On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 12-10-29 12:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
This patch changes
Hi Jakub,
We are working on the following.
1. bdver3 enablement. Review completed. Changes to be incorporated and
checked-in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01131.html
2. btver2 basic enablement is done
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01018.html)/
Scheduler
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
On 10/29/12, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Oct 29, 2012 Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Just to make sure. Testing on ppc should be fast, for example.
And useless. Your patch does not touch
Hello,
one more optimization that needed help for vectors, it crashed on (xy)0.
Because of PR 55001, testcases are awkward to add (I could do a x86-only
one if needed).
bootstrap+testsuite.
2012-10-30 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
* fold-const.c
Hi,
I would like to apply the patch below to trunk and gcc-4.7-branch.
This patch was originalyl submitted by Joel Sherrill back in May
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01180.html),
but had never received any feedback.
It has been part of the rtems-gcc patches, since then.
Ralf
On 30 October 2012 05:20, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
Index: cfgrtl.c
===
--- cfgrtl.c(revision 192692)
+++ cfgrtl.c(working copy)
@@ -912,7 +912,8 @@ rtl_can_merge_blocks (basic_block a, basic_block b
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:07:55PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon. Patches
posted before the freeze,
Hello,
This PR is due to the selective scheduling missing the dependencies with
implicit_sets. From the sched-deps.c code it looks like implicit sets
generate anti dependencies with either sets, uses or clobbers, so that's
that I've done with the below patch. Vlad, as it looks you've added
Adding myself to the list of members in write after approval.
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 192977)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2012-10-30 Ganesh Gopalasubramanian
On 08/30/2012 11:45 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29 August 2012 13:25, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
On 08/28/2012 08:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 August 2012 18:27, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Does it actually produce a segfault? I suppose it might on some
platforms, but not all,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:05:13AM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
one more optimization that needed help for vectors, it crashed on
(xy)0. Because of PR 55001, testcases are awkward to add (I could
do a x86-only one if needed).
bootstrap+testsuite.
2012-10-30 Marc Glisse
Hello,
This is the latest proposed patch from the PR.
Tested on rev 192482 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}
and no new failures.
Pre-approved by Kaz in the PR.
Committed as rev 192983.
Cheers,
Oleg
On 30 October 2012 09:05, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Any chance to get this in for 4.8?
I'm looking into it today.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:10:10PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
Well, you merely moved the bogus code
On 10/29/2012 21:05, JonY wrote:
ChangeLog
2012-10-29 Jonathan Yong jo...@users.sourceforge.net
* config/os/mingw32-w64/os_defines.h: Remove
_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BROKEN_VSWPRINTF
as no longer required.
Index: libstdc++-v3/config/os/mingw32-w64/os_defines.h
On 30 October 2012 09:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 30 October 2012 09:05, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Any chance to get this in for 4.8?
I'm looking into it today.
Consider the case where one object file containing
std::string().erase() is built with an older GCC without the fix for
PR
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
LRA has
if (REG_P (reg) (ep = get_elimination (reg)) != NULL)
{
rtx to_rtx = replace_p ? ep-to_rtx : ep-from_rtx;
if (! replace_p)
{
offset += (ep-offset - ep-previous_offset);
On 30 October 2012 10:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 30 October 2012 09:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 30 October 2012 09:05, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Any chance to get this in for 4.8?
I'm looking into it today.
Consider the case where one object file containing
std::string().erase() is
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Vladimir Makarov
vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12-10-29 12:21 PM, Richard Sandiford
Hi,
for past week or two I was playing with ways to throttle down the complette
unrolling heuristics. I made complette unroller to use the tree-ssa-loop-niter
upper bound and unroll even in non-trivial cases and this has turned out to
increase number of complettely unrolled loops by great amount,
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
for past week or two I was playing with ways to throttle down the complette
unrolling heuristics. I made complette unroller to use the
tree-ssa-loop-niter
upper bound and unroll even in non-trivial cases and this has turned out to
increase
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
ICK ...
