Re: [PATCH] Fix vms targets

On 11/04/2015 08:51 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: On 11/02/2015 12:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote: The header reduction didn't seem to handle the vms targets correctly. This reverts that part of Andrew's patch which allows the alpha, alpha64 and ia64 vms targets to build again. Installed on the trunk.

Remove obsolete openacc reduction code

I've committed this patch to trunk as obvious. I'd missed some code obsoleted by the new reduction implementation. This code was simply creating a splay tree, not adding anything to it and then processing the splay tree. Nuked from orbit. nathan 2015-11-04 Nathan Sidwell

Re: [PATCH c/c++] use explicit locations for some warnings in c-pragma.c

On 4 November 2015 at 09:45, Mike Stump wrote: > in the top of the tree. This is bad as the same line appears in a PASS: and > an XFAIL:. Each test case should be unique. Should it be updated to 64? I think it is sufficient to change it to: /* { dg-warning "24:missing"

Re: [PATCH], Add power9 support to GCC, patch #1

Hi, Some minor things... On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:29:11PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > * config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (-mfusion-toc): Add new switches for > ISA 3.0 (power9). "-mtoc-fusion" sounds more natural, and is more in line with the other switches I think. > + /* ISA 2.08

Re: [PATCH 10/10] Compress short ranges into source_location

[...] > diff --git a/libcpp/line-map.c b/libcpp/line-map.c [...] > + > + /* Any ordinary locations ought to be "pure" at this point: no > + compressed ranges. */ > + linemap_assert (locus < RESERVED_LOCATION_COUNT > + || locus >= LINE_MAP_MAX_LOCATION_WITH_COLS > +

Re: [PATCH 1/2][ARM] PR/65956 AAPCS update for alignment attribute

On 11/04/2015 02:13 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 05:38:35PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote: >> Trying to push these now (svn!), patch 2 is going first. >> >> I realize my second iteration of patch 1/2, dropped the testcases from the >> first version. Okay to include those as per

Re: [PATCH], Add power9 support to GCC, patch #1

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 03:15:53PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi, > > Some minor things... > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:29:11PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > > * config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (-mfusion-toc): Add new switches for > > ISA 3.0 (power9). > > "-mtoc-fusion" sounds

Re: [OpenACC] num_gangs, num_workers and vector_length in c++

On 11/04/2015 10:09 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: > A single function is better, to avoid unnecessary code duplication. Thanks. I've applied this patch to trunk. Cesar 2015-11-04 Cesar Philippidis gcc/cp/ * (cp_parser_oacc_single_int_clause): New function.

[PATCH] remove parameter_rename_map

This map was used in the transition to the new scop detection: with the new scop detection, we do not need this map anymore. * graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c (gcc_expression_from_isl_ast_expr_id): Remove use of parameter_rename_map. (copy_def): Remove.

OpenaCC dimension checking

Now the core of the execution model is committed, I've applied this patch to enable the nvptx dimension checking. We force the vector size to be 32 in all cases, and check the worker size is not above 32. Warnings are given if the user specifies an unacceptable dimension. This patch

Re: [ping] Fix PR debug/66728

Mike Stump writes: > Index: dwarf2out.c > === > --- dwarf2out.c (revision 229720) > +++ dwarf2out.c (working copy) > @@ -15593,8 +15593,13 @@ >return true; > > case CONST_WIDE_INT: >

Re: [PATCH] PR67305, tighten neon_vector_mem_operand on eliminable registers

On 11/04/2015 01:45 AM, Jiong Wang wrote: > So as Jim Wilson commented on the bugzilla, instead of "return !strict", > we need to only do the check if strict be true, and only does rejection > which means return FALSE, for all other cases, we need to go through > those normal checks below. I was

Re: [PATCH][combine][RFC] Don't transform sign and zero extends inside mults

Hi Kyrill, On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:15:27PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > This patch attempts to restrict combine from transforming ZERO_EXTEND and > SIGN_EXTEND operations into and-bitmask > and weird SUBREG expressions when they appear inside MULT expressions. This > is because a MULT rtx

