On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
Well, ok then. This new version incorporates Richard S.'s suggestion,
and warns even for 1 31 in C99/C11 (also in C90 when -Wshift-overflow
is explicitely specified). For C++, it warns about 1 31 by default
only in C++11 mode, in C++14 never,
Symbols are normally PSImode, and the MSP430 has PSImode registers and
PSImode moves to reg/mem. But sometimes gcc uses an SImode move
instead, if the result will later be used in SImode (as in getP() in
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr65077.c). Committed.
* config/msp430/msp430.md
On Tue, 2 Jun 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
this patch adds a short info about Cauldron to the news page. OK?
Sure thing!
(Not sure whether you can use A HREF, or just the lower-case version,
to be on the safe side I'd opt for the latter. Have you considered
mentioning Czech Republic, or will
On 06/04/2015 05:34 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/03/2015 10:42 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
- if (decl (DECL_ABSTRACT_P (decl) || declaration || old_die ==
NULL))
+ if (decl (DECL_ABSTRACT_P (decl)
+ || !old_die || is_declaration_die (old_die)))
Do we still need DECL_ABSTRACT_P?
I'm away on PTO for the next couple weeks, which likely means that patch
review times will suffer. Normally I'd ask Richard Henderson to help
cover, but he's going to be on PTO as well.
It's probably safe to assume that when I return there will be a bit of a
patch backlog and I'll have a
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
This patch fixes two issues in locations with offsets that these two
new tests revealed:
1) we should check the return value of location_get_source_line;
2) linemap_position_for_loc_and_offset can be confused if a location
is in a different map
On 06/04/2015 02:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/04/2015 02:23 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/03/2015 10:42 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ /* Die was generated early via dwarf2out_early_global_decl. */
+ BOOL_BITFIELD dumped_early : 1;
Missed a dump.
Actually, why do we need this flag?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/04/2015 09:54 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
+ DECL_ATTRIBUTES (SYMBOL_REF_DECL (XEXP(fnaddr, 0)
Spacing.
{
use_reg (use, gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, REAL_PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM));
On 06/03/2015 10:42 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
- if (decl (DECL_ABSTRACT_P (decl) || declaration || old_die == NULL))
+ if (decl (DECL_ABSTRACT_P (decl)
+ || !old_die || is_declaration_die (old_die)))
Do we still need DECL_ABSTRACT_P? I wouldn't expect to get here when
On 6/3/2015 11:03, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
Is a new submission necessary or can this be handled by committer?
Preferably yes.
A new submission will take me a few days because I'm traveling ATM.
There was a significant amount of bitrot. Apparently right after I
submitted the patch, many macros
OK.
Jason
On 06/03/2015 10:42 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ /* Die was generated early via dwarf2out_early_global_decl. */
+ BOOL_BITFIELD dumped_early : 1;
Missed a dump.
Actually, why do we need this flag? The uses I see are
* to avoid declaring prototype parameters multiple times
Can't we just
On 06/04/2015 02:23 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/03/2015 10:42 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ /* Die was generated early via dwarf2out_early_global_decl. */
+ BOOL_BITFIELD dumped_early : 1;
Missed a dump.
Actually, why do we need this flag? The uses I see are
* to avoid declaring
There was a significant amount of bitrot. Apparently right after I
submitted the patch, many macros were adjusted by Adacore hitting the
same files and copyrights as I did. I updated the patch set by hand and
tested it against the 31 may snapshot. I also fixed the
TOOLS_TARGET_PAIRS issue
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02405.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 27/05/15 11:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
Here is the rebased (and retested) patch after Christian's series.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 18/05/15 11:26, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
When using the short Thumb2 IT
On 06/04/2015 09:54 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
+ DECL_ATTRIBUTES (SYMBOL_REF_DECL (XEXP(fnaddr, 0)
Spacing.
{
use_reg (use, gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, REAL_PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM));
if (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg ())
@@ -25598,7 +25603,31 @@ ix86_expand_call
On 03/06/15 13:20, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 22/04/15 09:39, Richard Biener wrote:
Ehm. So why not simply add a flag to struct loop instead and set it
during OMP region parsing/lowering?
