On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:36 AM Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am sending some old patches that we have internally since GCC 10 to the Arm
> Branch but feel free to comment as we will be looking to submit them for GCC
> 12 to mainline.
>
> This patch adds the option
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:21 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> Hi:
> It's implemented as below:
> V setg (V v, int idx, T val)
>
> {
> V idxv = (V){idx, idx, idx, idx, idx, idx, idx, idx};
> V valv = (V){val, val, val, val, val, val, val, val};
> V mask = ((V){0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} == idxv);
>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:37 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 5:07 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:21 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi:
> > > It's implemented as below:
> > > V setg (V v, int idx, T val)
> > >
> > > {
> > > V idxv =
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 4:35 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 5:55 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:37 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 5:07 PM Richard Biener
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:21 AM
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:11 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 08/22/2017 03:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > The following patch makes sure to not grow the number of incoming
> > edges in the destination when doing split_edge on GIMPLE. That's
> > easy by first redirecting the existing edge to the
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:24 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> PING^5
So can we use the same identifier as clang here as Nick
requests? Thus, OK with re-naming everything alongside
no_stack_protector. It isn't really the opposite of the
stack_protect attribute since that only protects when
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:19 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/14/20 9:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:12 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/13/20 6:02 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On October 13, 2020 5:17:48 PM GMT+02:00, Aldy Hernandez via
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:49 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:22:48AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > + if (mode == CCCmode
> > > + && GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == NEG
> > > + && GET_CODE (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0)) == GEU
> > > + && REG_P (XEXP
On October 14, 2020 7:35:32 PM GMT+02:00, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 01:43:45PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:01 AM Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 04:40:53PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
>> > > For rtx like
>> > >
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 8:39 PM Giuliano Belinassi via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Ho, Josh.
>
> On 08/24, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 06:04:48PM -0300, Giuliano Belinassi wrote:
> > > Hi, Josh
> > >
> > > On 08/21, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 07:00:13PM
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 8:06 PM Giuliano Belinassi
wrote:
>
> Hi, Richi.
>
> On 08/24, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:00 AM Giuliano Belinassi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Update the driver for parallel compilation. This process work as
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > When calling
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 6:05 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:54PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >> DWARF5 makes it possible to read loclists tables without consulting
> >> the debuginfo tree by introducing a table header.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:13 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hey.
>
> We should document how we currently merge pie and pie options
> as we fixed PR80838.
>
> Ready for master?
OK.
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * doc/invoke.texi: Document how are pie and pic options merged.
>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 6:32 PM Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> Hi Kito,
>
> > I just found the mail thread about div mod with -fnon-call-exceptions,
> > I think keeping the default LIB2_DIVMOD_EXCEPTION_FLAGS unchanged
> > should be the best way to go.
> >
> > Non-call exceptions and libcalls
> >
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:20 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 03:07:59PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Also, isn't the pass also useful for TARGET_AVX and above (but in that
> > > case
> > > only if it is a simple memory load)? Or are avx/avx2 broadcast slower
> > >
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:52 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 08:47:06AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > IIRC elsewhere it was discussed to use ld to perform merging by
> > emitting separate rodata sections for constant sizes (4, 8
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:26 AM Austin Morton via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> #pragma region is a feature introduced by Microsoft in order to allow
> manual grouping and folding of code within Visual Studio. It is
> entirely ignored by the compiler. Clang has supported this feature
> since 2012 when
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:47 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:36:00PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Guess this would work indeed. It's probably quite common to have
> > both vector and non-vector constants because of vectorization
> > and scalar epilogues. But note
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:02 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 13:37 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > From cc1d41a469d76f2f8e4f44bed788ace77a1c6d62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Martin Liska
> > Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:09:19 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH 3/3] vec: use inexact growth
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:38 AM Hu Jiangping wrote:
>
> This patch add -fno-tree-fre to dg-options in gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c,
> to make the following testcases passed.
