http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
18:04:49 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 18:04:34 2013
New Revision: 195584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195584
Log:
PR c++/55742
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29211|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-19
10:14:04 UTC ---
Then to fix that perhaps we want to change ix86_valid_target_attribute_tree and
its caller.
Currently ix86_valid_target_attribute_tree returns
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29207|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #41 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-19
17:18:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
Created attachment 29217 [details]
gcc48-pr55742-2.patch
The following I mean (incremental patch). No test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #31 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com richard.guenther at
gmail dot com 2013-01-18 09:49:11 UTC ---
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:45 PM, xinliangli at gmail dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
14:18:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 29207
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29207
gcc48-pr55742.patch
This bug is open for way too long given its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #33 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
16:59:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
That sounds good, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #34 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2013-01-18 17:27:43
UTC ---
The patch is missing changes in documentation on the new attribute.
David
(In reply to comment #32)
Created attachment 29207 [details]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
17:51:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 29211
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29211
gcc48-pr55742.patch
Updated patch with ChangeLog entry and code to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #36 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-18
18:03:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
Created attachment 29207 [details]
gcc48-pr55742.patch
This bug is open for way too long given its severity, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #37 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-18
18:07:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
Created attachment 29211 [details]
gcc48-pr55742.patch
Updated patch with ChangeLog entry and code to prevent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #38 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-18
19:53:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
Created attachment 29207 [details]
gcc48-pr55742.patch
This bug is open for way too long given its severity, so let's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #30 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2013-01-17 22:45:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-16
08:11:42 UTC ---
Merging of target attribute is what gcc/g++ did though, the function would get
then both target attributes (seems later decl's target wins), and the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #24 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-16
15:53:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Merging of target attribute is what gcc/g++ did though, the function would get
then both target attributes (seems later
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-16
16:02:35 UTC ---
The actual merging of target attribute isn't that important, what would be more
important is that other attributes are merged together in that case and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #26 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com richard.guenther at
gmail dot com 2013-01-16 16:05:01 UTC ---
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #27 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-16
17:20:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #28 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-16
17:25:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
The actual merging of target attribute isn't that important, what would be
more
important is that other attributes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #29 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-16
20:03:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
Anyway, with target(any) attribute, what would happen for
void foo () __attribute__((target (avx)));
void foo ()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-15
18:45:18 UTC ---
What does it mean to merge two declarations with different target attributes?
Are the strings just combined?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #22 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2013-01-15 19:03:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
What does it mean to merge two declarations with different target attributes?
Are the strings just combined?
This is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-14
14:38:04 UTC ---
I'd say once a target attribute appears at a declaration (non-definition) MV
needs to be disabled. Or, the declarations target attribute and those at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #11 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2013-01-14 17:17:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I'd say once a target attribute appears at a declaration (non-definition) MV
needs to be disabled. Or, the declarations target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #12 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2013-01-14 17:20:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Either use a different name of the attribute (replace target with mv_target or
whatever), or require a new attribute (mv?) to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #13 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-14
17:45:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #10)
Either use a different name of the attribute (replace target with mv_target
or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #14 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2013-01-14 17:49:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #10)
Either use a different name of the attribute (replace target with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #15 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-14
18:07:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #10)
Either use a different name of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-14
18:25:41 UTC ---
I guess if for multiversioning you want the two decls to be independent, like
overloaded functions with different argument types are, then IMHO the mv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-14
18:32:44 UTC ---
Actually, what you'd merge is everything as usually if mv attribute isn't on
either of the decls, or if mv attribute is present on either one, and both
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #18 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2013-01-14 20:17:45
UTC ---
All target attributes on decls not tagged with 'mv' attribute should be merged
into the default definition. Any decl tagged with 'mv' should be treated as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-14
20:23:54 UTC ---
That wouldn't work, because you would then have the default (non-mv) version,
possibly mv version with no target attribute, and then some other mv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #20 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2013-01-14 20:29:54
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
That wouldn't work, because you would then have the default (non-mv) version,
possibly mv version with no target attribute,
39 matches
Mail list logo
