Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net writes:
Constructors are allowed, but PODs are often passed more efficiently.
That property seemed particularly important for double_int.
Show us the difference in timing. Show us the generated code. I
can't imagine that it could ever matter.
I'm also
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Richard Smith wrote:
I've attached a patch for unordered_map which solves the rvalue
reference problem. For efficiency, I've created a new
_M_emplace_bucket method rather than call emplace directly.
I've verified all libstdc++ tests pass (sorry for the previous
oversight)
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net writes:
Constructors are allowed, but PODs are often passed more efficiently.
That property seemed particularly important for double_int.
Show us the difference in timing. Show us the generated
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
On 8/7/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
Convert double_int from a struct with function into a class with
operators and methods.
Hi all!
I'd like to ask whether stack-protector changes for Android could go to 4.7?
Pathes are:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01089.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01157.html
Thanks,
Igor
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov ma...@codesourcery.com
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
index a07c046..b9a3589 100644
--- a/gcc/combine.c
+++ b/gcc/combine.c
@@ -10784,12 +10784,30 @@ gen_lowpart_for_combine (enum machine_mode omode,
rtx
x)
if (omode == imode)
return x;
- /* Return
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Constructors are allowed, but PODs are often passed more efficiently.
That property seemed particularly important for double_int.
Show us the difference in timing. Show us the generated code. I
can't imagine that it could ever matter.
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
+ static double_int make (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT cst);
+ static double_int make (HOST_WIDE_INT cst);
+ static double_int make (unsigned int cst);
+ static double_int make (int cst);
[...]
Btw, if HOST_WIDE_INT == int the above won't even
Hi DJ,
I am applying the following patch to the gcc mainline as an obvious
fix for the following problem building the RL78 backend:
gcc/config/rl78/rl78.c:151:3: error: 'PASS_POS_INSERT_BEFORE' undeclared
here (not in a function)
Cheers
Nick
gcc/ChangeLog
2012-08-08 Nick Clifton
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
+ static double_int make (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT cst);
+ static double_int make (HOST_WIDE_INT cst);
+ static double_int make (unsigned int cst);
+ static double_int make
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Nick Clifton ni...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi DJ,
I am applying the following patch to the gcc mainline as an obvious
fix for the following problem building the RL78 backend:
gcc/config/rl78/rl78.c:151:3: error: 'PASS_POS_INSERT_BEFORE' undeclared
here
Hi Richard,
Err - you are inside the compiler and should not use plugin stuff to
register your machine dependent pass.
Umm, OK, what is the correct method for registering target specific
passes ? (Ones that need to run at times other than
TARGET_MACHINE_DEPENDENT_REORG).
Cheers
Nick
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM, nick clifton ni...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
Err - you are inside the compiler and should not use plugin stuff to
register your machine dependent pass.
Umm, OK, what is the correct method for registering target specific passes ?
(Ones that need to run
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to ask whether stack-protector changes for Android could go to 4.7?
Pathes are:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01089.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01157.html
OK, as far as
...@codesourcery.com
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1): Do not simplify
IOR to a constant if one operand has side effects.
testsuite:
2012-08-08 Joseph Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20120808-1.c: New test.
Index: testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute
Hi,
I've just reverted my recent merge from upstream trunk on the aarch64-branch
(r190119).
A cleaner and broader merge will follow.
Thanks
Sofiane
On 8/08/2012, at 9:46 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to ask whether stack-protector changes for Android could go to 4.7?
Pathes are:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01089.html
Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com writes:
2012-08-08 Joseph Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1): Do not simplify
IOR to a constant if one operand has side effects.
OK, thanks.
Richard
* Arnaud Charlet, 2012-06-18 :
-#if defined (__linux__) !defined (_XOPEN_SOURCE)
+#if (defined (__linux__) || defined (__GNU__)) !defined
(_XOPEN_SOURCE)
/** For Linux _XOPEN_SOURCE must be defined, otherwise IOV_MAX is not
defined
**/
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE 500
Hello,
Bdver2 cpu supports both fma and fma4 instructions.
Previous to patch, option -mno-xop removes -mfma4.
