On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 01:34:30PM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
I did two ports of Mandriva to armv7. One of my choice to use softfp,
and another hardfp port to be compatible with other distros. But other
than a previous armv5 port, there is not much else of Mandriva arm,
so, it would be
Hi,
I'd like to ping this patch, as it hasn't been reviewed for 4 weeks.
Tristan.
On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:08 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
This at last implements static stack checking for the IA-64, i.e. stack
checking of the static part of the frame, and makes it possible to pass the
entire
I'd like to ping this patch as it fixed an ICE visible on both ia64 linux and
ia64 openvms.
Tristan.
On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:07 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
We have a regression on one of the testcases of our internal testsuite on
IA-64
with a 4.7-based compiler, which is of the form:
Arno, do you have objections to me applying the attached patch to the 4.5
branch? It makes it possible to build (and bootstrap) the Ada compiler on the
4.5 branch (oldest supported branch) with the 4.6 compiler, which is now the
system compiler in recent Linux distributions.
The patch
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:36:52AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
--- init.c(revision 186078)
+++ init.c(working copy)
@@ -86,6 +86,9 @@
/* Global values computed by the binder. */
int __gl_main_priority = -1;
+#if (__GNUC__ * 10 + __GNUC_MINOR__ 45)
Shouldn't
Arno, do you have objections to me applying the attached patch to the 4.5
branch? It makes it possible to build (and bootstrap) the Ada compiler on the
4.5 branch (oldest supported branch) with the 4.6 compiler, which is now the
system compiler in recent Linux distributions.
Well, we don't
On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 04/03/2012 02:42 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
The simplest path is simply to reverse the include order in libgfortran.h.
I know that this is somewhat VMS specific, and I welcome better ideas.
Well, changing the order is not that bad
On 03.04.2012 13:36, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 06:56:25PM +0400, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
After Richi's RTL generation related cleanups went it, the extra
cleanup_cfg call was added so we are no longer lucky to have the
proper fallthru edge in this case. The PR trail has
Shouldn't this be * 100 and 405 ? I mean, we already had GCC
2.95, 2.96, 2.97 and 20 + 95 is 45...
This idiom is the one already used in tracebak.c for example. Would that
really matter in practice?
--
Eric Botcazou
Well, we don't guarantee such compatibility in general,
so I'd like to make it clear that people shouldn't expect this combination
to work, and if more complex patches are submitted, we'll likely NOT
integrate them.
That's mainly for GCC developers; without this, it will be a pain to keep
Hi,
this patch fixes a build time failure on VMS (while compiling Ada RTS file
i-cstrin.adb) due to the use of short pointers:
i-cstrin.adb: In function 'Interfaces.C.Strings.To_Chars_Ptr':
i-cstrin.adb:236:8: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 80 79 81 13 (set (reg:SI 384)
(const_int
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 10:08:50AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Shouldn't this be * 100 and 405 ? I mean, we already had GCC
2.95, 2.96, 2.97 and 20 + 95 is 45...
This idiom is the one already used in tracebak.c for example. Would that
really matter in practice?
It is a bad idiom,
Hello,
Is it OK to push the cleaning of TREE_NO_WARNING to fix the constant
expressions errors discrepancies, as discussed in bugzilla #52283, now
that the trunk is open ?
Many thanks,
2012-03-29 Manuel López-Ibáñez m...@gcc.gnu.org
PR c/52283/37985
* stmt.c
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes a build time failure on VMS (while compiling Ada RTS file
i-cstrin.adb) due to the use of short pointers:
i-cstrin.adb: In function 'Interfaces.C.Strings.To_Chars_Ptr':
i-cstrin.adb:236:8: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn
Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
The attached patch restructures the move insn displacement calculations
a bit more. The idea is to have the displacement addressing decision
making logic in a few simple functions and then re-use those in other
places, as opposed to having multiple
It is a bad idiom, given that we already had = 10 __GNUC_MINOR__ and it
is possible we'll have 4.10 as well.