Attached patch adds an in_oacc_kernels_region flag to struct
On 06/04/2015 07:19 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
2015-06-04 James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
* builtins.c (expand_builtin_atomic_compare_exchange): Call
emit_cmp_and_jump_insns with the mode of target.
Ok.
r~
Patch attached with those changes.
Is this patch alright to commit?
* c-family/c-common.c (noplt): New attribute.
(handle_noplt_attribute): New handler.
* calls.c (prepare_call_address): Check for noplt attribute.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_function_ok_for_sibcall): Check
for noplt attribute.
ping? or do you want to leave this dormant until 325 is resolved (which doesn't
seem to be any time soon ...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02892.html
On 05/27/15 16:05, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
this patch fixes 52595, which I'd not noticed was actually suspended. anyway,
when
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-06-03 18:59 GMT+03:00 Joseph Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
You could, for example, have
#if SOMETHING
#define MSG %nsome msg
#else
#define MSG
#endif
and have another spec using MSG - that should work.
In this case I should
On 22/04/15 09:36, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:22:02 +0100, Tom de Vries tom_devr...@mentor.com wrote:
On 24-11-14 11:56, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 18:19, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 15-11-14 13:14, Tom de Vries wrote:
I'm
2015-06-03 18:59 GMT+03:00 Joseph Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
You could, for example, have
#if SOMETHING
#define MSG %nsome msg
#else
#define MSG
#endif
and have another spec using MSG - that should work.
In this case I should define SOMETHING in configure of gcc, not in
configure of
On 06/04/2015 08:27 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:00:18 +0200, Jeff Law wrote:
But my assertion is that stuff like what you've shown above simply isn't
important to handle. What we need to look at are the common cases and I
haven't seen a strong argument that the common
On 22/05/15 11:27, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Schwinge
tho...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi!
It's just been a year. ;-P
In early March, I (hopefully correctly) adapted Tom's patch to apply to
then-current GCC trunk sources; posting this here. Is the general
Hi Jonathan,
I have committed it on trunk.
Is it Okay for me to backport it to branch 5.0, 4.9 to remove failing noise?
Regards,
Renlin Li
On 01/06/15 16:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 06/05/15 09:09 +0100, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi all,
This is a simple patch to add _GLIBCXX_HAVE_LIMIT_FSIZE to
This patch fixes two issues in locations with offsets that these two
new tests revealed:
1) we should check the return value of location_get_source_line;
2) linemap_position_for_loc_and_offset can be confused if a location
is in a different map than it expects it to be. Proper fix is unknown
Hi Uros,
As discussed here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg00043.html
I am going to install the following patch to trunk.
GCC bootstrap and regressions tests passed.
Regards,
Venkat.
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index ab5c004..2fa6e96 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
I'm pleased to announce that Richard Sandiford has been appointed as a
maintainer for all the programs which processes the machine description
to generate code (ie the gen* programs).
Richard, can you please add your new role in the MAINTAINERS file?
Thanks
Hi,
This patch adds a set of tests for worker-single predication (added
by Bernd in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg00094.html)
and worker-partitioned mode for OpenACC.
Results generally look good, though support for synchronisation after
worker loops is currently missing, so the
Hi,
Il 04 giugno 2015 11:15:33 CEST, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ha
scritto:
/opt/gcc/gcc-20150604/gcc/testsuite/obj-c++.dg/tls/diag-5.mm:4:1:
error: '__thr\
ead' can only be specified for objects and functions^M
Thanks Andreas. Looks like I missed a trivial testcase adjustment
On 06/04/2015 01:36 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:24:36 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 3 June 2015 at 22:58, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
In general parsing LHS vs. RHS is not so trivial:
*array1@10
expression wrapped into -
Hi,
I was playing with some changes to costs for some immediate values in
AArch64, and ended up tripping an ICE in some builtin expansion code.
The ICE looked like this (some pruning of the boring bits...)
format.c: In function '_gfortran_caf_atomic_cas':
format.c:13:3: internal compiler
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:00:18 +0200, Jeff Law wrote:
But my assertion is that stuff like what you've shown above simply isn't
important to handle. What we need to look at are the common cases and I
haven't seen a strong argument that the common cases can't be handled by
gdb.