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -Og -DPREVENT_OPTIMIZATION line 43 a.i == 4
> FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -Og
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Reject target("no-general-regs-only") pragma and attribute.
mgeneral-regs-only
Target Report RejectNegative Mask(GENERAL_REGS_ONLY) Var(ix86_target_flags) Save
Generate code which uses only the general registers.
it has already
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 9:17 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> >On 2020-08-26 5:23 p.m., Roger Sayle wrote:
> >> These more accurate target rtx_costs are used by the
> >> gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (via a call to mult_by_coeff_cost) to
> >> decide whether applying strength reduction would be
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:25 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:33:46PM +0800, Hongtao Liu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > +static void
> > +replace_constant_pool_with_broadcast (rtx_insn* insn)
> > +{
> > + subrtx_ptr_iterator::array_type array;
> > +
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:37 PM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I had a need to add a new type of informative message on the modules
> branch, with an option to enable it. The message is not a warning or an
> error, but just 'hey, you asked if X happens. It happens just here'.
> This is emitted
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:35 AM guojiufu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> When unroll loops, if there are calls inside the loop, those calls
> may raise negative impacts for unrolling. This patch adds a param
> param_max_unrolled_calls, and checks if the number of calls inside
> the loop
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 11:09 AM Petro Karashchenko via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hello Ricard!
>
> Thank you very much for your reply.
> The case is that currently the "uncached" attribute is used to generate
> special "cache bypass" instructions instead of regular one by ARC backend.
> That
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:29 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 8/3/20 12:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > You are always passing NULL here so simply avoid this and the following
> > changes.
>
> Are you sure about this?
>
> Note that vect_slp_bb does:
>
> + if (!vect_find_stmt_data_reference
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:36 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 17/08/20 18:15 +, Aditya K via Libstdc++ wrote:
> >This would help compiler optimize local static objects.
> >
> >Added changelog.
>
> Please don't :-)
>
> GCC patch policies always said NOT to change the ChangeLog
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 4:45 AM yangyang (ET) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a simple fix for PR96698.
>
> For the test case, there are two PHIs in the inner loop in pass_vect
>
> [local count: 719407024]:
> # b_26 = PHI <0(4), b_15(10)>
>
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:49 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> As mentioned in the PR, we miss one initialization of ::punned
> in vn_reference_lookup_call.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed?
OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:34 AM Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020, Giuliano Belinassi via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > libbacktrace/Makefile.in | 2 +-
> > zlib/Makefile.in | 64 ++--
>
> These directories use makefiles generated by automake. Rather than
> modifying the
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:00 AM Giuliano Belinassi
wrote:
>
> Update the driver for parallel compilation. This process work as
> follows:
>
> When calling gcc, the driver will check if the flag
> "-fparallel-jobs" was provided by the user. If yes, then we will
> check what is the desired output,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:00 AM Giuliano Belinassi
wrote:
>
> This patch series add a new flag "-fparallel-jobs=" to control if the
> compiler should try to compile the current file in parallel.
>
> There are three modes which is supported by now:
>
> 1. -fparallel-jobs=: Try to compile the file
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 9:23 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 3:39 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> >> This patch introduces various improvements to the logic that merges
> >> field compares.
>
> > Sorry for throwing a wrench in
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:05 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 9/24/20 2:41 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:53 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/1/20 4:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >>> Hope this is constructive
> >>> Dave
> >>
> >> Thank you David. All of them very very
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:30 PM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As the discussion in PR96789, we found that some scalar stmts
> which can be eliminated by some passes after SLP, but we still
> modeled their costs when trying to SLP, it could impact
> vectorizer's decision. One typical case is the
On September 25, 2020 5:50:40 AM GMT+02:00, xionghu luo
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 2020/9/24 21:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM xionghu luo
>wrote:
>>
>> I'll just comment that
>>
>> xxperm 34,34,33
>> xxinsertw 34,0,12
>> xxperm 34,34,32
>>
>>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> This is the gcc-10 branch version of the patch on mainline.
>
> Extends the configure check for zstd.h to also verify the zstd version,
> since gcc requires features that only exist in 1.3.0 and newer. Without
> this patch we get a build
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 9:31 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > 2020-09-07 Martin Jambor
> >
> > * params.opt (ipa-cp-large-unit-insns): New parameter.
> > * ipa-cp.c (get_max_overall_size): Use the new parameter.