Re: [ping] Fix PR debug/66728

On Nov 4, 2015, at 12:50 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Mike Stump writes: >> Index: dwarf2out.c >> === >> --- dwarf2out.c (revision 229720) >> +++ dwarf2out.c (working

Re: [PING 2] [PATCH] c++/67942 - diagnose placement new buffer overflow

There was a lot of discussion of C++ aliasing rules at the recent meeting; we really seem to be moving in the direction of being stricter about which union member is active. So I think we do want to diagnose the new-expression above; the user should write new () if that's what they mean. Okay.

[PATCH 0/4][AArch64] Add scheduling and cost models for Exynos M1

Following the suggestions to add the support for the Exynos M1 models, the following series of patches are broken down into: * add more target specific tuning data * add heuristics tuning * add the Exynos M1 cost model * add the Exynos M1 scheduling model Thank you, -- Evandro Menezes

[PATCH 1/4][AArch64] Add scheduling and cost models for Exynos M1

This patch adds extra tuning information about AArch64 targets: * Maximum number of case values before resorting to a jump table The default values assumed independently of the specific backends may be rather low for modern processors, which sport quite efficient direct branch

Re: [PATCH] clarify documentation of -Q --help=optimizers

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote: > Improving the compiler output is a good idea. The attached patch > prints "[disabled by -O0]" instead of "[enabled]" when an optimization > option is enabled by default but when optimization (i.e., -O1 or > greater) is not enabled. I don't think it's

Re: [PATCH 1/4][AArch64] Add scheduling and cost models for Exynos M1

Please, ignore the previous patch. This is the intended patch. Sorry. -- Evandro Menezes On 11/04/2015 05:18 PM, Evandro Menezes wrote: This patch adds extra tuning information about AArch64 targets: * Maximum number of case values before resorting to a jump table The default values

Re: [PATCH] clarify documentation of -Q --help=optimizers

On 11/03/2015 03:19 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote: [Sending to the right list this time] The documentation of the -Q --help=optimizers options leads some to expect that when options are reported as enabled imply the corresponding optimization will take

Re: [PATCH] clarify documentation of -Q --help=optimizers

On 11/04/2015 04:52 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: gcc/ChangeLog: 2015-11-04 Martin Sebor * opts.c (print_filtered_help): Indicate when an optimization option is disabled as a result of -O0. * doc/invoke.texi: Further clarify the effect of -O options

Re: [PATCH] clarify documentation of -Q --help=optimizers

On 11/04/2015 06:09 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: On 11/04/2015 04:52 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: gcc/ChangeLog: 2015-11-04 Martin Sebor * opts.c (print_filtered_help): Indicate when an optimization option is disabled as a result of -O0. * doc/invoke.texi: Further

Re: [PING 2] [PATCH] c++/67942 - diagnose placement new buffer overflow

On 11/04/2015 07:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: There was a lot of discussion of C++ aliasing rules at the recent meeting; we really seem to be moving in the direction of being stricter about which union member is active. So I think we do want to diagnose the new-expression above; the user should

Re: [PR64164] drop copyrename, integrate into expand

On Sep 23, 2015, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > @@ -2982,38 +2887,39 @@ assign_parm_setup_block (struct assign_parm_data_all > *all, [snip] > + if (GET_CODE (reg) != CONCAT) > +stack_parm = reg; > + else > +/* This will use or allocate a stack slot that

[gomp4] assorted trunk backports

I've applied this patch to gomp-4_0-branch which does the following: * reverts some of the fortran changes that Jakub rejected for trunk, specifically those involving resolve_omp_duplicate_list * updates how num_gangs, num_workers and vector_length are parsed by the c++ FE * changes

Re: [openacc] tile, independent, default, private and firstprivate support in c/++

On 11/04/2015 02:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Have you verified pt.c does the right thing when instantiating the > OMP_CLAUSE_TILE clause (I mean primarily the TREE_VEC in there)? > There really should be testcases for that. Here's a patch which adds template support for the oacc clauses. Is it

