On 12/04/2014 01:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs, because base_checks vector contains
stale statements, and can_remove_asan_check relies on them not to be
there anymore (assumes that all statements in the vector dominate
the current statement, if that is not true,
Jeff Law wrote:
+@item max-fsm-thread-path-insns
+Maximum number of instructions to copy when duplicating blocks on a
+finite state automaton jump thread path. The default is 100.
+
+@item max-fsm-thread-length
+Maximum number of basic blocks on a finite state automaton jump thread
+path.
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 6:11 AM
To: Zhenqiang Chen
Cc: Steven Bosscher; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 61225
On
The attached patch removes some remaining mentions of cloog and ppl in our docs.
Tested with “make info html pdf”. OK for trunk?
FX
PS: with this, the remaining mentions of cloog or ppl are comments in
config/isl.m4, graphite.c and graphite-blocking.c. They should probably go away
too, but
Hi Jason,
ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02975.html,
a proposal to address comments you made on a patch I had sent
earlier on.
The attached patches combined bootstrap and regtest fine on x86_64-linux.
We also have nominal test results with our 4.9 based series of
10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a secondary target, target maintainer is OK with it.
I think I need build maintainers approval, so please review.
when the freshly built g++ is used, we need to pass the appropriate -B
options. As I understand it, the appropriate place for that is in
Sebastian Pop wrote:
a fail I have not seen in the past:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr27571.c -Os (internal compiler error)
I am still investigating why this fails: as far as I can see for now this is
because in copying the FSM path we create an internal loop that is then
discovered
On 02/12/14 22:58, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
This is the arm implementation of the macro fusion hook.
It tries to fuse movw+movt operations together. It also tries to take lo_sum
RTXs into account since
Hi Eric,
Sorry for the delay, for some reasons despite being a recipient the mail
didn't hit my inbox but only my gcc-patches box.
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Eric Botcazou
2014-11-14 Thomas Preud'homme
Ping?
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 3:02 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH, contrib] Reduce check_GNU_style noise
Currently
On 03/12/14 20:34 -0800, Tim Shen wrote:
Committed. Does it need to be backported to 4.9? When do we usually do
the backporting?
It depends. If the patch is a bit risky sometimes we'll leave it on
the trunk for a while before backporting in case any problems arise.
I think this change is safe
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Ping?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 3:02 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
As discussed in the PR, ideally this should be done in the middle-end,
but no fix materialized for it during the last 18 months and is unlikely
to happen for GCC 5 either, so this patch just restores what the FEs used
to produce.
Hi all,
The second scan-assembler test for clz\tv\[0-9\]+\.2s FAILs on this test
due to vector costs on A57.
The vectorisation happens for cortex-a53 and thunderx.
I think this test was supposed to test the capability of vectorising clz
rather than the tuning decision of whether to (though I
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes fold-const folding if EQ/NE_EXPR of ADDR_EXPRS WRT aliases
and
weaks. Similarly as my earlier nonzero_address_p patch, it moves the logic
whether two symbls can resolve to same location to symtab.
The
Hi,
As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00473.html
This patch enables v64qi permutations.
I've checked vshuf* tests from dg-torture.exp,
with avx512* options on sde and generated permutations are correct.
OK for trunk?
---
gcc/config/i386/i386.c | 85
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Benda Xu hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
libc could be installed in a directory prefix. This patch provides
a way to specify such a prefix for gcc at configuration time.
I have only tested the patch with glibc on amd64, x86 and arm.
It is logically
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:02 AM, FX fxcoud...@gmail.com wrote:
The attached patch removes some remaining mentions of cloog and ppl in our
docs.
Tested with “make info html pdf”. OK for trunk?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
FX
PS: with this, the remaining mentions of cloog or ppl are comments in
Hi Manuel,
thanks for rightfully nagging - I shouldn't do late at night reviews. Regarding:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
It is still not clear to me if line_len is the length of the line read
or not, is it? If not, is there any way to actually get the length of
the line?
Looking at the code in
On 27 November 2014 at 11:27, Renlin Li renlin...@arm.com wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-11-27 Renlin Li renlin...@arm.com
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_parse_cpu): Don't define
selected_tune.