If we target
On 04/06/15 15:20, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
[ posted earlier as part of Don't dump low gimple functions in gimple
dump, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01586.html,
currently discussed at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02076.html ]
This patch adds a debug msg to
Hi,
currently GCC generates an assembly file when run on C/C++ header files with
the -fdump-ada-spec switch. This is unexpected since -fdump-ada-spec is used
only to output an Ada binding.
This patch fixes the specs for C/C++ header files in order to pass -o %g.s
to cc1/cc1plus in this
On 3 June 2015 at 22:58, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
In general parsing LHS vs. RHS is not so trivial:
*array1@10
expression wrapped into -
(*array2+a@c[1]+'@'+'\''@(*array1@10)[5])[2]
Is this a real case? I cannot understand what this means, but
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:24:36 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 3 June 2015 at 22:58, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
In general parsing LHS vs. RHS is not so trivial:
*array1@10
expression wrapped into -
On 29/05/15 20:40, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/29/2015 09:18 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
+static tree
+build_atomic_load_byte (tree src, HOST_WIDE_INT model)
This function needs a comment. The C++ changes are OK with that.
Jason
I'm assuming your review and rth's review constitute
Hello world,
front-end optimization and FORALL do not appear to mix well.
This patch fixes an ICE resulting from an attempt by front-end
optimization to use a BLOCK inside a FORALL statement.
I will commit this as obvious in a day or so unless somebody objects.
I will also backport (time to
Hi Shiva,
On 04/06/15 10:57, Shiva Chen wrote:
Hi, Kyrill
Thanks for the tips of syntax.
It seems that correct syntax for
ldrb with condition code is ldreqb
ldab with condition code is ldabeq
So I modified the pattern as follow
{
enum memmodel model = (enum memmodel)
Hi all,
This is a simple patch to change the align variable (used in
emit_local()) from type int to type unsigned int.
It should be defined as unsigned int which is the same data type
returned by symtab_node::get (decl)-definition_alignment ()
For the maximum alignment allowed by GCC(without
This fixes an undefined symbol at link time in specific cases for functions
that return a discriminated record type with default discriminant. It's a
regression present on the mainline and 5 branch.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline and 5 branch.
2015-06-04 Pierre-Marie
Hello world,
the attached patch fixes the PR by adding a charlen to the
function expression of adjustl and adjustr. Committed
as obvious after regression-testing.
Regards
Thomas
2015-06-04 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@netcologne.de
PR fortran/58749
* iresolve.c
On 03/06/15 17:03, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch is part of a few prerequisites to get target attribute support in
AArch64.
This registers the fma steering pass unconditionally but gates its execution
instead.
This way the pass will be available if during the compilation of a
2015-06-03 Russell Whitesides russell...@gmail.com
Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/40958
PR fortran/60780
PR fortran/66377
* module.c (load_equiv): Add check for loading duplicate EQUIVALENCEs
from different modules. Eliminate the pruning of unused
On 26/05/15 12:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 20-04-15 14:25, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 03-04-15 14:39, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 27-03-15 15:10, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes PR65443, a todo in the
On 04/06/15 09:17, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Shiva,
On 04/06/15 04:13, Shiva Chen wrote:
Hi, Ramana
Currently, I work for Marvell and the company have copyright assignment on
file.
Hi, all
After adding the attribute and rebuild gcc, I got the assembler error message
load_n.s:39:
On 03/06/15 20:44, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:28:12PM +0100, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 06/03/2015 12:05 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
This has caused some issues for my multilib testing. Summarised below,
with some help from Alan Lawrence.
Basically the problem occurs
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:36:46 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
except for printing a memory
region, and for that purpose one only needs to parse LHS@RHS and only
one @ makes sense within the same print command.
Yes, just LHS or RHS can be pretty complicated containing the '@' character at
ARMv8.1 is a set of optional architectural extensions to ARMv8. Support, added
by other patches, is enabled in binutils for ARMv8.1 and for the individual
extensions by using architechure name armv8.1-a or by adding the extension
name to armv8-a.
This patch adds support to gcc for using
Hi Shiva,
On 04/06/15 04:13, Shiva Chen wrote:
Hi, Ramana
Currently, I work for Marvell and the company have copyright assignment on file.
