Fabien Chêne fabien.ch...@gmail.com a écrit:
Index: gcc/dbxout.c
===
--- gcc/dbxout.c (revision 178088)
+++ gcc/dbxout.c (working copy)
@@ -1518,6 +1518,8 @@ dbxout_type_fields (tree type)
if (TREE_CODE (tem)
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
This puts flag_next_runtime into the global options structure
I needed to deal with '-fobjc-sjlj-exceptions' and elected to remove it -
- this is because there is only one valid exception model for
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/07/11 15:36, Richard Guenther wrote:
Yes. tree-affine does this for a sum of expressions of the form a
+ b * c. It collects such sum, optimizes it (and you can
add/subtract
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2011/11/9 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/07/11 15:36, Richard Guenther wrote:
Yes. tree-affine does this for a sum of expressions of the form a
+ b * c. It collects
Hi,
This patch handles CALL_EXPRs in constant/invariant operand creation in SLP.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-suse-linux.
Committed.
Ira
ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/51058
* tree-vect-slp.c (vect_get_constant_vectors): Handle CALL_EXPR.
testsuite/ChangeLog:
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100
From: Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
* function.c (bb_active_p): Delete.
2011-11-09 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
PR target/50911
* config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_perm_interleave2): If d-vmode is
V4SImode, !TARGET_SSE2 and punpck[lh]* is needed, change dremap.vmode
to V4SFmode.
Thanks for fixing this. I've installed the Ada testcase.
2011/11/10 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2011/11/9 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/07/11 15:36, Richard Guenther wrote:
Yes. tree-affine does this for a
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100
From: Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2011/11/10 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2011/11/9 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On
From: Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:22:56 +0100
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100
From: Alan Modra
When using gimple_has_side_effects on a GIMPLE_LABEL with a
LABEL_DECL with DECL_FORCED_LABEL set we ICE. That is because
gimple_has_side_effects uses TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS on the LABEL_DECL
which isn't valid. Fixed by (finally) cleaning up this
predicate, removing all code that can only be
This fixes PR51070 where we repace the partition
bb 5:
# g_224.0_23 = PHI g_224.1_10(7), g_224.0_22(4)
D.2957_3 = g_92[g_224.0_23];
g_92[g_224.0_23] = 0;
g_224.1_10 = g_224.0_23 + 1;
if (g_224.1_10 != 0)
goto bb 7;
else
goto bb 6;
bb 6:
# g_95_I_lsm.15_29 = PHI D.2957_3(5)
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
From: Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:22:56 +0100
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
On 11/10/11 13:14, Richard Guenther wrote:
Fair enough. You can count me as one then, and I'll defer to Bernd
to either provide a fix or ack the revert.
I'm trying to track it down.
In 189r.outof_cfglayout, we have
(insn 31 33 35 3 (use (reg/i:SI 0 r0))
Currently when building unwind-dw2.c for powerpc64 I see
In file included from ../../../libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:376:0:
./md-unwind-support.h: In function 'frob_update_context':
./md-unwind-support.h:371:8: warning: passing argument 3 of
'_Unwind_SetGRPtr' makes pointer from integer without a cast
On 28/09/11 17:15, Sameera Deshpande wrote:
Hi!
This patch generates Thumb2 epilogues in RTL form.
The work involves defining new functions, predicates and patterns along with
few changes in existing code:
* The load_multiple_operation predicate was found to be too restrictive for
Hi Richard,
thanks for your comments.
--
+ if (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (elt = XVECEXP (op, 0, offset_adj))) == PLUS)
It's generally best not to use assignments within conditionals unless
there is a strong reason otherwise (that normally implies something like
being deep within a condition
On 11/09/11 18:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So here is hopefully last iteration of that.
Negative constants that trunc_int_for_mode to the same value
are IMHO just fine too, similarly for ZERO_EXTEND 0x for HImode
should be fine too. On the other side, if mode is DImode and
outer mode of
Hello!
This patch defines -march=bdver1 and -mtune=bdver1 flag for the upcoming
AMD Bulldozer processor.
Hi,
it seems that bdver/btver is not mentioned in invoke.texi nor changes.html.
Could you please add documentation?
Honza
This fixes PR51042.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
Richard.
2011-11-10 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR tree-optimization/51042
* tree-ssa-pre.c (phi_translate_1): Avoid recursing on
self-referential expressions. Refactor
No, it isn't. Expanders call other expanders to do fancy stuff. When
everything is done, they tag a REG_EQUAL note on the last insn.