(aarch64_override_options): Use selected_cpu's tuning.
OK and this is also broken
Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Benda Xu hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
libc could be installed in a directory prefix. This patch provides a
way to specify such a prefix for gcc at configuration time.
I have only tested the patch
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Tobias Burnus
tobias.bur...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patches permit an in-tree build of GCC 4.9 using
CLooG with ISL-0.14 backend and ISL-0.14 - as wished by Richard.
The CLooG patches have been extracted from the CLooG git repository
For PR62173, the ideal solution is to resolve the problem on tree level ivopt
pass.
While, apart from the tree level issue, PR 62173 also exposed another two RTL
level issues.
one of them is looks like we could improve RTL level loop invariant hoisting by
re-shuffle insns.
for Seb's testcase
Sebastian Pop wrote:
Sebastian Pop wrote:
a fail I have not seen in the past:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr27571.c -Os (internal compiler error)
I am still investigating why this fails: as far as I can see for now this is
because in copying the FSM path we create an internal
Currently even when I prototype
double exp10 (double);
this function is not available to optimizers for code generation if
they just check for builtin_decl_implicit (BUILT_IN_EXP10).
Curiously though the function is identified as BUILT_IN_EXP10 when
used though, thus the middle-end assumes it
Jeff Law wrote:
I'm a bit worried about compile-time impacts of the all the
recursion
I will also restrict the recursion to the loop in which we look for the FSM
thread, like this:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c
index a6fb361..9a153bb 100644
---
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jiong Wang jiong.w...@arm.com wrote:
For PR62173, the ideal solution is to resolve the problem on tree level
ivopt pass.
While, apart from the tree level issue, PR 62173 also exposed another two
RTL level issues.
one of them is looks like we could improve RTL
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jiong Wang jiong.w...@arm.com wrote:
For PR62173, the ideal solution is to resolve the problem on tree level
ivopt pass.
While, apart from the tree level issue, PR 62173 also
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
Currently even when I prototype
double exp10 (double);
this function is not available to optimizers for code generation if
they just check for builtin_decl_implicit (BUILT_IN_EXP10).
Curiously though the function is identified as BUILT_IN_EXP10
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Tobias Burnus
tobias.bur...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patches permit an in-tree build of GCC 4.9 using
CLooG with ISL-0.14 backend and ISL-0.14 - as wished by Richard.
The CLooG patches have been extracted from the CLooG git repository
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00473.html
This patch enables v64qi permutations.
I've checked vshuf* tests from dg-torture.exp,
with avx512* options on sde and generated permutations
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:54:25AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00473.html
This patch enables v64qi permutations.
I've checked vshuf* tests from
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:54:25AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00473.html
This patch
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
Can you add a few testcases?
Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
Those are executable testcases, those better should not fail.
The patch just improved code generation
On 11/27/2014 05:14 PM, Marat Zakirov wrote:
On 11/19/2014 06:01 PM, Marat Zakirov wrote:
Hi all!
Here is the patch which forces ASan to ignore alignment of memory
access. It increases ASan overhead but it's still useful because some
programs like linux kernel often cheat with alignment
Hi Matthew, Richard,
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Benda Xu hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
libc could be installed in a directory prefix. This patch provides a
way to specify such
Ping.
On 19 Nov 16:34, Ilya Tocar wrote:
As omp target and offloading support is committed to trunk,
I think it's reasonable to add some new warnings.
On 06 Nov 15:27, Ilya Tocar wrote:
Ping.
On 30 Oct 18:31, Ilya Tocar wrote:
Ping.
On 20 Oct 19:26, Ilya Tocar wrote:
Ping.
This is the last patch, moving stpcpy folding. There are still
string function foldings left but those are exclusively GENERIC
now with no chance of advertedly recursing from GIMPLE folding
via GENERIC folding back to GIMPLE folding. I'll deal with those
during next stage1.
Bootstrapped on
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2014-12-04 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
* gimple-fold.c (replace_stmt_with_simplification): Properly
fail when maybe_push_res_to_seq fails.
Index: gcc/gimple-fold.c
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev ysrum...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Richard for your quick reply!
1. I agree that we can combine predicate_extended_ and
predicate_arbitrary_ to one function as you proposed.