Hi, all
After adding the attribute and rebuild gcc, I got the assembler error message
load_n.s:39: Error: bad instruction `ldrbeq r0,[r0]'
When i look
On 4 June 2015 at 09:36, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:24:36 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 3 June 2015 at 22:58, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
These two expressions are equivalent for all operations except of sizeof():
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 4 June 2015 at 09:36, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:24:36 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 3 June 2015 at 22:58, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
These two
/opt/gcc/gcc-20150604/gcc/testsuite/obj-c++.dg/tls/diag-5.mm:4:1: error: '__thr\
ead' can only be specified for objects and functions^M
FAIL: obj-c++.dg/tls/diag-5.mm -fgnu-runtime (test for errors, line 4)
FAIL: obj-c++.dg/tls/diag-5.mm -fgnu-runtime (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/opt
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:27:25AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 03/06/15 20:44, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:28:12PM +0100, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 06/03/2015 12:05 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
Basically the problem occurs when a target which is not OK for Neon
2015-06-04 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com
PR target/66369
* config/i386/sse.md (sse2_avx2_pmovmsk): Merge from avx2_pmovmskb
and sse2_pmovmskb using VI1_AVX2 mode iterator.
(*sse_movmskssemodesuffixavxsizesuffix_zext): New insn pattern.
(*sse2_avx2_pmovmskb_zext): Ditto.
Hi Steve,
The patch did last from gcc-4.2, apparently without anybody detecting
a problem :-)
Anyway, the patch looks good to me too. Thanks for getting to it so fast, FX.
Cheers
Paul
On 4 June 2015 at 10:24, FX fxcoud...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-06-03 Russell Whitesides
Hi, Kyrill
Thanks for the tips of syntax.
It seems that correct syntax for
ldrb with condition code is ldreqb
ldab with condition code is ldabeq
So I modified the pattern as follow
{
enum memmodel model = (enum memmodel) INTVAL (operands[2]);
if (model == MEMMODEL_RELAXED
On 06/03/2015 09:36 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 06/03/2015 07:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 06/02/2015 09:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com
wrote:
On
On 01/06/15 20:51 -0700, Tim Shen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Tim Shen tims...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tim Shen tims...@google.com wrote:
Committed with comment fix and slight change on testcase
(VERIFY(false) at end of the try block -- must throw).
On 03/06/15 21:56 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a patch to add heterogeneous lookup to alternative modes.
Excellent.
To do so I had to expose __is_transparent as __has_is_transparent to
avoid confilct with existing __is_transparent.
That's a better name, thanks.
Should I
On 01/06/15 10:50, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 01/06/15 10:48, Alex Velenko wrote:
Hi,
This patch fix thumb-ltu.c to pass excess error test.
Without default -std=gnu90 flag, this testcase started failing
as some functions were called before being predefined.
Is patch ok?
gcc/testsuite
Hi,
we would like to add a new query for -fdump-ada-spec corresponding to the
any_dependent_template_arguments_p predicate of the C++ front-end. This makes
it possible for -fdump-ada-spec to accept a few more patterns.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, OK for the mainline?
2015-06-04
Ping ~
Can somebody review it? Thank you!
Regards,
Renlin Li
On 16/04/15 10:32, Renlin Li wrote:
Ping~
Regards,
Renlin Li
On 16/04/15 10:09, wrote:
Ping~
Anybody has time to review it?
Regards,
Renlin Li
On 06/02/15 17:48, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi all,
This is a backport patch for branch
Committed with said change r223982.
Is patch ok for fsf-5 backport?
Alex
OK if no regressions.
Ramana
Hi,
[ posted earlier as part of Don't dump low gimple functions in gimple
dump, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01586.html,
currently discussed at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02076.html ]
This patch adds a debug msg to dump_file in
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:55:59 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
(gdb) p *(int (*)[4])a[0]
$1 = {1, 2, 3, 4}
(gdb) p *(char (*)[4])b[1]
$2 = bcde
Though, admittedly that is more typing than a[0]@4 or b[1]@4 .
I forgot during this discussion about the C style cast, you are right.
For some GDB
On 29/04/15 11:58, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
On 29 April 2015 at 01:24, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Renlin Li renlin...@arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
This is a simple patch to add another two ACLE 2.0 predefined macros into
aarch64 backend.
They are
69 matches
Mail list logo