Similarly, option -mno-fma4 removes -mxop.
So, the patch conditionally disables -mfma or -mfma4.
Enabling -mxop is done by also checking -mfma.
Ok for trunk?
Regards
Ganesh
2012-08-08
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM, ganesh.gopalasubraman...@amd.com wrote:
Hello,
Bdver2 cpu supports both fma and fma4 instructions.
Previous to patch, option -mno-xop removes -mfma4.
Similarly, option -mno-fma4 removes -mxop.
Eh? Why's that? I think we should disentangle -mxop and -mfma4
On 08/08/2012 01:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this also triggers the static_assert. Really, in
'decltype(B{declvalFrom()})' almost *everything* is Ok between the
curly brackets. Maybe we should have a separate PR for this.
And I think this issue is addressed by the ongoing work on instantiation
Hi,
while running check for Android NDK compiler (I've used
contrib/test_installed for it) I've noticed that gcov name is
hardcoded in g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp.
All NDK x86 tools have prefix like i686-linux-android-, so testing
will fail to spawn gcov.
The patch attached introduces --with-gcov flag
On 08/08/2012 02:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 08/08/2012 01:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this also triggers the static_assert. Really, in
'decltype(B{declvalFrom()})' almost *everything* is Ok between the
curly brackets. Maybe we should have a separate PR for this.
And I think this issue is
On 08/08/2012 09:34 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Richard Smith wrote:
I've attached a patch for unordered_map which solves the rvalue
reference problem. For efficiency, I've created a new
_M_emplace_bucket method rather than call emplace directly.
I've verified all libstdc++
Here is the patch with some obvious fixes. If there are no objections,
could anyone please check it in?
Done:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-08/msg00203.html
Thanks, K
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Nick Clifton ni...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi DJ,
I am applying the following patch to the gcc mainline as an obvious
fix for the following problem building the RL78 backend:
On 08/08/2012 03:15 PM, François Dumont wrote:
I have also introduce a special std::pair constructor for container
usage so that we do not have to include the whole tuple stuff just for
associative container implementations.
To be clear: sorry, this is not an option.
Paolo.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
index a07c046..b9a3589 100644
--- a/gcc/combine.c
+++ b/gcc/combine.c
@@ -10784,12 +10784,30 @@ gen_lowpart_for_combine (enum
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, François Dumont wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:34 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Richard Smith wrote:
I've attached a patch for unordered_map which solves the rvalue
reference problem. For efficiency, I've created a new
_M_emplace_bucket method rather than call
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:40 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
index a07c046..b9a3589 100644
---
This splits out more cleanups from the main patch to make that smaller.
The only bigger part of the patch is making tree-stdarg track
escapes/varargs for SSA names more precise by not globbing on
SSA_NAME_VAR but instead using the bits [0..num_ssa_names-1] for
SSA names and
This adds a virual_operand_p predicate and uses it where we currently
use the bit on the decl (VAR_DECL_IS_VIRTUAL_OPERAND) directly.
I suspect most of the is_gimple_reg users in SSA optimizers can
be replaced by this predicate eventually making is_gimple_reg a
private predicate to the gimplifier
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Nick Clifton ni...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi DJ,
I am applying the following patch to the gcc mainline as
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we really want that (machine dependent passes). It seems
we cannot get away with it (so we have mdreorg). Allowing (some) flexibility
where to put mdreorg is ok, using two different mechanisms
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we really want that (machine dependent passes). It seems
we cannot get away with it (so we have mdreorg). Allowing (some)
The following patch fixes a ppc64 gcc testsuite failure.
The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86/x86-64.
Committed as rev. 190207.
2012-08-07 Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
* lra-int.h (lra_constraint_iter_after_spill): New.
* lra.c (lra): Initialize
On 3 August 2012 16:00, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 30/07/12 12:43, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Patch 1 fixes up the vaba and vabal patterns to use a canonical RTL
form with the first operand to the plus being the more complex one.
This patch canonicalizes the instruction
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we really want that (machine dependent
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
Probably we need to backport this patch to 4.7, where x32 is
-maddress-mode=long by default.