One of the purposes of set_unique_reg_note is lubricate this process:
the layered expanders can add multiple REG_EQUAL notes. We only want
the most
With your last patches, I get decent test results for libitm on Solaris
11/x86, both with Sun as/ld and gas/Sun ld:
=== libitm tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: libitm.c/clone-1.c execution test
FAIL: libitm.c/memcpy-1.c execution test
FAIL: libitm.c/memset-1.c execution test
On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:35 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
flag_exceptions also triggers middle-end behavior - without it no
statement can possibly throw
Actually, one version of exception handling for objective c++ doesn't require
flag_exceptions... One can indeed @throw without
Initial aim of the pass was to remove zero extentions redundant due to
implicit zero extention in x64. But implementation actually uses
generic approach and seems like a mini-combiner. Pass may combine two
zero extends or combine zero extend with a constant as a special case
but in other
So, what about the patch? I think since we already have zee patch it
would be great to use it as more general optimization. I tested it on
EEMBC 2.0 on Atom and it showed 1% performance gain in geomean on 32
bit which is really good for such simple optimization. For OOO archs
patch is not so
On 11/09/2011 02:15 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
NAND patchup arithmetic was missing the 2 stage AND then NOT operation.
Instead it was falling into the same sequence as every other operation
and
trying to perform a binary operation on a NOT.
I managed to modify and existing testcase to trigger
On 11/10/2011 08:29 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
PR rtl-optimization/51040
* optabs.c (expand_atomic_fetch_op): Patchup code for NAND should be AND
followed by NOT.
* builtins.c (expand_builtin_atomic_fetch_op): Patchup code for NAND
should be AND followed by NOT.
The issue here is no atomic support whatsoever. The standard now
*requires* that atomic_flag be implementable in a lock free manner for
compliance. That means they must resolve to something, and not an
external library call.
In order to support atomic_flag in a lock free manner on a target,
Just for fun, I gave libitm a try on alpha-dec-osf5.1b, too. Here's
what I found:
* config/alpha/sjlj.S needs trivial changes for the non-ELF/non-Linux
platform.
* Initially, all C tests were failing like this:
333619:./simple-1.exe: /sbin/loader: Error: libitm.so.0: symbol
On 11/10/2011 08:35 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Currently I don't issue any warnings ...
+ /* Otherwise issue the store and a warning. */
+ warning_at (loc, 0,
+ __atomic_clear used on target with no atomic support);
+ __atomic_clear (a, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); /* {
On 11/10/2011 11:47 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/10/2011 08:35 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Currently I don't issue any warnings ...
What are those then?
And, obviously the cris test should be an effective target test.
Oh, those are gone, I must not have re-svn'd
Justa minute
Andrew
On 11/10/2011 08:42 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
libitm:
* config/alpha/sjlj.S (_ITM_beginTransaction) [!__ELF__]: Don't use
.hidden.
(.note.GNU-stack): Only use if __linux__.
* alloc_cpp.cc [!HAVE_WEAKDEF] (_ZnaXRKSt9nothrow_t): Dummy function.
*
On 11/10/2011 11:48 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/10/2011 11:47 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/10/2011 08:35 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Currently I don't issue any warnings ...
What are those then?
And, obviously the cris test should be an effective target test.
Oh, those are gone, I
On 11-11-08 13:11 , Delesley Hutchins wrote:
This patch fixes a bug wherein the trylock attribute would not work if
it was attached to a virtual method.
Bootstrapped and passed gcc regression testsuite on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Okay for google/gcc-4_6?
-DeLesley
Changelog.google-4_6:
On 11/10/2011 08:52 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
libstdc++-v3
* include/bits/atomic_base.h (atomic_thread_fence): Call built-in.
(atomic_signal_fence): Call built-in.
(test_and_set, clear): Call new atomic built-ins.
gcc
* builtins.c
On 11-11-03 14:20 , Delesley Hutchins wrote:
This patch adds support for array indexing (i.e. operator []) in lock
expressions. The current version of gcc seems to emit these as
expressions involving pointer arithmetic, so we update
get_canonical_lock_expr() to handle such expressions.
On 11/10/2011 12:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 04:32:58PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
Not pretty at all. But given the corresponding irritation in writing
assembler
wrapper functions, it seems like it's about a wash.
