On 03/18/2013 03:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM, xunxun xunxun1...@gmail.com wrote:
于 2013/1/29 星期二 19:24, Richard Biener 写道:
There will be a 4.7.3 release (shortly) before 4.8.0 releases. There
is quite a number
of regression fixes that are suitable for
as reported in PR60102. I'd really hope this could be fixed for
4.9.1 but I'm not sure the relevant people are paying much attention to
the issue. Can we at least update the priority/severity of the bug so
that it's more likely to show up on the radar?
I did look at trying to fix this
Forgive me if this has been raised before -- I tried searching the
archives but couldn't think of good keywords that would weed out
unrelated posts
I was checking the testing requirements for a C front end patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing
and noticed that the policy is
On 11/10/2014 05:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 16:13, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing
and noticed that the policy is to require a complete bootstrap for C
changes, but not for C
On 11/11/2014 02:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 11/10/2014 05:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 16:13, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
https
] Error 2
gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/home/uros/gcc-build'
gmake[1]: *** [stage2-bubble] Error 2
gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/home/uros/gcc-build'
gmake: *** [all] Error 2
It must be very recent change.
Broken by:
2007-07-05 Sandra Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Ung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Sandra Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The error reported here
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-07/msg00339.html
is also happening when building for target mipsisa32r2-elfoabi on
i686-pc-linux-gnu.
This should be fixed by revision 126536. Sorry for the problems
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Sandra Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm now at revision 126547, and am getting a different ICE when
building the same configuration:
/scratch/sandra/mips32-mainline/src/gcc-mainline/libstdc++-v3/src/locale.cc:
In member function 'std::string std::locale::name
Christian Joensson wrote:
Using checkout Thu Sep 6 05:56:16 UTC 2007 (revision 128174), I get a
bootstrap failure:
gcc -c -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall
-Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -Iada -I../../gcc/gcc -I../../gcc/gcc/ada
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
And now to the most important issue of all to address before we can
release GCC 4.3.0. ;-)
In our current documentation we have both command-line option and
command line option. Like other such cases, we should make a choice
On 07/29/2011 12:13 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 07/27/2011 05:59 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
[snip]
So, here's my question. Is it worthwhile for me to continue this
approach of trying to make the MIPS backend smarter? Or is the way IRA
deals with CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS fundamentally
I've been investigating some LTO-related test failures in a GCC port for
a DSP target that has not yet been submitted to the FSF. The bug I've
hit looks like the same issue with spurious multiple definitions that
was previously reported on the gcc-help list:
On 01/02/2012 12:22 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Sandra Loosemoresan...@codesourcery.com writes:
I'm still finding my way around LTO; can anyone who's more familiar
with this help narrow down where to look for the cause of this? I
don't even know if this is a compiler or ld bug at this point. I'm
I've been having a heck of a time figuring out how to translate the offsets for
struct fields from the DWARF encoding back to GCC's internal encoding for the
LTO project. I've got a handle on the DWARF encoding and how to do the
necessary big/little endian conversions, but for the GCC side,
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Are
you going through the stor_layout.c:place_field routines when creating
structure types? If so, I wouldn't; here, you know where stuff is
supposed to go, so I would just put it there, and set DECL_FIELD_OFFSET,
etc., accordingly.
No, I'm not using the fancy
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I don't believe there is a GCC 4.3 project page to merge the work that
you folks did on CALL_EXPRs and TYPE_ARG_TYPEs. Would one of you please
create a Wiki page for that?
There are already a bunch of notes about this on the LTO page:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
I want to make gfortran produce better debug information, but I want to do it
in a way that doesn't make it hard/impossible to read back in sufficient
information for LTO to work for gfortran.