It doesn't fail on 4.7 branch since checking mode on PLUS CONST
is new on trunk. However, I
On 08/08/2012 07:19 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I was suggesting to for example register a 2nd mdreorg-like pass and
add a 2nd target hook. regstack should get the same treatment.
If the mechanism is a proliferation of mdreorg passes in every place
we want a target-specific pass, that is
But we should definitely have a way to register machine dependent
passes, and what's wrong with the plugin interface?
IIRC I asked about how to schedule that pass when I wrote it, and use
the plugin API was the recommendation.
Some background...
The RL78 devirtualization pass is *not* a
Omit another TARGET_LIB_PATH from RPATH_ENVVAR set on bootstrap builds.
A second occurrence of adding TARGET_LIB_PATH to LD_LIBRARY_PATH on gcc
bootstrap builds. This one also needs removing to enable full test coverage.
Discussion and rationale at:
On 08/07/2012 06:25 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
(is re-setting _every_ stmt location really ok in all cases?)
I'm certain that it's not, though you can't tell that from C++.
Examine instead a Java test case using try-finally. In Java the
contents of the finally would be incorrectly relocated
On 12-08-08 11:49 , Simon Baldwin wrote:
Omit another TARGET_LIB_PATH from RPATH_ENVVAR set on bootstrap builds.
A second occurrence of adding TARGET_LIB_PATH to LD_LIBRARY_PATH on gcc
bootstrap builds. This one also needs removing to enable full test coverage.
Discussion and rationale at:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/07/2012 06:25 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
(is re-setting _every_ stmt location really ok in all cases?)
I'm certain that it's not, though you can't tell that from C++.
Examine instead a Java test case using
On 08/08/2012 09:27 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/07/2012 06:25 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
(is re-setting _every_ stmt location really ok in all cases?)
I'm certain that it's not, though you can't tell that from C++.
On 08/08/2012 02:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
AFAICS, the most uncertain case is the conditional operator test,
otherwise we could split the PR.
Turned out to be really trivial: a missing check for error_mark_node in
build_conditional_expr_1.
I'll send in a separate message a complete
This patch implements a warning for the following Fortran 95 (and later)
obsolescent features (cf. F2008, B.2 Obsolescent features):
(2) Shared DO termination and termination on a statement other than END
DO or CONTINUE -- use
an END DO or a CONTINUE statement for each DO statement.
(6) DATA
On Aug 8, 2012, at 8:38 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
The RL78 devirtualization pass is *not* a reorg pass, it has to happen
after reload but before debug info is set up. The RL78 does not have
a consistent register set or addressing scheme, GCC cannot practically
support it.
Gosh, we got one of
Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/07/2012 10:02 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
The following patch changes the builtin expander to pass a MEM oldval
as-is to the back-end expander, so that the back-end can move the
store to before the CC operation. With that patch I'm also seeing
all the IPMs
Gosh, we got one of those too, though, I don't know how much worse
your machine is than mine, in at all.
In the RL78 case, it's basically a modern Z80 clone. It has eight
8-bit registers (er, four banks of those, one active at a time) which
can be combined into four 16-bit registers, but for
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:52:28AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
As we move to C++, I'd love for port maintainers to be able to get together
and hoist _up_ code from the port so other ports can use it and thus, have
more sharing. We make heavily stylized uses, which could be wrapped into a
Index: gcc/cp/parser.c
===
--- gcc/cp/parser.c (revision 190195)
+++ gcc/cp/parser.c (working copy)
@@ -28351,6 +28351,13 @@
FOR_EXPR (statement) = decl;
CILK_FOR_GRAIN (statement) = grain;
+ /* If an initial
Hello Aldy,
The only time we will get into this function (cp_parser_cilk_for) is
when the fcilkplus is turned on.
Here is the original call for this function (line #9983) :
if (!flag_enable_cilk)
fatal_error (-fcilkplus must be enabled to use %cilk_for%);
else
On 08/08/12 13:27, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Aldy,
The only time we will get into this function (cp_parser_cilk_for) is
when the fcilkplus is turned on.