Re: Division Optimization in match and simplify

Hi, Please find attached the modified patch as per review comments. >> use :s on both inner rdiv in both patterns. With that the two patterns are >> ok. Done. >> Omit the parens around REAL_CST@0 Done. Regression tested on X86_64. Thanks, Naveendiff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c

Re: Division Optimization in match and simplify

+/* Optimize (X & (-A)) / A where A is a power of 2, to X >> log2(A) */ +(for div (exact_div trunc_div) Actually, it probably works for all integer divisions (floor_div, etc) since it is exact and thus does not depend on the rounding. (sorry for giving the comments small piece by small piece,

Re: [openacc] tile, independent, default, private and firstprivate support in c/++

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 08:58:32PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c > index e3f55a7..4424596 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/pt.c > +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c > @@ -14395,6 +14395,15 @@ tsubst_omp_clauses (tree clauses, bool declare_simd, > bool allow_fields, > case

Re: [PING 2] [PATCH] c++/67942 - diagnose placement new buffer overflow

On 11/04/2015 12:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 11/02/2015 07:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 10/26/2015 09:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: + while (TREE_CODE (oper) == NOP_EXPR) +oper = TREE_OPERAND (oper, 0); This is STRIP_NOPS. + to placement new is not checked since it's unknownwhat

Re: [ping] Fix PR debug/66728

On Nov 4, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > I wonder if we'll manage to to get mode_for_size return BLKmode > in case of an original mode that was not of a size multiple of > HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT (and that's host dependent even…). > We probably should use

Re: [c++-delayed-folding] Introduce convert_to_real_nofold

On 11/04/2015 12:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:31:44AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: Then let's do that rather than introduce maybe_fold. Like so? Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for branch? Yes, thanks. diff --git gcc/convert.c gcc/convert.c index

Re: [PATCH] Add support for ARM embedded multilibs

Hello Ramana! > There are usually features on the embedded-X_X-branch used to create > releases that may not be on an FSF release branch. Not on the embedded-5 branch and as far as I analysed it, all changes of embedded-4.9 branch are now at Trunk. >> I would like to ask if you have a copyright

Re: [PATCH] Fix declaration of pthread-structs in s-osinte-rtems.ads

Am Tuesday 03 November 2015, 20:13:50 schrieb Arnaud Charlet: > > > Your ChangeLog entry is not in the proper format, see sections 6.8.1 and > > > 6.8.2 from http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html > > > > > > The diff itself is OK. > > > > Ok, fixed this. See the new diff below. > >

Re: Division Optimization in match and simplify

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote: > I thought we were mostly using the 'convert?' and tree_nop_conversion_p on integers Yes, on floats they shouldn't be used. >> >> Done. Cleared all instances of

[PATCH/RFC/RFA] Machine modes for address printing (all targets)

Hi, Depending on assembler syntax and supported addressing modes, several targets need to know the machine mode for a memory access when printing an address (i.e. for automodify addresses that need to know the size of their access), but it is not available with the current

Re: [PATCH 9/9] ENABLE_CHECKING refactoring: C family front ends

On 11/03/2015 02:34 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > >> @@ -14279,8 +14272,9 @@ tsubst_copy (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t >> complain, tree in_decl) >> return tsubst_binary_right_fold (t, args, complain, in_decl); >> >> default: >> - /* We shouldn't get here, but keep going if

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Share code from fold_array_ctor_reference with fold.