Why not sth as simple as
return num_ssa_operands (stmt, SSA_OP_USE);
? a[1][2] and b[2] really have the same cost, variable length
objects have extra SSA operands in ARRAY_REF/COMPONENT_REF for
the size. Thus,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
On 10/29/12, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Oct 29, 2012 Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Just to make sure. Testing on ppc
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Sure. But the point is not to add more. We should mechanically strip
all the #if 0 code from the tree, btw. No point keeping all that
garbage around.
Please
This fixes PR55111.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2012-10-30 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
PR tree-optimization/55111
* tree-ssa-pre.c (eliminate_insert): Properly fold the built
stmt.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr55111.c:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:05:13AM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
one more optimization that needed help for vectors, it crashed on
(xy)0. Because of PR 55001, testcases are awkward to add (I could
do a x86-only one if needed).
bootstrap+testsuite.
On 2012-10-29 15:01 , Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 10/27/12, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
2012-10-26 Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com
missing ''
Fixed.
* is-a.h: New.
(is_a T (U*)): New. Test for is-a relationship.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Sure. But the point is not to add more. We should mechanically strip
all the #if 0
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:05:13AM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
one more optimization that needed help for vectors, it crashed on
(xy)0. Because of PR 55001, testcases are
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 2012-10-29 15:01 , Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 10/27/12, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
2012-10-26 Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com
missing ''
Fixed.
As requested this adds predicates to check whether the lhs of
a assign or call is a store and whether rhs1 of an assignment
is a load. It uses this in place of the existing, slightly
bogus, check in the stmt estimate code.
Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Marcus Shawcroft
Sent: 15 October 2012 12:37
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [AArch64] Add vcond, vcondu support.
On 09/10/12 12:08, James Greenhalgh wrote:
2012-10-29 Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com
* is-a.h: New.
(is_a T (U*)): New. Test for is-a relationship.
(as_a T (U*)): New. Treat as a derived type.
(dyn_cast T (U*)): New. Conditionally cast based on is_a.
* cgraph.h (varpool_node): Rename to
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:38 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM,
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:38 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
The address in this case is:
(plus:SI (mult:SI (reg/v:SI 223 [orig:154 j ] [154])
(const_int 8
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Status
==
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon. Patches
On 10/26/2012 02:22 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello,
here is a test case for PR55033.
Is there something wrong with this test case? It compiles well with Alan's
patch.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Obere Lagerstr. 30, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 18 90
Hello,
what needs to be done to get this committed?
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Obere Lagerstr. 30, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 18 90 80 79-6
Fax : +49 89 18 90 80 79-9
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
As requested this adds predicates to check whether the lhs of
a assign or call is a store and whether rhs1 of an assignment
is a load. It uses this in place of the existing, slightly
bogus, check in the stmt estimate code.
Bootstrap and regtest
And tree expressions don't have TREE_BLOCK before gimple-low either.
So IMNSHO it is gimple-low.c that should set TREE_BLOCK of all the gimple
stmts as well as all expression in the operands. It is not overwriting
anything, no frontend sets TREE_BLOCK for any expression, the way frontends
On 10/30/2012 09:39 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:38 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
The address in this case is:
(plus:SI (mult:SI
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
And tree expressions don't have TREE_BLOCK before gimple-low either.
So IMNSHO it is gimple-low.c that should set TREE_BLOCK of all the gimple
stmts as well as all expression in the operands. It is not overwriting
anything,
I changed the patch according Uros' remarks. Please, have a look.
Changelog:
2012-10-30 Andrey Turetskiy andrey.turets...@gmail.com
* config/i386/i386.c (bdesc_args): Rename CODE_FOR_avx2_umulhrswv16hi3 to
CODE_FOR_avx2_pmulhrswv16hi3.
* config/i386/predicates.md
Hi,
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
And tree expressions don't have TREE_BLOCK before gimple-low either.