I haven't really been following the whole LTO thing much, but if I
Consider this bit of code:
extern double a[20];
double test1 (int n)
{
double accum = 0.0;
int i;
for (i=0; in; i++) { accum -= a[i]; }
accum = fabs (accum);
return accum;
}
which is compiled for MIPS using
mipsisa32r2-sde-elf-gcc -O3 -fno-inline -fno-unroll-loops -march=74kf1_1
On 07/28/2011 02:11 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
[snip]
So, here's my question. Is it worthwhile for me to continue this approach
of trying to make the MIPS backend smarter? Or is the way IRA deals
I noticed that the documentation for the -fvtv-* options in invoke.texi
needed a little copy-editing and markup correction. I started working
on a patch, but I'm stuck on this:
The documentation currently says the compile-time log files for these
options are written in the dump file
The Options That Control Optimization section of the manual is
currently divided into three parts (not subsections, just separate
option lists):
(1) General options like -O[n]
(2) Options that individually control options enabled by default at some
-O[n] setting
(3) Options controlling
On 01/01/2015 05:30 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I've noticed that the GCC user documentation is quite inconsistent about
the name(s) it uses for i386/x86-64/etc targets. invoke.texi has a
section for i386 and x86-64 Options, but in other places the manual
uses x86, X86, i?86, i[34567]86, x86_64
On 01/20/2015 08:11 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
At least, IA-32 is clear, although IA-64 may be confusing :-). FWIW,
i386 is also vendor specific.
Wikipedia agrees [1]:
I wouldn't use a wikipedia article that only cites sources from after 2008
(and
On 01/14/2015 11:15 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/14/15 23:12, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I'll see if I can put together a
plan for splitting things up if there are too many leftovers maybe
others can help by suggesting different/additional categories.
Sounds good. I think just starting
On 01/14/2015 08:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
With the section being ~60 pages, my first thought is we have way too
many options!
Heh, at least we have documentation for all those options. :-)
But that's not likely to change. Though perhaps the
process will encourage some culling of options that
On 01/20/2015 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Since there seems to be arguments against using both IA-32 and i386 for
the 32-bit x86 architecture, how about, uh, 32-bit x86? With the other
names in parentheses where
On 01/20/2015 12:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Ummm, this seems like an inconsistent position. 32-bit x86 isn't even a
new name; it's a restricting adjective 32-bit on the existing name x86.
But x86-32 isn't an existing
On 01/17/2015 04:44 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
The page for Extensions to the C Language Family
(https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Extensions.html) is very long (60+
items) and completely unordered. This makes it hard to find things,
even when you know they are there. I have taken a first
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:21:56AM -0800, Jeff Prothero wrote:
Starting with gcc 4.9, -O2 implicitly invokes
-fisolate-erroneous-paths-dereference:
which
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html
documents as
Detect paths that trigger
On 02/19/2015 03:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
If you have hw where NULL is mapped and you know your code violates the
C/C++ standards by placing objects at that address, simply do use
the option that is designed for that purpose.
As I pointed out earlier, though, that won't help you if your
The section Pointer Bounds Checker builtins in extend.texi is on my
list for being in need of copy-editing, but reading through the existing
text, I am quite confused. In several places it refers to turning the
Pointer Bounds Checker off, but how do you do that? I don't see any
documented
On 02/25/2015 12:56 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-02-24 19:47 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com:
Poking around, I see that the -fcheck-pointer-bounds and various -fchkp-*
options are listed in c-family/c.opt, but they are not listed in the GCC
manual. The section
On 02/25/2015 09:47 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-02-25 19:16 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com:
On 02/25/2015 12:56 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-02-24 19:47 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com:
Poking around, I see that the -fcheck-pointer-bounds
On 02/24/2015 01:14 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-02-20 19:39 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com:
On 02/20/2015 01:12 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-02-20 3:48 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com:
The section Pointer Bounds Checker builtins in extend.texi
On 02/20/2015 01:12 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-02-20 3:48 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com:
The section Pointer Bounds Checker builtins in extend.texi is on my list
for being in need of copy-editing, but reading through the existing text, I
am quite confused. In several
On 03/27/2015 03:43 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 27/03/15 03:29, Bin.Cheng wrote:
[much snippage]
As for tree ivopts, address cost is used in both ways. For any
address computation that's invalid, it tries to legitimize it into two
parts, the first part results in alu instructions, the
On 04/18/2015 07:35 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
with nios2-rtems on gcc 4.9.2, we are getting undefineds
for some atomic primitives. Are these implemented or is
some magic bit of configurery missing for nios-rtems?
__sync_fetch_and_add_4 is missing on a simple C++ IO streams
sanity test.
On 10/22/2015 02:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
As for when the shift occurs to bugfixing, it's usually in early/mid
November each year. That also happens the be the deadline for
development patches to have been posted for review, hence most folks are
busy trying to wrap up their development work.
On 11/02/2015 04:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/30/2015 09:09 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I have updated the non-md text with (most of) the changes I think it
needs (attached). These changes are pleasantly minor, mostly just
adding some example text and a bit of formatting.
