> {
> if (team->task_count == 0)
> {
> gomp_team_barrier_done (>barrier, state);
> gomp_mutex_unlock (>task_lock);
> gomp_team_barrier_wake (>barrier,
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote:
> This would have to be caught at the point that an optimization pass
> first considers inserting a CALL to the interrupt, i.e., if the machine
> description tries to prevent the generation of a call to an interrupt function
> once the RTL has been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87808
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:41:51PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:13:08PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > I will be iterating on patch #9 and sending out a replacement shortly.
> >
> > This is patch #10. It moves the various data structures from rs6000.c to
>
>
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:28:34PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> This patch needs to add rs6000-internal.h to tm_file in gcc/config.gcc
> for all of the powerpc/rs6000 targets. It also may need tm_p_file and
> tm_d_file definitions.
While I agree it would make things easier if the declarations
On 7/11/19 2:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This patch uses the constant vector encoding scheme to handle
> more cases of a VEC_DUPLICATE of another vector. Duplicating
> any fixed-length vector is fine, and duplicating a variable-length
> vector is OK as long as that vector is also a
On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 19:24 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> You can probably also remove:
>
> tree new_type = build_distinct_type_copy (TREE_TYPE (node->decl));
> ...
> TREE_TYPE (node->decl) = new_type;
>
> in simd_clone_adjust_argument_types.
>
> I'm happy doing it this
On 7/15/19 9:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> This patch extends the tree-level folding of variable-length vectors
>> so that it can also be used on rtxes. The first step is to move
>> the tree_vector_builder new_unary/binary_operator routines to the
>> parent
On 7/18/19 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.06.19 at 10:59, wrote:
>> Conversion of comparison results to full vectors does, when VPMOVM2* are
>> unavailable, not require any intermediate VMOVDQ{A,U}*: Simply use
>> embedded masking on VPTERNLOG* right away, which is available with
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, I meant &&. And yes, folding it either way is strictly valid in both C,
where the result of the relational expression is undefined, and C++ where it's
unspecified. But besides being inconsistent with
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> ...
> SuSE's announcement today is quite ironic. Red Hat's toolchain team is
> planning to propose switching to LTO by default for Fedora 32 and were
> working through various details yesterday. Our proposal will almost
> certainly include
On 7/22/19 10:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 08:28:33AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On 7/22/19 12:58 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 05:22:19PM -0500, Paul Clarke wrote:
Add compatibility implementations of _mm_blend_epi16 and
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:55:42PM +0100, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> Hi
>
> This patch enables the new Transactional Memory Extension announced
> recently as part of Arm's new architecture technologies.
> We introduce a new optional extension "tme" to enable this. The
> following instructions are
Hi Ramana,
> Thanks for this patch set - What I'm missing in this is any analysis as
> to what's the impact on code generation for neon intrinsics that use
> uint64_t ? Especially things like v_u64 ?
Well things like this continue to work exactly like before:
uint64x1_t f20(uint64x1_t x,
Hi,
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:32:21 +0300 (MSK)
Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote:
>
> > For MSP430, the folding of identical functions marked with the "interrupt"
> > attribute by -fipa-icf-functions results in wrong code being generated.
> > Interrupts have
On 22/07/19 17:55 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This proposal has now been accepted for C++20, with a few changes. This
patch adjusts std::rotl and std::rotr to match the final specification
and declares the additions for C++2a mode even when __STRICT_ANSI__ is
defined.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
> if (p >= a || p <= a + 3)
I think you mean &&.
I believe we could fold it to true or false as we wish: false because the
preexisting pointer cannot point to a local object, true because you are only
This proposal has now been accepted for C++20, with a few changes. This
patch adjusts std::rotl and std::rotr to match the final specification
and declares the additions for C++2a mode even when __STRICT_ANSI__ is
defined.
* include/std/bit (__rotl, __rotr): Change second parameter from
On 25/06/19 10:40 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
* include/std/bit (__ceil2): Make unrepresentable results undefined,
as per P1355R2. Add debug assertion. Perform one left shift, not two,
so that out of range values cause undefined behaviour. Ensure that
shift will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
On 18/06/2019 14:50, Sylvia Taylor wrote:
Hi Wilco,
Combined them into one pattern. Updated the diff and the changelog is now:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-06-18 Sylvia Taylor
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c
(aarch64_load_symref_appropriately): Change SYMBOL_TINY_GOT.