Tested with and without HAVE_AS_AVX on
Hi,
the inlining heuristics are nowadays decent. In particular, at -O2 the
compiler does the obvious inlinings:
- If the function body is very small (for some measure of small, see
-finline-small-functions)
- static functions called once (-finline-functions-called-once)
Where GCC may need help
Hi Mike,
just want to state my understanding to allow you to comment if I'm
off
On 10 Nov 2011, at 16:12, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:35 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
wrote:
flag_exceptions also triggers middle-end behavior - without it no
statement can possibly
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:12:54 +0100
From: Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:29:04 +0100
HP, can you run full tests?
Cross-test to cris-elf in progress.
Thanks!
Works, no regressions compared to before the
Looks like it is fixed already, so there is no need for this patch.
David
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Here is the revised patch. Bootstrap and regression tested
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/09/11 14:09, Kai Tietz wrote:
Well, such a comparison-logic-folder helper - like affine-tree for
add/subtract/scale) - is for sure something good for inner gimple
passes building up new logic-truth expressions, but such a pass
doesn't
Why PLUS_EXPR and MULT_EXPR? Pointer arithmetic should use
POINTER_PLUS_EXPR exclusively. I don't think you should be seeing
PLUS_EXPRs here. The MULT_EXPR show up in scaling expressions?
MULT_EXPR shows up in array indexing, since the index is multiplied by
the size of the element; gcc
On 11-11-10 13:05 , Delesley Hutchins wrote:
Why PLUS_EXPR and MULT_EXPR? Pointer arithmetic should use
POINTER_PLUS_EXPR exclusively. I don't think you should be seeing
PLUS_EXPRs here. The MULT_EXPR show up in scaling expressions?
MULT_EXPR shows up in array indexing, since the index is
From: Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:52:44 +0100
On 11/10/2011 11:48 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Justa minute
Andrew
doh. sorry about that
Test cross to cris-elf in progress for your second take (at
r181254 + Bernd's patch to unbreak the tree for
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:44 +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 28/09/11 17:15, Sameera Deshpande wrote:
Hi!
This patch generates Thumb2 epilogues in RTL form.
The work involves defining new functions, predicates and patterns along with
few changes in existing code:
* The
But you should not see such an expression in gimple. The array index is
always a gimple_val.
I'm not sure what you mean. The expression array[i+1] compiles to
the following (courtesy of dump-tree-ssa):
D.2095_4 = (long unsigned int) i_1;
D.2096_5 = D.2095_4 + 1;
D.2097_6 = D.2096_5 * 4;
On 11-11-10 13:25 , Delesley Hutchins wrote:
But you should not see such an expression in gimple. The array index is
always a gimple_val.
I'm not sure what you mean. The expression array[i+1] compiles to
the following (courtesy of dump-tree-ssa):
D.2095_4 = (long unsigned int) i_1;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/09/11 15:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/09/2011 06:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
My patch totally ignores the other code on the unexecutable path.
So we can miss externally visible side effects, if we were to
somehow get on the unexecutable path.
Hi!
The PR50700 change caused infinite recursion - we shouldn't
call compute_builtin_object_size on SSA_NAMEs more than two times,
otherwise we risk calling it endlessly. But TREE_CODE (pt_var)
in this code is known to be MEM_REF, so always != SSA_NAME.
Fixed thusly, committed as obvious to
Hi!
This patch adds folding of the new VEC_PERM_EXPR as well as the older
more specialized permutation exprs. For VEC_PERM_EXPR e.g.
__builtin_shuffle may be used with constant arguments, for the other
one the vectorizer sometimes creates it (though, admittedly, it should
try harder to figure it
I've committed this patch to reorganize the internal data structures of gcov in
preparation for some future features. The main change is that the sources list
becomes an array. This changes references to a source_info object to be an
index into the array, rather than a pointer.
In making
Hello!
Attached patch fixes corner case with reload, where reload propagates
constant zero into zero_extended LEA instruction, creating invalid
RTX:
(insn 4 15 52 2 (set (reg/v:SI 59 [ p_60 ])
(const_int 0 [0])) tt.c:24 64 {*movsi_internal}
(nil))
...
(insn 29 28 30 3 (set (reg:DI
Hi!
Running valgrind even on simple testcases shows a bunch of
memory leaks (definitely lost). This patch cures some of them.
There are a few further leaks in the options handling.
The first hunk is when this function already called concat to set
opt_text, and then doesn't write opt_text
Hi!
This patch fixes some compiler memory leaks in SLP.