However. Trying to
On 08/26/2015 02:50 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
About Catherine Moore: One of the things that is quite noticeable
about this list is the number of apparently female contributors, which
while regrettably small in absolute terms is still rather more than
I'm used to seeing in a sample this size.
On 11/19/2015 06:23 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
About the only immediate task would be to ensure that the
documentation for traditional asms clearly documents the desired
semantics and somehow note that there are known bugs in the
implementation (ie 24414, handling of flags registers, and
I noticed that the section on preprocessor options in the GCC manual
(which is also shared by the CPP manual) still claims that the default
-std= values are gnu90 for C and gnu++98 for C++, and does not list any
C++ versions after gnu++98. AFAICT from digging through code and trying
some
On 03/09/2016 03:03 AM, BELBACHIR Selim wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at gcc-nios2 options -march.
It seems two instruction sets can be selected (r1/r2) but I cannot find out
where theses instructions set are described.
On the other end I found this document
I see that the default EH behavior for a biarch mingw-w64 target GCC is
to use SJLJ for the 32-bit multilib and SEH for the 64-bit one, but that
there are #errors in cygming.h and mingw32.h that prevent you from
configuring a biarch build with --disable-sjlj-exceptions to use DWARF-2
and SEH,
On 05/12/2016 09:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I see that the default EH behavior for a biarch mingw-w64 target GCC is
to use SJLJ for the 32-bit multilib and SEH for the 64-bit one, but that
there are #errors in cygming.h and mingw32.h that prevent you from
configuring a biarch build
On 02/13/2017 08:07 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi all,
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
No one has properly
On 02/16/2017 03:19 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 02:49:47PM -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-mfloat-gprs= command-line option
On 02/11/2017 06:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11 February 2017 at 08:48, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
The documentation for -Wno-non-template-friend refers to "non-templatized
friend functions" and "templatized functions".
The documentation for -Wno-non-template-friend refers to
"non-templatized friend functions" and "templatized functions". I don't
see the term "templatized" used anywhere in the C++ standard. This
paragraph also uses "nontemplate function", which I assume refers to the
same thing the C++
I've had an item on my todo list for a while to try to update the CPP
manual, mainly because I've been aware that it has duplicate entries for
several of the same command-line options that appear in invoke.texi that
have gotten bit-rotten or otherwise out of sync with respect to the GCC
manual
On 12/16/2016 08:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Looking at the structure of the whole manual, though, I see that most of
it is in fact a tutorial on how to use the preprocessor language, like
you would find in a C programming book. Is this a useful
On 01/03/2017 02:22 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
p.s. Are there plans for converting the SPARC port?
The SPARC port has now been converted.
Note that the status of the PowerPC port is a bit confusing because both
doc/invoke.texi and htdocs/backends.html say that it still uses reload.
Have any
On 03/15/2017 08:26 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Since SPE and VLE only share the part of the rs6000 port that doesn't
change at all (except for a bug fix once or twice a year), and everything
else needs special cases all over the place, it seems to me it would be
best for everyone if we split
On 07/12/2017 05:07 AM, Klaus Kruse Pedersen (Klaus) wrote:
I have seen reproducible builds being discussed here, but what is the
position on inter c-lib and OS reproducible builds?
I think we consider unstable sort problems bugs and have fixed them in
the past. Bugzilla search turned up
On 10/03/2017 03:27 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Sandra Loosemore
<san...@codesourcery.com <mailto:san...@codesourcery.com>> wrote:
[snip]
FAOD, R0b0t1 forwarded mail I deliberately sent off-list back to the
list. I do know that business solicitations are
On 10/05/2017 03:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe it's best if this thread is allowed to die.
Yes, thank you. :-)
-Sandra
Is there an idiom for target-specific back end code to ask the pass
manager if a particular pass (e.g., "split1") has already run?
I have some nios2 addressing mode improvement patches in the works that
depend on deferring splitting of some complex address forms until after
cse and fwprop,
On 10/03/2017 05:36 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:27:05PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Is there an idiom for target-specific back end code to ask the pass manager
if a particular pass (e.g., "split1") has already run?
(I might be wrong but) I d
On 10/03/2017 10:45 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 10/03/2017 05:36 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:27:05PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Is there an idiom for target-specific back end code to ask the pass
manager
if a particular pass (e.g., "split1") has a
On 10/05/2017 02:16 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
I find it hard to care about someone's position or affiliation but
instead choose to care about what they do and how they act. If it was
Sandra's intent to ask me for free work, then I am not sure how that
qualifies as "the right thing." Per my latest
On 04/30/2018 05:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Should we standardize on "position-independent" and add it to
https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Spelling ?