2. What is your opinion about using more simple decision about
insertion
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:35 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
It would probably help reviewers if you pointed to actual path
submission [1], which unfortunately contains the explanation in the
patch itself [2], which further explains that this functionality is
currently only supported
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
Can you add a few testcases?
Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
Those are executable testcases,
+address-sanitizer
Please don't hurry with it.
Do you have any numbers on how frequent are unaligned accesses in
kernel? Is it worth addressing at this cost?
size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the default in kernel.
If we want to pursue this, I propose a different scheme.
Hi,
this accepts-invalid is about an invalid loop of the form:
for (int i = 5: arr)
thus it starts with an initialized declaration, which would be legal in
a normal for loop, but then the colon means that it can only be an
invalid range-based for loop. Ideally, it would be nice to say
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
Can you add a few testcases?
Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
I didn't
... oops, sent the wrong patch. See the below instead.
Paolo.
///
Index: cp/parser.c
===
--- cp/parser.c (revision 218348)
+++ cp/parser.c (working copy)
@@ -10841,6 +10841,7 @@ cp_parser_for_init_statement
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
Can you add a few testcases?
Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
Those are executable testcases,
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:30:39PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
OK for the 4.9 branch?
I think for a system 0.14 ISL build which I just checked you need to
adjust the ISL version check as well.
Confirmed. Using additionally the following patch survives bootstrapping
here with
Nothing sets any more CLOOGLIBS and CLOOGINC - thus, we can
also remove it.
The patch survived bootstrapping. OK?
Tobias
diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
index 43405a0..98cff75 100644
--- a/gcc/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/Makefile.in
@@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ BUILD_LIBDEPS=
Richard,
I did simple change by saving gsi iterator for each bb that has
critical edges by adding additional field to bb_predicate_s:
typedef struct bb_predicate_s {
/* The condition under which this basic block is executed. */
tree predicate;
/* PREDICATE is gimplified, and the
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a secondary target, target maintainer is OK with
it. I think I need build maintainers approval, so please review.
While in my testing, 64-bit Mac OS X 10.10.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin14.0.0)
now bootstraps, but 32-bit
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Tobias Burnus
tobias.bur...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
Nothing sets any more CLOOGLIBS and CLOOGINC - thus, we can
also remove it.
The patch survived bootstrapping. OK?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
Tobias
diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
index
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Tobias Burnus
tobias.bur...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:30:39PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
OK for the 4.9 branch?
I think for a system 0.14 ISL build which I just checked you need to
adjust the ISL version check as well.
Confirmed.
While in my testing, 64-bit Mac OS X 10.10.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin14.0.0)
now bootstraps, but 32-bit (i386-apple-darwin14.0.0) does not:
Is it due to my patch, or pre-existing bootstrap failure?
How do you configure this 32-bit compiler? target/build/host/CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/etc
FX
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev ysrum...@gmail.com wrote:
Richard,
I did simple change by saving gsi iterator for each bb that has
critical edges by adding additional field to bb_predicate_s:
typedef struct bb_predicate_s {
/* The condition under which this basic block is
Hi Rainer,
On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a secondary target, target maintainer is OK with
it. I think I need build maintainers approval, so please review.
While in my testing, 64-bit Mac OS X 10.10.1
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
While in my testing, 64-bit Mac OS X 10.10.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin14.0.0)
now bootstraps, but 32-bit (i386-apple-darwin14.0.0) does not:
Is it due to my patch, or pre-existing bootstrap failure?
I can't tell: before your patch, 32-bit bootstrap was broken due to
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the default in kernel.
If we want to pursue this, I propose a different scheme.
Handle 8+ byte accesses as 1/2/4 accesses. No changes to 1/2/4 access handling.
Currently when we allocate, say,
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Iain Sandoe i...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi Rainer,
On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Iain Sandoe i...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi Rainer,
On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
The default BOOT_CFLAGS are: -O2 -g -mdynamic-no-pic
the libiberty pic build appends: -fno-common (and not even -fPIC) [NB -fPIC
_won't_ override -mdynamic-no-pic, so that's not a simple way out]
This means that the PIC library is being built with non-pic relocs.
config/mh-darwin says that
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:52 PM, FX fxcoud...@gmail.com wrote:
The default BOOT_CFLAGS are: -O2 -g -mdynamic-no-pic
the libiberty pic build appends: -fno-common (and not even -fPIC) [NB -fPIC
_won't_ override -mdynamic-no-pic, so that's not a simple way out]
This means that the PIC library is
On 04 Dec 13:51, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
Can you add a few testcases?