For vect_free_oprnd_info I've removed the FREE_DEF_STMTS argument
and am freeing the defs always, but set them to NULL when moving the vectors
over elsewhere, because otherwise if vect_create_new_slp_node
or vect_build_slp_tree fails after
Previously, I split out this exact configure fragment to
config/asmcfi.m4 for use in libitm. This just tidies the
original use in libffi so that we don't have duplicates.
Tested on x86_64-linux and committed.
r~
commit 022a1701c4517308af026c64c707883358b37f26
Author: rth
On 7 November 2011 21:47, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/07/2011 04:43 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Unfortunately this doesn't work very well in C++11 mode, as defaulted
constructors don't cause warnings when they should do e.g.
Maybe check this in defaulted_late_check?
I tried that (attached)
On 11/10/2011 11:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+ if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == VECTOR_CST)
+ {
+ for (i = 0, t = TREE_VECTOR_CST_ELTS (arg0);
+i nelements t; i++, t = TREE_CHAIN (t))
+ elements[i] = TREE_VALUE (t);
+ if (t)
+
On 11/10/2011 12:00 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
VEC_PERM_EXPR is explicitly modulo. Don't fail, mask.
It does occur to me that we could usefully fold a constant selector with
out-of-range elements to a new selector with in-range elements, even if the
other operands are non-constant. This
On 11/10/2011 02:48 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+warn_missing_meminits (tree type, tree cons)
+{
+ tree mem_inits = sort_mem_initializers (type, NULL_TREE);
+ while (mem_inits)
+{
+ tree member = TREE_PURPOSE (mem_inits);
+ /* TODO do not warn if brace-or-equal-initializer */
+
On 11/10/2011 03:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/10/2011 02:48 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+warn_missing_meminits (tree type, tree cons)
+{
+ tree mem_inits = sort_mem_initializers (type, NULL_TREE);
+ while (mem_inits)
+ {
+ tree member = TREE_PURPOSE (mem_inits);
+ /* TODO do not warn if
Hello!
Predicates, defined with define_predicate do not handle CONST_INT
and CONST_DOUBLE operands at all, let alone provide any sort of
special bypass for them. Just remove wrong text to save some poor soul
from tripping this trap in the future.
2011-11-10 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com
Thanks. I reformatted the patch a bit and added a testcase; here's what
I'm checking in.
commit 91eed4ebec24bbb2993c1ca8a5407f4fdeff48ec
Author: Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Nov 10 00:11:13 2011 -0500
PR debug/50983
* dwarf2out.c (set_cur_line_info_table): Restore the
On 10 Nov 2011, at 17:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/10/2011 12:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 04:32:58PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
Not pretty at all. But given the corresponding irritation in
writing assembler
wrapper functions, it seems like it's about a
DR 495 changed the order of these rules.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit dc49a72a22b10b39edc054414537bda44ce82546
Author: Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Nov 10 14:59:15 2011 -0500
PR c++/51079, DR 495
* call.c (joust): Check the second conversion
On 11/10/2011 03:25 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
libtool: link: /GCC/gcc-4-7-trunk-build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/GCC/gcc-4-7-trunk-build/./gcc/
-B/GCC/gcc-4-7-install/i686-apple-darwin9/bin/
-B/GCC/gcc-4-7-install/i686-apple-darwin9/lib/ -isystem
/GCC/gcc-4-7-install/i686-apple-darwin9/include -isystem
+# non-PIC targets always get an array-bounds error in
thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns
+function.o-warn = -Wno-error
Didn't we find another way to fix this? In any case this is
not present in your changelog.
Otherwise the port is looking ok.
r~
On 10 Nov 2011, at 20:33, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On 11/10/2011 03:25 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
libtool: link: /GCC/gcc-4-7-trunk-build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/GCC/gcc-4-7-trunk-build/./gcc/
-B/GCC/gcc-4-7-install/i686-apple-darwin9/bin/
-B/GCC/gcc-4-7-install/i686-apple-darwin9/lib/ -isystem
Didn't we find another way to fix this? In any case this is
not present in your changelog.
Yes, please ignore that. I do svn diff and then have to cut out all
the bits that aren't part of the base port itself.
Here the problem was that we were calling use_thunk before we knew what
the right linkage for the function it's thunking to was. Fixed by
deferring synthesis of virtual dtors until EOF.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 566d5469261e63f8359998386b3b7c60ecd5e2ba
Author:
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:06:26 +0100
From: Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:52:44 +0100
On 11/10/2011 11:48 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Justa minute
Andrew
doh. sorry about that
Test cross to cris-elf in
On 11-11-10 17:23 , Delesley Hutchins wrote:
+{
+ tree callee = gimple_call_fn (call);
+ if (TREE_CODE (callee) == OBJ_TYPE_REF)
+{
+ tree objtype = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (OBJ_TYPE_REF_OBJECT (callee)));
+ /* Check to make sure objtype is a valid type.