E.g. __GNUC_PREREQ macro in glibc shifts left major by 16, but even
multiplying by 100 instead of 10 is better.
OK, we'll change the idiom on mainline.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Apr 4, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes a build time failure on VMS (while compiling Ada RTS file
i-cstrin.adb) due to the use of short pointers:
i-cstrin.adb: In function
Hi,
I am committing this patch (as obvious) to adjust the style of the VMS specific
function to_ptr32.
Tested by building for ia64-hp-openvms.
Tristan.
libiberty/
2012-04-04 Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com
* pex-unix.c (to_ptr32): Fix style.
Index: pex-unix.c
Hi,
unfortunately VMS (when 64bit pointers are used - which is nice for gcc) is
also an LLP64 platform.
So I need to follow to Win64 way in splay-tree.h.
Tested manually by build (and using) gcc on ia64-hp-openvms.
Ok for trunk ?
Tristan.
include/
2012-04-04 Tristan Gingold
On 04/03/2012 11:53 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Now, I wonder why the dynamic linker cannot figure out the ABI itself
by means of using ELF flags or so?
There are no ELF flags for this in executables. The attributes only
apply to object files and anyway they are too expensive to decode at
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Arnaud Charlet char...@adacore.com wrote:
Arno, do you have objections to me applying the attached patch to the 4.5
branch? It makes it possible to build (and bootstrap) the Ada compiler on
the
4.5 branch (oldest supported branch) with the 4.6 compiler, which
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Michael Hope wrote:
The tricky one is new GCC with old GLIBC. GCC may have to do a
configure time test and fall back to /lib/ld-linux.so.3 if the hard
float loader is missing.
I don't think that's appropriate for ABI issues. If a different dynamic
linker name is
Janne Blomqvist wrote:
the attached patch implements a few fixes and cleanups for the MOD and
MODULO intrinsics.
The patch adds notes to the documentation about the usage of fmod, so
users interested in corner-case behavior can look up how that function
is supposed to behave on their target.
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
If the agreement is that arm 32-bit softfp really needs to be installable
alongside 32-bit hardfp (and alongside aarch64), then IMHO it should do it
like all other multilib ports (x86_64/i?86/x32, s390/s390x, ppc/ppc64, the
various MIPS variants) and
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 07:49:04PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com writes:
Now that we are back in stage1, I'd like to apply
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00304.html, a change to
toc reference rtl in order to
On 04/04/2012 09:55 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Hi,
unfortunately VMS (when 64bit pointers are used - which is nice for gcc) is
also an LLP64 platform.
So I need to follow to Win64 way in splay-tree.h.
Doesn't VMS gcc define __LP64__/__LLP64__? Then we could for example:
#if !(defined
Dear Tobias,
This is OK for trunk - thanks for the patch.
Cheers
Paul
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch only sets TREE_PUBLIC for module variables and module
procedures which have neither the PRIVATE attribute nor a C-binding
Hi Christian,
You have to add the testcases from both PR52283 and PR37985, and an
appropriate Changelog, and bootstrap+regression test everything and
double-check that the new testcases don't fail and no old testcases
fail with the patch (by comparing with the testcases that fail without
the
On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 04/04/2012 09:55 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Hi,
unfortunately VMS (when 64bit pointers are used - which is nice for gcc) is
also an LLP64 platform.
So I need to follow to Win64 way in splay-tree.h.
Doesn't VMS gcc define
This fixes LTO profiledbootstrap. tracer tail-duplicates loop
headers; that is not profitable and it makes loops have multiple
entries which inhibits further optimization. The following
patch cures that.
LTO profiledbootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, regular
testing in progress.
On 04/04/2012 11:38 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Hi Christian,
You have to add the testcases from both PR52283 and PR37985, and an
appropriate Changelog, and bootstrap+regression test everything and
double-check that the new testcases don't fail and no old testcases
fail with the patch (by
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 10:25:39AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
With the loop thing, do you mean that you're seeing too many HIGHs
being hoisted?