So IMNSHO it is gimple-low.c that should set TREE_BLOCK of all the gimple
stmts as well as all expression
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
Both jump threading and loop induction variable optimizations were
dropping useful debug information, and it took improvements in both for
debug info about relevant variables in the enclosed testcase to survive
all the
Hi,
this is first patch of change of tree-ssa-loop-niter to consider bounds that are
not in block dominating latch. This patch makes them to be recorded and they
are not used. I plan to followup with:
1) patch to add simple shortest path walk at the end of
estimate_numbers_of_iterations_loop
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
And tree expressions don't have TREE_BLOCK before gimple-low either.
So IMNSHO it is gimple-low.c that
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi!
This patch extends optimize_range_tests optimization, so that it
handles also the cases where the truth or || has been gimplifed
as a series of GIMPLE_CONDs or mixture thereof and BIT_{AND,IOR}_EXPR
stmts.
Example
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Joern Rennecke
joern.renne...@embecosm.com wrote:
Quoting Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com:
Thus, you can allow the length to vary downwards as well as upwards
across iterations with suitable definitions of the @code{length}
attribute
and/or
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
this is first patch of change of tree-ssa-loop-niter to consider bounds that
are
not in block dominating latch. This patch makes them to be recorded and they
are not used. I plan to followup with:
1) patch to add simple shortest path walk at
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 03:38:11PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
I question the need of BLOCK info on expression trees. If BLOCKs are
relevant then the tree ends up referencing a declaration with a BLOCK as
context, no? Thus, the case
int tem, a;
{
int a;
...
tem = a;
OK.
Jason
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 03:38:11PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
I question the need of BLOCK info on expression trees. If BLOCKs are
relevant then the tree ends up referencing a declaration with a BLOCK as
context, no?
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 03:51:19PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
+ FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_STMT (stmt, imm_iter, def)
+ {
+ if (!gimple_debug_bind_p (stmt))
+ continue;
+
+ FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_ON_STMT (use_p, imm_iter)
+
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
So maybe TER (well, those looking up the stmt) should pick the location
from the TERed statement properly then?
Perhaps, but Micha's patch doesn't do that.
But in that case IMHO it still would help to set all expr locations to
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com wrote:
As per discussion in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00225.html,
I have added the -fopt-info pass filtering in the attached patch.
The basic idea is that there are optimization pass groups and a user
can
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
So maybe TER (well, those looking up the stmt) should pick the location
from the TERed statement properly then?
Perhaps, but Micha's patch doesn't do that.
On 10/30/2012 06:34 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
LRA has
if (REG_P (reg) (ep = get_elimination (reg)) != NULL)
{
rtx to_rtx = replace_p ? ep-to_rtx : ep-from_rtx;
if (! replace_p)
{
offset
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Andrey Turetskiy
andrey.turets...@gmail.com wrote:
I changed the patch according Uros' remarks. Please, have a look.
Changelog:
2012-10-30 Andrey Turetskiy andrey.turets...@gmail.com
* config/i386/i386.c (bdesc_args): Rename
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com wrote:
As per discussion in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00225.html,
I have added the -fopt-info pass filtering in the attached patch.
The basic idea is that there are optimization pass groups and a user
can
I'd say either we should do the TREE_BLOCK setting on all non-shareable
trees during gimple-low and clear the block (but then likely whole
location?; it doesn't make sense to say in the debugger that something
has certain source location when you can't print variables declared in that
On 09/17/2012 12:54 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/17/2012 12:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 09/17/2012 11:51 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 08/21/2012 12:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I don't think there are any callers out there, but let's fix this for
completeness.
A compiler emitting
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com wrote:
As per discussion in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00225.html,
I have added the -fopt-info pass filtering in the attached patch.
Quoting Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com:
Apart from the iteration_threshold the hookization would be straight-forward.
Now I cannot decipher from the patch what functional change it introduces ;)
The only change occurs if we reach an iteration count of MAX_INT iterations -
which
Hi,
Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com ha scritto:
Ping?