+
On 11/10/2011 02:28 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
* doc/extend.texi: Document __atomic_test_and_set and __atomic_clear.
ok.
r~
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:
lild -r is now supported with LTO. When using assembler files or non
LTOed objects inside ld -r objects together with LTO then the Linux
binutils 2.21.51.0.3 or later are needed./li
I think this should be
On 10 November 2011 20:17, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/10/2011 03:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/10/2011 02:48 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+warn_missing_meminits (tree type, tree cons)
+{
+ tree mem_inits = sort_mem_initializers (type, NULL_TREE);
+ while (mem_inits)
+ {
+ tree member =
On 10 Nov 2011, at 20:43, Iain Sandoe wrote:
The symbol _ITM_malloc is in libitm. Maybe the problem is an extra
_ before the _ITM_malloc?
Actually, I think the missing symbol is
___emutls_v._ZN3GTM12_gtm_thr_tlsE
and (although the m32 lib builds OK - the symbol is also missing
there).
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 02:29:04PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/10/11 13:14, Richard Guenther wrote:
Fair enough. You can count me as one then, and I'll defer to Bernd
to either provide a fix or ack the revert.
I'm trying to track it down.
In 189r.outof_cfglayout, we have
(insn
http://codereview.appspot.com/5303083/diff/28001/gcc/tree-tsan.c
File gcc/tree-tsan.c (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5303083/diff/28001/gcc/tree-tsan.c#newcode227
gcc/tree-tsan.c:227: var = varpool_node_for_asm (id);
Use cgraph_node_for_asm instead.
Have you run through SPEC, and SPEC06 with this change? What is the
instrumentation overhead using gcc?
David
http://codereview.appspot.com/5303083/
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:29:35PM +, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 10 Nov 2011, at 20:43, Iain Sandoe wrote:
The symbol _ITM_malloc is in libitm. Maybe the problem is an extra _
before the _ITM_malloc?
Actually, I think the missing symbol is
___emutls_v._ZN3GTM12_gtm_thr_tlsE
and
On 11/10/2011 03:29 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
The m64 build fails because of the -Wl,-undefined -Wl,dynamic_lookup
FAOD, Is there some reason that this library needs to resolve symbols
from some external source at load time?
Not that I know of. I think that's generic libtool giving you that.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Kostya Serebryany k...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:00 PM, davi...@google.com wrote:
Have you run through SPEC, and SPEC06 with this change? What is the
instrumentation overhead using gcc?
I don't think anyone of us ever run spec with tsan.
On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Thanks for catching that --- brainstorm on my part ... the code under
discussion should have been #ifndef OBCPLUS
There is no prohibition against C having exceptions, so, doesn't matter if you
turn C++ off, you can still throw through C code, so
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
Running valgrind even on simple testcases shows a bunch of
memory leaks (definitely lost). This patch cures some of them.
There are a few further leaks in the options handling.
The first hunk is when this function already called concat to
DR 1155 allows variables and functions with internal linkage to be used
as template arguments.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit bd15c5ecefbb9f8a3a44d2547c3a6a9881a47f31
Author: Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Nov 10 21:59:59 2011 -0500
PR c++/50372
*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/08/11 06:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
This should optimize VEC_BASE that Jakub was patching by teaching
phiopt to handle some one-statement intermediate basic-blocks.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, any comments?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/07/11 14:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof
of base is 0 (unless the compiler is doing something strange, it is
true). It doesn't have a clear code size effect, some .text
On 10 November 2011 21:31, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi!
This patch fixes some compiler memory leaks in SLP.
For vect_free_oprnd_info I've removed the FREE_DEF_STMTS argument
and am freeing the defs always, but set them to NULL when moving the vectors
over elsewhere, because
Hello Eric,
Thanks for review!
2011/11/10 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com:
So, what about the patch? I think since we already have zee patch it
would be great to use it as more general optimization. I tested it on
EEMBC 2.0 on Atom and it showed 1% performance gain in geomean on 32
bit
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
DR 1155 allows variables and functions with internal linkage to be used as
template arguments.
Yay!
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:58:36PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof
of base is 0 (unless the compiler is doing something strange, it is
true). It doesn't have a clear code size effect, some .text
sections grew, supposedly because of
92 matches
Mail list logo