No, nothing as complicated as that. In a lot of cases, any hoisting
of the high part is bad, because the linker nops out the high part and
edits
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:11, Tobias Burnus
tobias.bur...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
Janne Blomqvist wrote:
the attached patch implements a few fixes and cleanups for the MOD and
MODULO intrinsics.
The patch adds notes to the documentation about the usage of fmod, so
users interested in
Please could I apply the patch below to the RL78 port ? It adds
support for generating stack use info with the -fstack-usage option.
You probably need to adjust gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c too.
Index: gcc/config/rl78/rl78.c
===
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
Testresults for 4.4.7:
powerpc-apple-darwin8.11.0
Thanks, Tom!
Gerald
On 4 April 2012 13:05, Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com wrote:
The testscase was part of the attached patch, along with the ChangeLog
entries
You are right! Sorry, I may have been looking at the wrong place.
It was bootstrapped and regtested for C and C++ on x86 (that was in bugzilla
It turns out I've been over-eager removing Tru64 UNIX support from
libjava, breaking at least the HP-UX 11.00 build. The following patch
fixes this, tested by Dave Anglin on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00 and
bootstrapped on i386-pc-solaris2.11.
Ok for mainline?
Thanks.
Rainer
2012-03-21
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi,
This is a re-post of the patch I posted for
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:06:05 + (UTC)
Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Michael Hope wrote:
The tricky one is new GCC with old GLIBC. GCC may have to do a
configure time test and fall back to /lib/ld-linux.so.3 if the hard
float loader is missing.
I
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 11:02:11AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
There is a further subtlety in the second temp allocation when the expression
doesn't use the alias set of its type. In that case, we cannot pass the type
to set_mem_attributes. In fact,
On 04/04/2012 04:45 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
I suppose you do not want to use builtins because for primitive types you
end up with multiple statements for something atomic?
The primary motivation is that builtins cannot return two values.
Our current builtin returns one of the two values by
Ok.
r~
On 04/04/2012 03:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
I'd like to ping this patch as it fixed an ICE visible on both ia64 linux and
ia64 openvms.
Tristan.
On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:07 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
We have a regression on one of the testcases of our internal testsuite on
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 04:45 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
I suppose you do not want to use builtins because for primitive types you
end up with multiple statements for something atomic?
The primary motivation is that builtins
Hi Eric,
On 04/04/12 12:24, Eric Botcazou wrote:
You probably need to adjust gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c too.
s/flag_stack_usage/flag_stack_usage_info/
Thanks for the corrections. Revised patch attached.
OK for mainline/4.7 branch ?
Cheers
Nick
gcc/ChangeLog
2012-04-04 Nick Clifton
Several passes needlessly cleanup EH after gsi_remove because they do
not know whether the stmt was removed from EH regions. The following
patch returns this information from gsi_remove and adjusts all users
I could find appropriately.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu,
On 04/04/2012 09:28 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I wasn't excited about creating a new gimple statement, but it seemed
the best solution to my issues. In the end, I think this works very
cleanly. Im certainly open to better solutions. If there is a plan to
change gimple in some way that this
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com writes:
include/
2012-04-04 Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com
* splay-tree.h: Use LLP64 definitions of libi_shostptr_t and
libi_hostptr_t for VMS with 64bit pointers.
I was strongly opposed to adding a _WIN64 define here and this is just
On 04/04/2012 04:45 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
The fact that you need to touch every place that wants to look at memory
accesses shows that you are doing it wrong. Instead my plan was to
force _all_ memory accesses to GIMPLE_ASSIGNs (yes, including those
we have now in calls). You're making
On 04/04/2012 09:46 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
If that is the only reason you can return two values by using a complex
or vector type (that would be only an IL implementation detail as far
as I can see).