Isn't it already
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Yury Gribov y.gri...@samsung.com wrote:
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the default in
kernel.
If we want to pursue this, I propose a different scheme.
Handle 8+ byte accesses as 1/2/4
OK.
Jason
On 02 Dec 12:21, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
Having stage1 close to end, may we make some decision regarding this
patch? Having a couple of working variants, may we choose and use one
of them?
I propose to wait for
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Iain Sandoe i...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi Rainer,
On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a secondary target, target maintainer is OK with
it. I think I need build maintainers
On 04/12/14 11:39 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/12/14 23:32 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 03/12/2014 16:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
François (or anyone else), do you see any problem with this change?
It makes the code shorter and I think is much easier to read, it also
reduces the
On 12/04/2014 05:04 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Yury Gribov y.gri...@samsung.com wrote:
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the default in
kernel.
If we want to pursue this, I propose a different
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you add a few testcases?
Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
Those are executable testcases, those better should not fail.
The patch
On 04/12/14 14:11 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Although this touches almost every line of the hashtable.h and
hastable_policy.h files, it's mostly mechanical. The main purpose is
to replace every use of X* with a typedef like X_pointer, which comes
from the allocator. In the common case it's
Sebastian Pop wrote:
Jeff Law wrote:
I'm a bit worried about compile-time impacts of the all the
recursion
I will also restrict the recursion to the loop in which we look for the FSM
thread.
The attached patch includes this change. It passed bootstrap and regression
test on
Committed.
Richard.
2014-12-04 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
* doc/match-and-simplify.texi: Update for recent changes.
Index: doc/match-and-simplify.texi
===
--- doc/match-and-simplify.texi (revision 218352)
+++
Hi,
This patch adds a check for stpcpy function into
gcc.target/i386/chkp-strlen-2.c test.
make check RUNTESTFLAGS=i386.exp=chkp-strlen-2.c is OK. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
2014-12-04 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
PR target/64056
* lib/target-supports.exp
Hi Ilya,
This patch adds a check for stpcpy function into
gcc.target/i386/chkp-strlen-2.c test.
make check RUNTESTFLAGS=i386.exp=chkp-strlen-2.c is OK. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
2014-12-04 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
PR target/64056
*
Hi,
The issue is that lookup_destructor calls
adjust_result_of_qualified_name_lookup
with an NULL_TREE decl (returned by lookup_member). So error-message
is missing.
As already discussed in bug-tracker:
ChangeLog
2014-12-04 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR c++/64100
* typeck.c
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
Currently even when I prototype
double exp10 (double);
this function is not available to optimizers for code generation if
they just check for builtin_decl_implicit (BUILT_IN_EXP10).
Curiously though the function is identified as BUILT_IN_EXP10
Hi,
this patch fixes an ICE happening on invalid code for c++11. It is
reasoned by
accessing blindly identifier without checking that it is a declaration.
ChangeLog
2014-12-04 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR c++/64127
* parser.c (cp_parser_diagnose_invalid_type_name): Check
id
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
Currently even when I prototype
double exp10 (double);
this function is not available to optimizers for code generation if
they just check for builtin_decl_implicit (BUILT_IN_EXP10).
Curiously
On 04 Dec 15:58, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Ilya,
This patch adds a check for stpcpy function into
gcc.target/i386/chkp-strlen-2.c test.
make check RUNTESTFLAGS=i386.exp=chkp-strlen-2.c is OK. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
2014-12-04 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
Can you try adding it as
T_CFLAGS += -mdynamic-no-pic
in gcc/config/t-tarwin instead?
Nope, doing so fails to link libgcc_s.dylib:
/Users/fx/devel/gcc/i/./gcc/xgcc -B/Users/fx/devel/gcc/i/./gcc/
-B/Users/fx/devel/gcc/i2/i386-apple-darwin14.0.0/bin/
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
So what does this all mean in practice for optimization passes?