> s/explicitely/explicitly/ And remove the '*' from the 2nd and 3rd lines > of the comment. > > It looks like get_ctor_element_at_index has numerous formatting > problems. In particular you didn't indent the braces across the board > properly. Also check for tabs vs spaces issues please. Yes,

[PATCH] PR driver/67613 - spell suggestions for misspelled command line options

This patch adds hints to the option-not-found error in the driver, using the Levenshtein distance implementation posted here: "[PATCH 0/2] Levenshtein-based suggestions (v3)" https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03379.html It splits out the identifier-based implementation into a new

Re: OpenACC dimension range propagation optimization

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 11/04/15 05:26, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >>> >>> Richard, >>> this patch implements VRP for the 2 openacc axis internal fns I've added. >>> We know

Re: [gomp4] fortran cleanups and c/c++ loop parsing backport

On 11/04/2015 03:39 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:36:10 -0700, Cesar Philippidis > wrote: >> * Proposed fortran cleanups and enhanced error reporting changes: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02288.html > > ... has now been

Re: [PATCH] Add configure flag for operator new (std::nothrow)

I share your concerns, but I'm also sympathetic to the changes that the Taller Technologies team are trying to make, to allow libstdc++ to be more useful in exception-free systems. At the very least the patch to doc/xml/manual/configure.xml must document that this option enables behaviour that

Re: [PATCH] Pass manager: add support for termination of pass list

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 11/03/2015 03:44 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> On 11/03/2015 02:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Martin Liška

Re: [gomp4, committed] Implement -foffload-alias

On 04/11/15 09:47, Thomas Schwinge wrote: +/* Check that the loop has been split off into a function. */ >+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "(?n);; Function .*foo._omp_fn.0" 1 "optimized" } } */ For C we get: ;; Function foo._omp_fn.0 (foo._omp_fn.0, funcdef_no=12, decl_uid=2534,

[trivial, committed] Use decl_type in create_variable_info_for_1

Hi, this patch uses the the decl_type variable more consistently in create_variable_info_for_1. Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. Committed to trunk as trivial. Thanks, - Tom Use decl_type in create_variable_info_for_1 2015-11-04 Tom de Vries *

[committed] Handle recursive restrict in function parameter

On 04/11/15 10:28, Richard Biener wrote: I think I can postpone the creation of the heapvar till where you suggest in >create_variable_info_for_1, but I'd still need a means >to communicate the TREE_TYPE (field_type) from push_fields_onto_fieldstack to >create_variable_info_for_1. > >A simple

Re: [Patch AArch64] Switch constant pools to separate rodata sections.

On 03/11/15 17:09, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:36:45PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Now that PR63304 is fixed and we have an option to address >> any part of the memory using adrp / add or adrp / ldr instructions >> it makes sense to switch out

Re: [PATCH v2] [PR debug/67192] Fix C loops' back-jump location

On Thu, Oct 29 2015, Andreas Arnez wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> [...] >> i.e. the breakpoint on the code inside the loop is reached before the >> while statement itself. This may be the expected behaviour with your >> patch, but I'm not sure it's really desirable for

Re: [PATCH 10/9] ENABLE_CHECKING refactoring: remove remaining occurrences

On 11/03/2015 02:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > This is good fore the trunk too. Please install. > > Thanks! > > jeff Committed as r229758. -- Regards, Mikhail Maltsev

[Patch, fortran] PR68196 [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on function result with procedure pointer component

Dear All, The patch for these PRs is fully explained by the the comments and/or changelogs. PR66465 has no connection with PR68196, other than Damian asking if it is connected! Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64/FC21 - OK for trunk and a few weeks later 4.9 and 5 branches? Cheers Paul

OpenACC declare directive updates

This patch updates the processing of OpenACC declare directive for Fortran in the following areas: 1) module support 2) device_resident and link clauses 3) clause checking 4) directive generation Commentary on the changes is included as an attachment

Re: [PATCH 1/2][ARM] PR/65956 AAPCS update for alignment attribute

On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 05:38:35PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote: > Trying to push these now (svn!), patch 2 is going first. > > I realize my second iteration of patch 1/2, dropped the testcases from the > first version. Okay to include those as per >

Re: [PATCH] Better error messages for merge-conflict markers (v3)

On 10/30/2015 04:16 PM, David Malcolm wrote: The idea is to more gracefully handle merger conflict markers in the source code being compiled. Specifically, in the C and C++ frontends, if we're about to emit an error, see if the source code is at a merger conflict marker, and if so, emit a more