We use that trick to get sincos () sane in our IL as well.
That would work if the two
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 04:45 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
The fact that you need to touch every place that wants to look at memory
accesses shows that you are doing it wrong. Instead my plan was to
force _all_ memory accesses
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 09:46 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
If that is the only reason you can return two values by using a complex
or vector type (that would be only an IL implementation detail as far
as I can see).
We use that
My patch for return type deduction forgot to update the fntype local
variable in finish_function, leading to a bogus warning about a missing
return statement.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 12a282edca78579074f5f4180cd2dce1edebd2bf
Author: Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi everyone, especially Richi and Eric,
I'd like to know what is your attitude to changing SRA's
build_ref_for_model to what it once looked like, so that it produces
COMPONENT_REFs only for bit-fields. The non-bit field handling was
added in order
On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com writes:
include/
2012-04-04 Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com
* splay-tree.h: Use LLP64 definitions of libi_shostptr_t and
libi_hostptr_t for VMS with 64bit pointers.
I was strongly
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com writes:
Would something like that be acceptable ?
I have just checked that I can still build gcc with that patch. If you like
this approach I will properly submit a patch.
Thanks.
You should also test that gdb continues to build with this patch.
I guess
On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com writes:
Would something like that be acceptable ?
I have just checked that I can still build gcc with that patch. If you like
this approach I will properly submit a patch.
Thanks.
You should
On 04/04/2012 04:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com writes:
Would something like that be acceptable ?
I have just checked that I can still build gcc with that patch. If you
like this approach I will properly submit a patch.
Thanks.
You should also
On 04/04/2012 10:33 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Andrew MacLeodamacl...@redhat.com wrote:
This is a WIP... that fntype fields is there for simplicity.. and no...
you can do a 1 byte atomic operation on a full word object if you want by
Oh, so you rather need a
Hello!
We need to use long long instead of long in gtm_jmpbuf for x86_64 since
long in x32 is 32bits. OK for trunk and 4.7 branch?
2012-04-03 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
PR libitm/52854
* config/x86/target.h (gtm_jmpbuf): Replace long with long long
for x86-64.
OK.
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
Latest results for 4.5.x
-tgc
Testresults for 4.5.3:
i386-pc-solaris2.8 (2)
Thanks, Tom, this is life.
Gerald
Hello!
The fix for PR52689 caused following testsuite failure on
alphaev68-pc-linux-gnu:
Running target unix
FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass41-frag.cxx (-static) (test for excess errors)
WARNING: libmudflap.c++/pass41-frag.cxx (-static) compilation failed
to produce executable
From the testsuite log:
Hello!
This patch defines TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE for Linux/x32. Tested on Linux/x32.
OK for trunk?
2012-04-03 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
* config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE): Defined to
0x6000 for x32.
I think we can simply check for __LP64__, without version check,
2012-04-04 Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com
gcc/
* doc/extend.texi (__builtin_arm_tinsrb): Add missing second
parameter.
(__builtin_arm_tinsrh): Likewise.
(__builtin_arm_tinsrw): Likewise.
---
This patch and 2/2 are tie-ons to
2012-04-04 Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com
gcc/
* doc/install.texi: Correct typo -mno-lsc - -mno-llsc.
---
Still waiting on copyright assignment, but I think this doc patch
is trivial enough to be committed without it.
gcc/doc/install.texi |2 +-
1 files changed, 1
2012-04-04 Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com
PR target/35294
* gcc.target/arm/mmx-2.c: New.
---
This patch and 1/2 are tie-ons to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg01269.html
Still waiting on copyright assignment, but please review in the meantime.
Is there anything
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
This patch defines TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE for Linux/x32. Tested on Linux/x32.
OK for trunk?
2012-04-03 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
* config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE): Defined to
0x6000 for
This patch to libgo adds more constants to the syscall package,
continuing the process of making the gccgo version of syscall more like
the one in the master library. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline and 4.7 branch.