Here is the original call for this function (line #9983) :
if (!flag_enable_cilk)
fatal_error (-fcilkplus must be
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/dwarf4-nested.C
===
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/dwarf4-nested.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/dwarf4-nested.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+// { dg-do
Its ok. I am glad you are catching all these, it makes me rethink and recheck.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 2:29 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re:
Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com writes:
+;; Before reload, all multiplier is registered as imul3 (which has a long
+;; latency). We temporary jig the latency such that the macc groups
+;; are scheduled closely together during the first scheduler pass.
+(define_bypass 1
hi Diego,
just a word on style in the documentation:
+templatetypename T
+void gt_pch_nx (TPT *tp)
+@{
+ extern void gt_pch_nx (T);
+
+ /* This marks field 'fld' of type 'T'. */
+ gt_pch_nx (tp-fld);
+@}
'extern' declaration at local scope if considered an extremely
poor style in
On 12-08-08 16:12 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
hi Diego,
just a word on style in the documentation:
+templatetypename T
+void gt_pch_nx (TPT *tp)
+@{
+ extern void gt_pch_nx (T);
+
+ /* This marks field 'fld' of type 'T'. */
+ gt_pch_nx (tp-fld);
+@}
'extern' declaration at local scope if
Hi,
this is a booted and tested patch which handles all the tests submitted
as part of the PR besides the first 4, which require
finish_decltype_type to use an instantiation_dependent_p along the lines
of the work done as part of c++/51222. As I mentioned, I already
verified that the latter
On 08/08/2012 03:39 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 08/08/2012 03:15 PM, François Dumont wrote:
I have also introduce a special std::pair constructor for container
usage so that we do not have to include the whole tuple stuff just
for associative container implementations.
To be clear: sorry,
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 12-08-08 16:12 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
hi Diego,
just a word on style in the documentation:
+templatetypename T
+void gt_pch_nx (TPT *tp)
+@{
+ extern void gt_pch_nx (T);
+
+ /* This marks field 'fld' of
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
So, if the issue that the function does not exist at the point of the template
definition, but will definitely exist at the point where it is instantiated
because of inclusion of a header file (later or in a
Hello,
This patch fixes a minor issue related to the displacement addressing
patterns, which leads to useless movt exts.* sequences and one of the
predicates wrongly accepting non-mem ops.
Tested on rev 190151 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
So, if the issue that the function does not exist at the point of the
template
definition, but will definitely exist at the point
On 12-08-08 17:25 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Aha, so it is an ordering issue, e.g. declarations being generated
after they have been seen used in an instantiation.
We might want to consider including the header file (that contains
only the declarations of the marking functions) in the header
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 12-08-08 17:25 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Aha, so it is an ordering issue, e.g. declarations being generated
after they have been seen used in an instantiation.
We might want to consider including the header file
Hello,
This patch mainly improves stores of negated/inverted floating point
comparison results in regs and removes a useless zero-extension after
storing the negated T bit in a reg.
One thing that is annoying is the fact that the '-1' constant is emitted
during combine and thus won't get any
As previously discussed, this patch XFAIL's the new libstdc++ failure
caused by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?revision=190129view=revision.
It will be reverted once the issues discussed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00141.html have been
resolved.
Okay to submit to google/gcc-4_7?
On 12-08-08 17:52 , Ollie Wild wrote:
As previously discussed, this patch XFAIL's the new libstdc++ failure
caused by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?revision=190129view=revision.
It will be reverted once the issues discussed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00141.html have been
On Aug 8, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:52:28AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
As we move to C++, I'd love for port maintainers to be able to get together
and hoist _up_ code from the port so other ports can use it and thus, have
more sharing. We make heavily
Hello,
This is a fix to prepare the xmlj_io.c file of gnu classpath to a coming
API change in libxml2.