Patch is at: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg01416.html
Sorry, I don't know the code well enough to review your patch, but since I'm in
CC, I still don't understand why, instead of adding a full libstdc++ testcase
you are
Hello,
Hot/cold partitioning is apparently a hot topic all of a sudden, which
is a good thing of course, because it's in need of some TLC.
The attached patch adds another check the RTL cfg checking
(verify_flow_info) for the partitioning: A hot block can never be
dominated by a cold block
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
So maybe TER (well, those looking up the stmt) should pick the location
from
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
On 30 October 2012 05:20, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Index: cfgrtl.c
===
--- cfgrtl.c(revision 192692)
+++ cfgrtl.c(working copy)
@@ -912,7 +912,8 @@
BTW, one thing I found confusing is that in expr.c, some code is for
frontend, while some are for rtl. Shall we separate them into two
files? And we don't expect to see EXPR_LOCATION in the rtl side.
Thanks,
Dehao
On 10/30/2012 05:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Sorry, I don't know the code well enough to review your patch, but since I'm in
CC, I still don't understand why, instead of adding a full libstdc++ testcase
you are extending a C++ testcase, in old-deja even, normally considered legacy.
AFAIK,
The debugger isn't the only consumer of debug info, and other tools might need
a finer granularity than a GIMPLE location, so clearing EXPR_LOCATION to work
around a debug info size issue seems very short-sighted (to say the least).
Hi, Eric,
There might be some misunderstanding here.
I'm hitting the same bug as in PR53708 when compiling GLIBC's dlfcn.c when
vectorization is enabled on powerpc64-linux. A reduced test case is:
bergner@bns:~/gcc/BUGS cat foo.i
static void (*const init_array []) (void)
__attribute__ ((section (.init_array), aligned (sizeof (void *)), used))
=
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Hot/cold partitioning is apparently a hot topic all of a sudden, which
is a good thing of course, because it's in need of some TLC.
The attached patch adds another check the RTL cfg checking
gcc/ChangeLog:
2012-10-25 Dehao Chen de...@google.com
* tree-eh.c (do_return_redirection): Set location for jump statement.
(do_goto_redirection): Likewise.
(frob_into_branch_around): Likewise.
(lower_try_finally_nofallthru): Likewise.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Index: bb-reorder.c
===
--- bb-reorder.c(revision 192692)
+++ bb-reorder.c(working copy)
@@ -2188,6 +2188,8 @@ insert_section_boundary_note (void)
Thanks for explanation, I understand it.
I fixed issue which you marked. Changelog is unchanged.
---
Best regards,
Andrey Turetskiy
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Andrey Turetskiy
andrey.turets...@gmail.com wrote:
I
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Ralf Corsepius
ralf.corsep...@rtems.org wrote:
I would like to apply the patch below to trunk and gcc-4.7-branch.
This patch was originalyl submitted by Joel Sherrill back in May
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01180.html),
but had never
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Andrey Turetskiy
andrey.turets...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for explanation, I understand it.
I fixed issue which you marked. Changelog is unchanged.
I changed the patch according Uros' remarks. Please, have a look.
Changelog:
2012-10-30 Andrey Turetskiy
On 10/30/12, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 2012 Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Just one question: Should we change the name of functions
sbitmap_intersection_of_succs/sbitmap_intersection_of_preds/
sbitmap_union_of_succs/sbitmap_union_of_preds too? It might
Hi,
this patch implements the second part of planned change - to determine loop
bounds
based by shortest path discovery. This allows to bound number of iterations
on loops with bounds in statements that do not dominate the latch.
I originally planned to implement this as part of
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 11:58 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
I'm hitting the same bug as in PR53708 when compiling GLIBC's dlfcn.c when
vectorization is enabled on powerpc64-linux. A reduced test case is:
bergner@bns:~/gcc/BUGS cat foo.i
static void (*const init_array []) (void)
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Index: bb-reorder.c
===
--- bb-reorder.c(revision 192692)
+++ bb-reorder.c
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:43:33PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
Commenting on Richard's question from the bugzilla:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708#c10
I suppose if attribute((__aligned__)) truly does just set a minimum alignment
value (and the documentation seems to say
I can't approve the whole thing of course, but I like the idea.