> OK,
Maybe the IPA CP large-unit should be a
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:07 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 9:23 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 28, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > ifcombine should stop using fold*, yeah
>
> Wow, that's quite a lot of work for no
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:18 PM Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> On 9/29/20 8:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 7:28 PM Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>
> >> [ was: Re: [Patch][nvptx] return true in libc_has_function for
> >> function_sincos ]
> >>
> >> On 9/26/20 6:47 PM, Tobias Burnus
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:55 AM xionghu luo wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review,
>
>
> On 2020/9/21 16:31, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> +
> >> +static gimple *
> >> +gimple_expand_vec_set_expr (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
> >> +{
> >> + enum tree_code code;
> >> + gcall *new_stmt = NULL;
> >> +
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:32 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:55 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > > > +/* Return true if T is a pointer pointing to memory location that is
> > > > > local
> > > > > + for the function (that means, dead after return) or read-only. */
> >
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 1:28 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> @Richi: May I please ping this?
I have commented in the PR and am testing a patch - other PRs may prevail.
Richard.
> On 9/1/20 4:27 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > On 8/31/20 10:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 4:18
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:31 AM HAO CHEN GUI via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Bin,
>
> I just tested your patch on current trunk. Here is my summary.
>
> 1. About some iv aren't moved out of inner loop (Lijia mentioned in his
> last email)
>
>[local count: 955630226]:
># l_32 = PHI <1(12),
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:38 AM Pop, Sebastian via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the attached patches are back-porting the flag -moutline-atomics to the
> gcc-7-arm vendor branch.
> The flag enables a very important performance optimization for N1-neoverse
> processors.
> The patches pass
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:41 AM Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> On 9/24/20 10:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >> The symbols are added to offload_vars + offload_funcs.
> >> In lto-cgraph.c's output_offload_tables there is the last chance
> >> to remove now unused nodes ? as once the tables are
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:50 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:41:00AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Following Jakub's suggestion, I also added
> > __attribute__((used))
> > to the tree belonging to both tables in omp-offload.c's omp_finish
> > but that
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:06 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> this patch re-adds tracking of accesses which was unfinished in David's patch.
> At the moment I only implemented tracking of the fact that access is based on
> derefernece of the parameter (so we track THIS pointers).
> Patch does not
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:54 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > + else if (TREE_CODE (op) == SSA_NAME
> > > + && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (op)))
> > > +{
> > > + if (DECL_P (base) && !ptr_deref_may_alias_decl_p (op, base))
> > > + return false;
> > > + if (TREE_CODE
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:26 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I will do (but need to think bit of a redundancy between comment in
> > > ipa-modref and ipa-modref-tree)
> >
> > One place is enough - just add a pointer to the other place.
> Here is updated patch I am testing. I adds
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM xionghu luo wrote:
>
> Hi Segher,
>
> The attached two patches are updated and split from
> "[PATCH v2 2/2] rs6000: Expand vec_insert in expander instead of gimple
> [PR79251]"
> as your comments.
>
>
> [PATCH v3 2/3] rs6000: Fix lvsl mode and change
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:04 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> parameter tracking in ipa-modref causes failure of ipa-pta-13 testcase.
> In partiuclar the check for "= x;" in fre3 is failing since we optimize
> it out in fre1. As far as I can tell this is correct transform because
> ipa-modref
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:55:21PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Btw, on x86_64 the following produces sth reasonable:
> >
> > #define N 32
> > typedef int T;
> > typedef T V __attribute__((vector_size(N)));
> > V setg (V v,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:13 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> All right, I come up with a rapid speed up that can allow us to remove
> the introduced parameter. It contains 2 parts:
> - BIT TEST: we allow at maximum a range that is smaller GET_MODE_BITSIZE
> - JT: we spent quite some time
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 8:51 AM xionghu luo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020/9/24 20:39, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > xionghu luo writes:
> >> @@ -2658,6 +2659,43 @@ expand_vect_cond_mask_optab_fn (internal_fn, gcall
> >> *stmt, convert_optab optab)
> >>
> >> #define expand_vec_cond_mask_optab_fn
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 3:32 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 9/25/20 3:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:13 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> All right, I come up with a rapid speed up that can allow us to remove
> >> the introduced parameter. It contains
On September 26, 2020 12:04:24 AM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>Hi,
>while adding check for gimple_clobber I reversed the return value
>so instead of ignoring the statement ipa-modref gives up. Fixed thus.