Basically, we were previously accessing fields inside the
xmlOutputBuffer struct of libxml2. In a coming version of libxml2,
that won't be possible anymore. Client code will have to use
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 08:28 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 2012-07-29 15:56, Oleg Endo wrote:
+ can_create_pseudo_p ()
+ [(set (match_dup 5) (ashift:SI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))
+ (set (match_dup 6) (plus:SI (match_dup 5) (match_dup 3)))
+ (set (match_dup 0) (mem:SI
On 8/7/12, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 8/7/12, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 6, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
Convert double_int from a struct with function into a class
with operators and
On 8/7/12, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/06/2012 05:35 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
+inline double_int
+double_int::operator ++ ()
+{
+ *this + double_int_one;
+ return *this;
+}
+
+inline double_int
+double_int::operator -- ()
+{
+ *this - double_int_one;
On 8/7/12, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
Hm. There seems to be significant opinion that there should not be any
implicit conversions. I am okay with operations as above, but would like
to hear the opinions of others.
If there
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Greetings,
Thanks for the review of part 2! Here's another chunk of the SLSR code
(I feel I owe you a few beers at this point). This performs analysis
and replacement on groups of related candidates
On 8/8/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 7, 2012 Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
We should probably think about naming conventions for mutating
operations, as I expect we will want them eventually.
Right. In the end I would prefer explicit constructors.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Greetings,
Thanks for the review of part 2! Here's another chunk of the SLSR code
(I feel I owe you a few beers at this point). This
On Aug 8, 2012, at 11:14 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
It's the weird addressing modes that confuse gcc.
Ah, yes... That problem. Sigh, my port is nice and orthogonal and doesn't
suffer in this area, so... no solution from me.
On Aug 8, 2012, at 3:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
This doesn't work on x32 nor Linux/ia32 since -m32
may not be needed for ILP32. This patch works for
me. OK to install?
Ok.
On 8/8/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 7, 2012 Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
On 8/7/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
For most parts overloads that take an (unsigned) HOST_WIDE_INT
argument would be nice, as well as the ability
On 08/08/2012 03:27 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Greetings,
Thanks for the review of part 2! Here's another chunk of the SLSR code
(I feel I
Richard Henderson wrote:
In the same vein as your CAS boolean output patch, if we rearrange the
copies here we can get the combined compare-and-branch insn for the z10.
I see that the z196 prefers not to use those, but the number of insns
in that case remains the same, merely in a different
On 8/8/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 8, 2012 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
+ static double_int make (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT cst);
+ static double_int make (HOST_WIDE_INT cst);
+ static
This patch is for the google/gcc-4_7 branch. It's a backport of an
upstream patch at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00398.html
If approved for trunk, is this OK for google/gcc-4_7?
Google ref b/6705530.
Original description:
With --std=c++11, a template parameter can refer
On 8/8/12, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Aug 8, 2012 Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Constructors are allowed, but PODs are often passed
more efficiently. That property seemed particularly
On 08/08/2012 03:12 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
How about the attached patch?
Is that way of dealing with the mems OK?
What could be a possible test case for the alias info issue?
That looks like the right sort of thing.
A test case would have to be for a missed-optimization,
where we failed to
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:08:20AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Hello,
This is a fix to prepare the xmlj_io.c file of gnu classpath to a coming
API change in libxml2.
Basically, we were previously accessing fields inside the
xmlOutputBuffer struct of libxml2. In a coming version of
On 8/8/12, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net writes:
Constructors are allowed, but PODs are often passed more
efficiently. That property seemed particularly important
for double_int.
Show us the difference in timing. Show us the generated code.
I
On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 15:35 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 08/08/2012 03:27 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Greetings,
Thanks for the
On 08/08/2012 06:41 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 15:35 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 08/08/2012 03:27 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, William J. Schmidt
I have committed this to google/main for Chris (approved by Rong).
Chris, please prepare a patch to backport this to google/4_7.
Teresa
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Chris Manghane cm...@google.com wrote:
Removes references in libgcov.c to functions and structs removed from
pmu-profile.c
Otherwise, what does -mno-fma4 -mxop do?
(it should enable both xop and fma4!) what should -mfma4 -mno-xop do
(it should disable both xop and fma4!).
Yes! that's what GCC does now.
Some flags are coupled (atleast for now).
For ex, -mno-sse4.2 -mavx enables both sse4.2 and avx
whereas -mavx
96 matches
Mail list logo