The same generic English usage rules apply here as to other compound
phrases; hyphenate when immediately before a noun, don't
On 01/15/2018 05:46 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 13/01/18 00:16, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/12/2018 04:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
I was going to suggest deprecation for gcc-8 given how badly it was
broken in gcc-7
On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean that any particular target needs to
be dropped -- it just means that someone has to step forward to do the
conversion.
Unifying two parallel threads: might this be a good project for GSoC?
-Sandra
On 02/18/2018 12:10 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
So what is the purpose of having a separate $target-protos.h?
It looks like the original explanation was
<https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-09n/msg00866.html>, "Because
tm_p.h needs to
On 02/19/2018 09:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Thanks, this makes sense. I think I could produce a documentation patch that
explains that the difference is early vs late inclusion, and explains that any
declarations involving tree or rtx types must go
The internals manual says that a backend for $target should have
$target.h and $target-protos.h files, but doesn't say what the
difference between them is or what belongs in which file. Current
practice seems to be a mix of
(1) $target.h contains macro definitions and $target-protos.h
On 08/23/2018 07:04 AM, 瞿仙淼 wrote:
Yes, it’s registering for account on sourceware.org/gcc.gnu.org .
I have not complete the request form in
https://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi because I want to find
someone who can sponsoring my account first, then I can fill this
personal's
On 04/24/2018 01:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:15:57PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Can somebody remind me why using -g doesn't also enable -fvar-tracking by
default? At least for -g2, which is supposed to emit debug information
about local variables? It seems kind
Can somebody remind me why using -g doesn't also enable -fvar-tracking
by default? At least for -g2, which is supposed to emit debug
information about local variables? It seems kind of counterintuitive to
me that specifying a -O option enables a pass to collect better debug
information but
On 04/01/2018 02:56 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018, 3:16 PM Gerald Pfeifer > wrote:
And now to the most important question of all. ;-) Should we use
"file name" or "filename" when referring to the name of a file?
Our
On 4/10/19 5:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
For options that can be used as -foo or -foo=level we have a variety
of different styels for documenting what the default level is. See
below for several examples. I find this a bit confusing when try to
see what it means to use the option without a
On 12/6/19 12:46 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Richard Biener :
To me, looking from the outside, the talks about reposurgeon doing damage and a
rewrite (in the last minute) would fix it doesn't make a trustworthy appearance
either ;)
*shrug* Hard problems are hard.
Every time I do a
On 7/16/21 9:32 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
[much snipped]
Of course, we shall assume a certain level of quality in the XFAILed test
cases: I'm certainly not suggesting we put any random junk into the
testsuite, coarsely XFAILed. (I have not reviewed Sandra's test cases to
that effect, but
On 10/19/22 05:09, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/18/22 00:26, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 10/17/22 07:28, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
Based on the very positive feedback I was given at the Cauldron Sphinx
Documentation BoF,
I'm planning migrating the documentation on 9th November. There are still
On 10/17/22 07:28, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
Based on the very positive feedback I was given at the Cauldron Sphinx
Documentation BoF,
I'm planning migrating the documentation on 9th November. There are still some
minor comments
from Sandra when it comes to the PDF output, but we can address
On 11/11/22 13:52, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
After the migration, people should be able to build (and install) GCC
even if they miss Sphinx (similar happens now if you miss makeinfo).
My nightly *install* (not build) on amd64-unknown-freebsd12.2 broke
(from
On 4/18/24 10:06, Jeff Law wrote:
ACK. Just one more note to the wider audience. I looked at QEMU's user
mode support for nios2 on/off over the last couple years. It never
seemed to work well enough be able to run the GCC testsuite reliably.
I looked at the problems with the nios2
Tomorrow I plan to push patches to mark the nios2 target as obsolete in
GCC 14.
Background: Intel has EOL'ed the Nios II processor IP and is now
directing their FPGA customers to a RISC-V platform instead.
On 4/1/24 09:06, Mark Wielaard wrote:
A big thanks to everybody working this long Easter weekend who helped
analyze the xz-backdoor and making sure the impact on Sourceware and
the hosted projects was minimal.