Re: [c++-delayed-folding] Introduce convert_to_real_nofold

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:32:52AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > The last piece for convert.c. Since convert_to_real uses fold () > > rather than fold_buildN, I defined a new macro to keep the code > > more compact. >

Re: [1/3] OpenACC reductions

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 08:58:26AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 11/04/15 05:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 11:01:57AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > >>On 11/03/15 10:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>>On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:18:37AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > This

Re: [2/3] OpenACC reductions

On 11/04/15 08:27, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 11/02/2015 05:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: There are two such switch statements, and it's possible to write this more compactly: if (!INTEGRAL_MODE_P (...)) code = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR; if (GET_MODE_SIZE (...) == 8) fn = CMP_SWAPLL;

Re: [gomp4] fortran cleanups and c/c++ loop parsing backport

Hi Cesar! On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:36:10 -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > * Proposed fortran cleanups and enhanced error reporting changes: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02288.html ... has now been applied to trunk, in an altered version, so we

Re: [ping] Fix PR debug/66728

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 4, 2015, at 1:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> I think you should limit the effect of this patch to the dwarf2out use >> as the above doesn't make sense to me. > > Since dwarf is so

Re: [PATCH] Fix declaration of pthread-structs in s-osinte-rtems.ads

> > > > Your ChangeLog entry is not in the proper format, see sections 6.8.1 > > > > and > > > > 6.8.2 from http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html > > > > > > > > The diff itself is OK. > > > > > > Ok, fixed this. See the new diff below. > > > > This is now OK, you can go ahead and

Re: [2/3] OpenACC reductions

On 11/02/2015 05:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: +/* Size of buffer needed for worker reductions. This has to be Maybe "description" rather than "Size" since there's really four variables we're covering with the comment. + worker_red_size = (worker_red_size + worker_red_align - 1) +

Re: [PATCH] Make CCP effectively remove UNDEFINED defs

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Marc Glisse wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > > > The following patch makes sure that CCP

Re: [PATCH] [ARM] neon-testgen.ml typo

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 30 October 2015 at 15:33, Ramana Radhakrishnan > wrote: >> >> >> On 29/10/15 17:23, Jim Wilson wrote: >>> I noticed a comment typo in this file while using grep to look for

Re: Division Optimization in match and simplify

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote: I don't really remember what the tests !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type) and tree_int_cst_sgn are for in the other pattern, but since you are only moving the transformation... +/* Optimize (X & (-A)) / A where A is a power of 2, to X >> log2(A) */ +(for div

Re: Division Optimization in match and simplify

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> I don't really remember what the tests !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type) and >>> tree_int_cst_sgn are for in the other pattern, but since you are only >>> moving >>> the

Re: [2/3] OpenACC reductions

On 11/04/15 05:01, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:35:34AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: 2015-11-02 Nathan Sidwell Cesar Philippidis * config/nvptx/nvptx.c: Include gimple headers.

Re: [ping] Fix PR debug/66728

On Nov 4, 2015, at 1:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > I think you should limit the effect of this patch to the dwarf2out use > as the above doesn't make sense to me. Since dwarf is so special, and since other clients already do something sort of like this anyway, it

Re: [PATCH][combine][RFC] Don't transform sign and zero extends inside mults

On 04/11/15 11:37, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 02/11/15 22:31, Jeff Law wrote: On 11/02/2015 07:15 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, This patch attempts to restrict combine from transforming ZERO_EXTEND and SIGN_EXTEND operations into and-bitmask and weird SUBREG expressions when they appear

Re: [1/3] OpenACC reductions

On 11/04/15 05:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 11:01:57AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 11/03/15 10:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:18:37AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: This is the core execution bits of OpenACC reductions. We have a new internal fn

Re: [PATCH][combine][RFC] Don't transform sign and zero extends inside mults

Ji Jrgg, On 02/11/15 22:31, Jeff Law wrote: On 11/02/2015 07:15 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, This patch attempts to restrict combine from transforming ZERO_EXTEND and SIGN_EXTEND operations into and-bitmask and weird SUBREG expressions when they appear inside MULT expressions. This is