>This explains the drop between originally reported disambinguations
>stats and ones I
On September 22, 2020 1:22:12 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška"
wrote:
>Hi.
>
>The patch is about a bail out limit that needs to be added to switch
>lowering.
>Currently the algorithm is quadratic and needs some bail out. I've
>tested value
>of 100K which corresponds to about 0.2s in the problematic
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:24 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
> On 9/16/20 11:52 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2020, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> >> ISTM this is a lot like the problem we have where we inline functions
> >> with static data. To fix those we use
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:34 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Sandiford writes:
> > I'll try to have a patch ready tomorrow morning European time.
>
> Well, I totally failed to hit that deadline. When testing on Power,
> I saw a couple of extra failures, but I now think they're
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:44 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> this is first of cleanup patches for mod-ref interfaces. It removes code
> duplication between ipa-pure-const and ipa-modref that both wants to check
> whether given memory access can interfere with memory acesses before function
>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:20 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 9/30/20 3:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:40:40PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >> I will commit this patch later this week unless I hear concerns
> >> or suggestions for
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 3:39 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>
> This patch introduces various improvements to the logic that merges
> field compares.
>
> Before the patch, we could merge:
>
> (a.x1 EQNE b.x1) ANDOR (a.y1 EQNE b.y1)
>
> into something like:
>
> (((type *))[Na] & MASK) EQNE
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:15 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 9/25/20 3:45 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 3:32 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/25/20 3:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:13 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
>
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 12:41 AM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 08:58:35AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > after which I get (-march=znver2)
> > >
> > > setg:
> > > vmovd %edi, %xmm1
> > >
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 7:28 PM Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> [ was: Re: [Patch][nvptx] return true in libc_has_function for
> function_sincos ]
>
> On 9/26/20 6:47 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Found when looking at PR97203 (but having no effect there).
> >
> > The GCC ME optimizes with -O1 (or higher)
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:46 AM Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> Extends the configure check for zstd.h to also verify the zstd version,
> since gcc requires features that only exist in 1.3.0 and newer. Without
> this patch we get a build error for lto-compress.c when using an old zstd
> version.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:53 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 9/1/20 4:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Hope this is constructive
> > Dave
>
> Thank you David. All of them very very useful!
>
> There's updated version of the patch.
I noticed several functions without a function-level comment.
-
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:55 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > +/* Return true if T is a pointer pointing to memory location that is
> > > local
> > > + for the function (that means, dead after return) or read-only. */
> > > +
> > > +bool
> > > +points_to_local_or_readonly_memory_p (tree t)
> >
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:27 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM xionghu luo wrote:
> >
> > Hi Segher,
> >
> > The attached two patches are updated and split from
> > "[PATCH v2 2/2] rs6000: Expand vec_insert in expander instead of gimple
> > [PR79251]"
> > as your
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:20 AM Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Martin's -Wplacement-new patch ran into a problem with DECL_SIZE not being
> set on an extern variable for which the type was not complete until after
> its declaration. complete_vars was deliberately not calling
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:33 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > Please use int128 effective target rather than lp64 in the tests that need
> > __int128 type.
>
> OK, thanks, adjusted locally.
OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
> --
> Eric Botcazou
On May 27, 2020 6:13:24 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Martin Liška writes:
>> On 5/26/20 12:15 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> So longer-term, I think we should replace VCOND(U) with individual
>ifns,
>>> like for VCONDEQ. We could reduce the number of optabs needed by
>>>
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:52 AM guojiufu wrote:
>
> From: Jiufu Guo
>
> Currently GIMPLE complete unroller(cunroll) is checking
> flag_unroll_loops and flag_peel_loops to see if allow size growth.
> Beside affects curnoll, flag_unroll_loops also controls RTL unroler.
> To have more freedom to
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:33 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the attached Ada testcase triggers a GIMPLE verification failure at -O2 or
> above because the GIMPLE store merging pass generates a NOP_EXPR between a FP
> type and an integral type. This happens when the bit-field insertion path
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:27 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 5/22/20 12:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:09 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/18/20 1:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:10 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> >>> wrote:
>
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:10 PM guojiufu wrote:
>
> Currently option -funroll-loops controls both GIMPLE unroler and
> RTL unroller. It is not able to control GIMPLE cunroller and
> RTL unroller independently. This patch introducing different flags
> to control them seperately, and this also
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 2:14 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > Hmm, MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT looks a bit arbitrary since on
> > x86 it (IIRC) includes things like OImode. Maybe MOVE_MAX or
> > MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE are better suited here?