*
The gcc configure script does not use the config/picflag.m4 macro to
customize PICFLAG according to the host when using --enable-host-shared.
Fix configure.ac to do so.
Tested bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2019-07-22 Arvind Sankar
* gcc/configure.ac: Use GCC_PICFLAG.
---
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg00622.html
On 7/8/19 3:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch implements three new warnings:
* -Wstruct-not-pod triggers for struct definitions that are not
POD structs,
* -Wclass-is-pod triggers for class definitions that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
On 22/07/2019 17:16, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Like the logical operations, expand all shifts early rather than only
sometimes. The Neon shift expansions are never emitted (not even with
-fneon-for-64bits), so they are not useful. So all the late expansions
and Neon shift patterns can be removed,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 05:42:45PM +0100, Sylvia Taylor wrote:
> Updating patch with missing scan-assembler checks.
This is OK. I committed it on your behalf as r273703.
Thanks,
James
> Cheers,
> Syl
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sylvia Taylor
> Sent: 04 June 2019 12:24
> To: James
Remove the remaining Neon adddi3, subdi3 and negdi2 patterns. As a result
adddi3, subdi3 and negdi2 can now always be expanded early irrespectively of
whether Neon is available. Also expand the extenddi patterns at the same
time. Several Neon arch attributes are no longer used and removed.
Like the logical operations, expand all shifts early rather than only
sometimes. The Neon shift expansions are never emitted (not even with
-fneon-for-64bits), so they are not useful. So all the late expansions
and Neon shift patterns can be removed, and shifts are more optimized
as a result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
Bug ID: 91227
Summary: pointer relational expression not folded but
equivalent inequality is
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
This patch fixes PR libfortran/78314, the failure of
gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_6.f90 on some Arm and Aarch64 platforms.
As mentioned in the PR trapping fpu exceptions is optional
on ARM and this function cannot do a runtime check for support
so we should return 0.
There are a couple of discussion
Hi Maciej,
I'm glad to hear from you again!
> I think that should be a GAS warning really (similarly to macros that
> expand to multiple instructions in a delay slot) as people ought to be
> allowed to do what they wish, and then `-Werror' can be used for code
> quality enforcement (and
David Malcolm writes:
> On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 14:20 +, Andrea Corallo wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I've just realized that what we has been done recently for
>> gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op should be done also for the unary
>> version.
>> This patch checks at record time for the result type of
>>
On 7/22/19 8:55 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/22/19 2:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:04 PM Jeff Law wrote:
While looking at BZ 80576 I realized a few things.
First for STRNCPY we know the exact count of bytes written and we can
treat it just like MEMCPY and others, both
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 08:28:33AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On 7/22/19 12:58 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 05:22:19PM -0500, Paul Clarke wrote:
> >> Add compatibility implementations of _mm_blend_epi16 and _mm_blendv_epi8
> >> intrinsics.
> >>
> >> Respective test
On 7/16/19 2:37 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 7/9/19 5:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:28 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 7/4/19 6:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:17 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 7/3/19 7:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5
On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 14:20 +, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've just realized that what we has been done recently for
> gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op should be done also for the unary
> version.
> This patch checks at record time for the result type of
> gcc_jit_context_new_unary_op to
On 7/22/19 2:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:04 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>
>> While looking at BZ 80576 I realized a few things.
>>
>> First for STRNCPY we know the exact count of bytes written and we can
>> treat it just like MEMCPY and others, both in terms of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com,
On 7/22/19 8:25 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 7/17/19 8:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 7/17/19 11:29 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> Romain Geissler writes:
I have no idea of the LTO format and if indeed it can easily be updated
in a backward compatible way. But I would say it would be nice
On 7/17/19 8:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 7/17/19 11:29 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Romain Geissler writes:
>>>
>>> I have no idea of the LTO format and if indeed it can easily be updated
>>> in a backward compatible way. But I would say it would be nice if it
>>> could, and would allow adoption for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91203
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
Hi all,
second version of the patch here addressing comments.
make check-jit runs clean
Bests
Andrea
gcc/jit/ChangeLog
2019-07-18 Andrea Corallo
* jit-recording.c (unary_op_reproducer_strings): Make it extern.
(binary_op_reproducer_strings): Likewise.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