Re: [PATCH] Make CCP effectively remove UNDEFINED defs

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Marc Glisse wrote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote: The following patch makes sure that CCP when it computes a lattice value to UNDEFINED ends up replacing uses with default

Re: OpenACC dimension range propagation optimization

On 11/04/15 05:26, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Richard, this patch implements VRP for the 2 openacc axis internal fns I've added. We know the position within a dimension cannot exceed that dimensions extend. Further, if the

Re: [PATCH] Fix vms targets

On 11/02/2015 12:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote: The header reduction didn't seem to handle the vms targets correctly. This reverts that part of Andrew's patch which allows the alpha, alpha64 and ia64 vms targets to build again. Installed on the trunk. That covers all the fallout from standard

[PATCH v3 0/2] Fix C loops' back-jump location

Another iteration of trying to fix the regression caused by r223098 ("Implement -Wmisleading-indentation"). Patch #1 is the same as v1, except for some minor changes to the test case. Patch #2 fixes some additional cases where the back-jump's location was set wrongly, and it removes the

Re: [Patch ifcvt] Teach RTL ifcvt to handle multiple simple set instructions

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:04:19PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/30/2015 07:03 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > >+ i = tmp_i; <- Should be cleaned up > > Maybe reword as "Subsequent passes are expected to clean up the > extra moves", otherwise it sounds like a TODO item. > > >+ read back

Re: [PATCH], PowerPC IEEE 128-bit patch #7 (revised #2), Subpatch #17

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Michael Meissner wrote: > This patch adds a test to make sure __float128 and __ibm128 are not allowed to > be combined in binary operations. I re-ran the test suite on power8 little > endian, and this test passed. Once the preceeding

[PATCH v3 1/2] [PR debug/67192] Fix C loops' back-jump location

Since r223098 ("Implement -Wmisleading-indentation") the backward-jump generated for a C while- or for-loop can get the wrong line number. This is because the check for misleading indentation peeks ahead one token, advancing input_location to after the loop, and then c_finish_loop() creates the

[PATCH v3 2/2] [PR debug/67192] Further fix C loops' back-jump location

After parsing an unconditional "while"- or "for"-loop, the C front-end generates a backward-goto statement and implicitly sets its location to the current input_location. But in some cases the parser peeks ahead first, such that input_location already points to the line after the loop and the

Re: [c++-delayed-folding] Introduce convert_to_real_nofold

On 11/04/2015 09:03 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:32:52AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: The last piece for convert.c. Since convert_to_real uses fold () rather than fold_buildN, I defined a new

Re: [OpenACC] declare directive

Hi Thomas, On 11/04/2015 10:49 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi Jim! On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:31:32 -0600, James Norris wrote: On 10/27/2015 03:18 PM, James Norris wrote: This patch adds the processing of OpenACC declare directive in C and C++. (Note:

Re: [openacc] acc loop updates in fortran

On 11/04/2015 09:15 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c >> +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c > >> @@ -3449,16 +3478,28 @@ gfc_trans_oacc_combined_directive (gfc_code *code) >>sizeof (construct_clauses)); >>loop_clauses.collapse =

Re: [openacc] acc loop updates in fortran

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:39:50AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > On 11/04/2015 09:15 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > >> --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c > >> +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c > > > >> @@ -3449,16 +3478,28 @@ gfc_trans_oacc_combined_directive (gfc_code *code) > >>

Re: [PATCH] Pass manager: add support for termination of pass list

On 11/04/2015 03:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 11/03/2015 03:44 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote: On 11/03/2015 02:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >

Re: [2/3] OpenACC reductions

On 11/04/15 08:27, Bernd Schmidt wrote: Adjust and applied, thanks! nathan 2015-11-04 Nathan Sidwell Cesar Philippidis * config/nvptx/nvptx.c: Include gimple headers. (worker_red_size, worker_red_align, worker_red_name,