>
> I forgot to mention that I picked MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:54 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 01:22:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:37 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > I think this is the
On May 25, 2020 7:40:00 PM GMT+02:00, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 02:14:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:10 PM guojiufu
>wrote:
>> Since a new flag is not needed to fix the regression please avoid
>> adding -fcomplete-unroll-loops.
>>
>> For
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 02:39:54PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:54 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > > The split above allows the "bug" to be fixed (even on the branch)
> > > > without introducing
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:58 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> David Edelsohn writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:58 PM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 25, 2020 7:40:00 PM GMT+02:00, Segher Boessenkool
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 02:14:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:52 AM guojiufu wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Jiufu Guo
> >>
> >> Currently GIMPLE complete unroller(cunroll) is checking
> >> flag_unroll_loops and flag_peel_loops to see if allow size growth.
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:44 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> this patch cleans up tree streaming. The code is prepared to stream nested
> trees, but we only handle flat trees. As a result we have quite heavy function
> to stream in/out tree reference which is used many times and shows up in
>
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:28 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Martin Liška writes:
> > Hi.
> >
> > There's a new patch that adds normal internal functions for the 4
> > VCOND* functions.
> >
> > The patch that survives bootstrap and regression
> > tests on x86_64-linux-gnu and ppc64le-linux-gnu.
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:17 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:28 PM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Martin Liška writes:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > There's a new patch that adds normal internal functions for the 4
> > > VCOND* functions.
> > >
> > > The patch that survives
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 10:37 AM Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This patch is meant to add match rules to simplify patterns as:
>
> o. (pointer + offset_a) - (pointer + offset_b) -> (ptrdiff_t) (offset_a -
> offset_b)
> o. (pointer_a + offset) - (pointer_b + offset) -> (pointer_a
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 11:09 AM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this addresses the issue raised by Andrew a few weeks ago about the usage of
> memory copy functions to toggle the scalar storage order. Recall that you
> cannot (the compiler errors out) take the address of a scalar which is
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:36 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:58:13AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Segher Boessenkool
> >> wrote:
> >> > Yes, cunroll does not have its own option, and that is a
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:24 AM Giuliano Belinassi via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> After having so much trouble working on the `execute' function inside
> gcc.c, I decided to refactor it so that it could be more digestible.
> Since I am using it on my branch, I am submitting this patch for
>
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at
> >> -O2.
> >> At the same time, the GIMPLE
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at -O2.
> At the same time, the GIMPLE cunroll is also enabled, while it is not only for
> simple loops. This patch introduces a hook to check if a
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:08 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at
> >> -O2.
> >> At the same time, the GIMPLE
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:43 AM Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Double array in structure as function arguments or return value is accessed
> by BLKmode, they are stored to stack and load from stack with redundant
> conversion from DF->DI->DF. This patch checks the homogeneous type and
>
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 4:10 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Jiufu Guo writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> I updated the patch just a little accordinlgy. Thanks!
>
> diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
> index 4464049fc1f..570e2aa53c8 100644
> --- a/gcc/common.opt
> +++ b/gcc/common.opt
> @@ -2856,6 +2856,10
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:44 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I wanted to highlight this ticket on bugzilla [0]. It is a missed
> optimization that I worked on. It involves propagating constants across
> function calls at link-time. I am relatively new to GCC and this would
> be my
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:52 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>
>
>
> This pass is a variant of constant propagation where global
> primitive constants with a single write are propagated to multiple
> read statements.
Just a few small comments while skimming through the code
> ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-05-20
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:18 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> >
> > ---
> > gcc/tree.h | 11 +++
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/tree.h b/gcc/tree.h
> > index bd0c51b2a18..86a4542f58b 100644
> > --- a/gcc/tree.h
> > +++ b/gcc/tree.h
> > @@ -6156,6 +6156,17 @@
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:56 AM Naveen Hurugalawadi via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please find attached the patch that addresses PR94882.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Is the pattern correct for saturating arithmetic? Some related
patterns test
901 - 1000 of 6844 matches
Mail list logo