However...
Joern Rennecke joern.renne...@embecosm.com writes:
+@deftypevr {Target Hook} bool TARGET_HAVE_CC0
+@deftypevrx {Target Hook} {bool} TARGET_AUTO_INC_DEC
+@deftypevrx {Target Hook} {bool} TARGET_STACK_REGS
+@deftypevrx
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 19:55 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:43:33PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
Commenting on Richard's question from the bugzilla:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708#c10
I suppose if attribute((__aligned__)) truly does just set
This patch replaces three separate default definitions of
SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS with a single global one. Note that tm.texi
requires SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS to be true if STRICT_ALIGNMENT.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, powerpc64-linux-gnu and mipsisa64-elf.
Applied as obvious.
Richard
gcc/
On 10/27/2012 09:16 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
+ /* See if there's a match. For functions that are multi-versioned,
+all the versions match. */
if (same_type_p (target_fn_type, static_fn_type (fn)))
- matches = tree_cons (fn, NULL_TREE, matches);
+
I'm finishing off some patches to allow insv, extv and extzv to be
defined as normal direct optabs (such as insvsi and insvdi rather
than just insv). This series of patches does some groundwork to make
that possible.
The patches are not supposed to change the generated code. I checked
that the
This patch removes what I believe is a redundant check in store_bit_field_1
for whether the value to insert (i.e. the rhs) has BLKmode. We shouldn't
see BLKmode values here, and even if we did, the only effect of the test
is to fall through to store_fixed_bit_field, which can't handle BLKmode
extract_bit_field_1 has a block beginning:
/* If OP0 is a memory, try copying it to a register and seeing if a
cheap register alternative is available. */
if (ext_mode != MAX_MACHINE_MODE MEM_P (op0))
{
and within it there are tests for whether ext_mode != MAX_MACHINE_MODE.
This
This patch splits out the code to handle insv and ext(z)v from
store_bit_field_1 and extract_bit_field_1 respectively. I removed
x prefixes from some of the variables and tried to make the placement
of the REG and SUBREG handling more consistent, but there are no
behavioural changes.
Tested as
This patch simply separates out the MEM and non-MEM insv and ext(z)v cases.
On it's own, it's probably a wash whether this is an improvement or not,
but it makes the optabs patches much easier.
Tested as described in the covering note. OK to install?
Richard
gcc/
* expmed.c
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
I will try testing your patch on top of mine with our fdo benchmarks.
Thanks. But you should expect a lot of errors, hopefully you can make
something out of it for Bugzilla.
For the others on the cc list, you may need to include my patch
This patch splits out a fairly common operation: that of narrowing a MEM
to a particular mode and adjusting the bit number accordingly.
I've kept with bit_field rather than bitfield for consistency with
the callers, although we do have bitfield in adjust_bitfield_address.
Tested as described in
On a change of tack, this tackles some redundant code in combine.
It has code to convert a variable bit position to the mode required
by the bit position operand to insv, extv or extzv:
[A]
else if (pos_rtx != 0
GET_MODE_SIZE (pos_mode) GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE (pos_rtx)))
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
I will try testing your patch on top of mine with our fdo benchmarks.
Thanks. But you should expect a lot of errors, hopefully you can make
something out of it
Combine tries to optimise comparisons involving:
(zero_extract (const_int X)
(const_int 1)
(var Y))
and so on BITS_BIG_ENDIAN targets it tries gamely to work out what mode
X actually has. At the moment it tries reading the mode from operand 1
of extzv,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:03:44PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
Ok, then I'll bootstrap and regtest your suggested change while we
wait for richi to comment. I'm fine with whatever you and richi
decide is best. The ObjC guys should probably test it though too.
I assume you think we should
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