I don't know what it means in terms of how to fix the various existing
problems - it's simply how I think a fixed compiler should behave.
When b) does not apply then the given stpcpy
Hi,
this patch adds INDIRECT_REF support to cxx_eval_store_expression handling.
There is a different variant suggested by Marek, which adds additional
operand-0 to ref, which looks to me wrong.
ChangeLog gcc/cp
2014-12-04 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR c++/64106
* constexpr.c
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
So what does this all mean in practice for optimization passes?
I don't know what it means in terms of how to fix the various existing
problems - it's simply how I think a fixed compiler should behave.
On 4 Dec 2014, at 15:24, FX wrote:
Can you try adding it as
T_CFLAGS += -mdynamic-no-pic
in gcc/config/t-tarwin instead?
-mdynamic-no-pic should be used to build *host* executable stuff for m32 darwin.
It is not suitable for building shared libraries (hence the problem with
building
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
OTOH this also means the user cannot provide a conforming
implementation on his own and get that used by GCC without editing
system headers or including a header with -isystem or similar
tricks.
Well - you could have a pragma / attribute for that
The PR shows a case in which fold introduces undefined behavior in a
valid program, because what it does here is
-(long int) (ul + ULONG_MAX) - 1 -
~(long int) (ul + ULONG_MAX) -
-(long int) ul
But the latter transformation is wrong if ul is unsigned long and equals
LONG_MAX + 1UL, because that
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:34PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hi,
The issue is that lookup_destructor calls
adjust_result_of_qualified_name_lookup
with an NULL_TREE decl (returned by lookup_member). So error-message
is missing.
As already discussed in bug-tracker:
ChangeLog
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:12:02PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes an ICE happening on invalid code for c++11. It is
reasoned by
accessing blindly identifier without checking that it is a declaration.
ChangeLog
2014-12-04 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR c++/64127
2014-12-04 16:46 GMT+01:00 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:34PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hi,
The issue is that lookup_destructor calls
adjust_result_of_qualified_name_lookup
with an NULL_TREE decl (returned by lookup_member). So error-message
is missing.
On 12/1/2014 11:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Prior to reload (ie, in DSE1) there's a bit of magic in that we do not
set frame_read on call insns. That may in fact be wrong and possibly
the source of the problem.
/* This field is only used for the processing of const functions.
These
2014-12-04 16:47 GMT+01:00 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:12:02PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes an ICE happening on invalid code for c++11. It is
reasoned by
accessing blindly identifier without checking that it is a declaration.
ChangeLog
2014-11-19 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_relational_operation_1): Handle
simplification identities for BICS patterns.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/aarch64/bics_4.c: New.
OK for mainline, but there are trailing
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:59:21PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote:
Same as said before. Issue is a invalid-code bug with ICE, and
error-messages are pretty meaningless. It would be helpful to have in
testsuite just the opportunity to test for no ICE.
You can add just // { dg-error } on all lines
On December 4, 2014 4:45:25 PM CET, Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com wrote:
The PR shows a case in which fold introduces undefined behavior in a
valid program, because what it does here is
-(long int) (ul + ULONG_MAX) - 1 -
~(long int) (ul + ULONG_MAX) -
-(long int) ul
But the latter
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:35 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
It would probably help reviewers if you pointed to actual path
submission [1], which unfortunately contains the explanation in the
patch itself [2], which
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Yury Gribov y.gri...@samsung.com wrote:
On 12/04/2014 05:04 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Yury Gribov y.gri...@samsung.com wrote:
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:06 PM, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via address-sanitizer
address-saniti...@googlegroups.com wrote:
You answered your own question about user space :)
Yeah, I hoped someone would rush to overpersuade me...
-Y
I think you want get_addr_base_and_unit_offset here. But I really wonder
I copied what I found in tree-ssa-alias. The differenc eis that
get_addr_base_and_unit_offset won't give a range for variable sized accesses
right?
what cases this code catches that the code in fold_comparison you
I did not really like it either (although I must say that in general I
really dislike the need to call expand_thunk but telling it to not
Yeah, I am thinking about simply teaching inliner to handle them. Given the
issues
with extra copies for values passed by reference it may be better
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