Ian
diff -r 34124478458a
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:47 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
This patch defines TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE for Linux/x32. Tested on Linux/x32.
OK for trunk?
2012-04-03 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
*
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that
this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped
build. A full bootstrap will use correct address.
The other place where it shows up
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that
this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped
build. A
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 15:08 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
I had a request to backport this patch to the 4.6 branch and since it
is an obvious fix and hasn't caused any problems on the main line I have
gone ahead and checked it in. I tested the patch on the 4.6 branch with
IA64 HP-UX and had no regressions.
FYI: Friday will be my last day at HP but I
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I think:
...copies of the top bit. Note however that values are neither inherently
signed nor inherently unsigned; where necessary, signedness is determined
by the rtl operation instead.
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
I've revised my patch along these lines; see the new version below.
While testing it I realized I could do a better job of
Chao,
Let's take discussion of MIPS changes to gcc-patches@. Please follow up here.
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
CodeSourcery / Mentor Graphics
On 5/04/2012, at 10:10 AM, Fu, Chao-Ying wrote:
Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
I encourage you to submit the MIPS Android patches to
gcc-patches@. And, as long
On 4 April 2012 18:54, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 01:34:30PM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
I did two ports of Mandriva to armv7. One of my choice to use softfp,
and another hardfp port to be compatible with other distros. But other
than a previous armv5
On 4 April 2012 21:06, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Michael Hope wrote:
The tricky one is new GCC with old GLIBC. GCC may have to do a
configure time test and fall back to /lib/ld-linux.so.3 if the hard
float loader is missing.
I don't think that's
New patch to avoid LCP stalls based on feedback from earlier patch. I modified
H.J.'s old patch to perform the peephole2 to split immediate moves to HImode
memory. This is now enabled for Core2, Corei7 and Generic.
I verified that this enables the splitting to occur in the case that originally
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Michael Hope wrote:
I don't think that's appropriate for ABI issues. If a different dynamic
linker name is specified, GCC should use it unconditionally (and require
new enough glibc or a glibc installation that was appropriately
rearranged).
OK. I want GCC 4.7.1
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
New patch to avoid LCP stalls based on feedback from earlier patch. I modified
H.J.'s old patch to perform the peephole2 to split immediate moves to HImode
memory. This is now enabled for Core2, Corei7 and Generic.
I
On 5 April 2012 12:07, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Michael Hope wrote:
I don't think that's appropriate for ABI issues. If a different dynamic
linker name is specified, GCC should use it unconditionally (and require
new enough glibc or a glibc
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 02:39:58PM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
On 4 April 2012 10:56, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Michael Hope wrote:
+#define GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER \
+ %{mhard-float: GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER_HARD_FLOAT } \
+ %{mfloat-abi=hard:
There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests should use
-fno-common on all targets to avoid the recent spate of failures (see
discussion in 52571 and 52603). This patch (proposed by Dominique
D'Humieures) does just that. I agreed to shepherd the patch through.
I've verified that it
On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests should use
-fno-common on all targets to avoid the recent spate of failures (see
discussion in 52571 and 52603).
OK for trunk?
Ok. Any other solution I think will be real work and
http://codereview.appspot.com/5975045/diff/6001/config/i386/i386.md
File config/i386/i386.md (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5975045/diff/6001/config/i386/i386.md#newcode16974
config/i386/i386.md:16974: ;; gets too big.
The comments may need to be updated.
On 5 April 2012 15:56, asha...@chromium.org wrote:
Reviewers: Diego Novillo, jingyu, davidxl,
Message:
Please take a look at this patch and tell me if it's OK for
branches/google/gcc-4_6.
Description:
Backported the following patch from trunk:
2011-10-07 Andrew Stubbs
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
New patch to avoid LCP stalls based on feedback from earlier patch. I
modified
H.J.'s old patch to perform the peephole2 to split immediate moves to
89 matches
Mail list logo