This email isn't about the xz-backdoor itself. Do see Sam James FAQ
On 05/14/2014 12:49 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
On 05/13/14 14:11, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
2014-05-13 Catherine Moore c...@codesourcery.com
Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* config/mips/mips.c
On 11/13/2014 10:27 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 13/11/14 17:05, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
This patch to the AArch64 back end adds a couple of additional bics patterns
to match code of the form
if ((x y
On 11/13/2014 10:47 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 11/13/2014 10:27 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 13/11/14 17:05, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Sandra Loosemore
san
things. OK to commit?
-Sandra
2014-11-14 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
Joshua Conner jcon...@nvidia.com
Chris Jones chr...@nvidia.com
gcc/
* doc/invoke.texi (Option Summary): Add -malign-saved-fp-regs.
(ARM options): Document it.
* config/arm/arm.h (arm_stack_offsets
On 11/15/2014 04:49 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 2014-11-16 00:36:27 +0100, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Yep, it is because my code does not handle streaming of arrays
into the target optimization nodes. I will take a look on why
that array is really needed. It seems like a
On 11/13/2014 10:47 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 11/13/2014 10:27 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 13/11/14 17:05, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Sandra Loosemore
san
On 11/15/2014 06:46 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 11/15/2014 04:49 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 2014-11-16 00:36:27 +0100, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Yep, it is because my code does not handle streaming of arrays
into the target optimization nodes. I will take a look
On 11/19/2014 09:34 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
[snip]
I see three possible fixes:
1) extend the AWk script to recognize arrays and stream them specially
(it already recognizes string so it is not hard to do, just bit wasteful)
2) add attribute to .opt file allowing user to specify his own
unconditionally instead of allowing the
dg-require-effective-target mechanism to decide whether the target can
run code compiled with the vectorization options added by vect.exp.
This patch fixes the bad tests. OK to check in?
-Sandra
2014-09-25 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
On 09/25/2014 02:04 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
While doing some arm-none-eabi testing, I noticed that a bunch of
gcc.dg/vect tests were causing the target to hang from trying to execute
code compiled with -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp, on a target that
doesn't support those instructions
restrictions
requiring -ffinite-math-only, etc., so that part was also just following
current practice and building on existing framework, just adding a new flag.
I've checked this in.
-Sandra
2014-04-22 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* config/nios2/nios2.md (UNSPEC_ROUND
-specific, needs to be
approved by a global reviewer and then propagated to the sourceware.org
binutils-gdb and newlib repositories as well. So, OK to commit?
-Sandra
2014-04-24 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
* configure.ac (target_makefile_frag): Set for nios2-*-elf
Ping!
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01618.html
-Sandra
the configure test to pass.
OK to commit?
-Sandra
2014-05-12 Catherine Moore c...@codesourcery.com
Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* configure.ac: Fix assembly for explicit JALR relocation check.
* configure: Regenerate.
Index: gcc/configure.ac
The test case gcc.target/mips/loongson-simd.c fails when the multilib
options include -mmicromips. This patch fixes it analogously to how
this test case already ignores MIPS16ness.
OK to commit?
-Sandra
2014-05-12 Nathan Sidwell nat...@codesourcery.com
Sandra Loosemore san
On 05/05/2014 02:32 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Ping!
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01618.html
And ping again
-Sandra
up
testing this patch on a more stable 4.9.0 checkout modified to support
Mentor's extended set of mips-sde-elf multilibs instead.
OK to commit?
-Sandra
2014-05-13 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* config/mips/mips.h (enum reg_class): Add JALR_REGS
Catherine Moore c...@codesourcery.com
Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* config/mips/mips.c (mips_order_regs_for_local_alloc): Delete.
* config/mips/mips.h (ADJUST_REG_ALLOC_ORDER): Delete.
* config/mips/mips-protos.h
On 05/13/2014 03:41 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com writes:
When I was trying to benchmark another patch (which I'll be sending
along shortly) with CSiBE for -mabi=64, I ran into an assembler error
like this:
/tmp/ccJv2faG.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp
On 05/14/2014 12:49 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
On 05/13/14 14:11, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
2014-05-13 Catherine Moore c...@codesourcery.com
Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* config/mips/mips.c
that was not there before; previously the failure mode
was to quietly generate long conditional branches everywhere instead of
an ICE.
-Sandra
2014-05-14 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* config/nios2/nios2.md (nios2_cbranch): Fix paste-o in
length attribute
1 - 100 of 1199 matches
Mail list logo