Re: [openacc] acc loop updates in fortran

Hi Cesar! On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:06:50 -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > This patch updates the fortran front end so that it supports the acc > loop clauses in a similar manner to both the c and c++ front ends in > addition to addressing a couple of other loose ends. >

Re: [PING 2] [PATCH] c++/67942 - diagnose placement new buffer overflow

On 11/02/2015 07:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 10/26/2015 09:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: + while (TREE_CODE (oper) == NOP_EXPR) +oper = TREE_OPERAND (oper, 0); This is STRIP_NOPS. + to placement new is not checked since it's unknownwhat it might Missing space. + else if

Re: [openacc] acc loop updates in fortran

Hi Jakub! On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:30:28 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > gfc_match_oacc_update (void) > > { > >gfc_omp_clauses *c; > > + locus here = gfc_current_locus; > > + > >if (gfc_match_omp_clauses (, OACC_UPDATE_CLAUSES, false, false, true) > >!=

Re: [openacc] acc loop updates in fortran

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:15:14PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > --- a/gcc/fortran/openmp.c > > +++ b/gcc/fortran/openmp.c > > > @@ -3028,6 +3015,22 @@ resolve_omp_clauses (gfc_code *code, gfc_omp_clauses > > *omp_clauses, > > n->sym->mark = 1; > > } > > > > + /* OpenACC

Re: [openacc] acc loop updates in fortran

Hi! On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:21:36 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:15:14PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > --- a/gcc/fortran/openmp.c > > > +++ b/gcc/fortran/openmp.c > > > > > @@ -3028,6 +3015,22 @@ resolve_omp_clauses (gfc_code *code, > > >

Re: [PATCH] [ARM] PR61551 RFC: Improve costs for NEON addressing modes

On 4 November 2015 at 08:05, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Hi Charles, > > Sorry I missed this completely in my inbox. > > On 31/10/15 03:34, Charles Baylis wrote: >> Hi Ramana, >> >> [revisiting https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg01593.html] >> >>

Re: [OpenACC] declare directive

Hi Jim! On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:31:32 -0600, James Norris wrote: > On 10/27/2015 03:18 PM, James Norris wrote: > > This patch adds the processing of OpenACC declare directive in C > > and C++. (Note: Support in Fortran is already in trunk.) ..., and a patch

Re: Add VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR to operand_equal_p

> > Are these supposed to be fixed by Richard's change to not use > > useless_type_conversion for VCE, or is it another issue? > > Richard's change not to use useless_type_conversion for VCE was causing > additional GIMPLE verification failures so I didn't pursue; I can try again, > but all the

Re: [gomp4,committed] Handle recursive restrict in function parameter

On 03/11/15 14:58, Tom de Vries wrote: This patch adds handling of all the restrict qualifiers in the type of a function parameter. And committed to gomp-4_0-branch. I've reverted this patch, and backported the version from trunk. Committed as attached. Thanks, - Tom [PATCH 1/2] Revert

Re: [openacc] acc loop updates in fortran

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:20:06PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi Jakub! > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:30:28 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > gfc_match_oacc_update (void) > > > { > > >gfc_omp_clauses *c; > > > + locus here = gfc_current_locus; > > > + > > >if

Re: OpenACC dimension range propagation optimization

On 11/04/15 05:26, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Richard, this all seems a little bit fragile and relying on implementation details? Is the attribute always present? Is the call argument always a constant that fits in a

Re: [c++-delayed-folding] Introduce convert_to_real_nofold

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:31:44AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > Then let's do that rather than introduce maybe_fold. Like so? Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for branch? diff --git gcc/convert.c gcc/convert.c index ec6ff37..9355f2b 100644 --- gcc/convert.c +++ gcc/convert.c @@

Re: [openacc] tile, independent, default, private and firstprivate support in c/++

On 11/04/2015 02:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:16:59PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: >> + >> + do >> +{ >> + if (c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_MULT)) >> +{ >> + c_parser_consume_token (parser); >> + expr = integer_minus_one_node; >> +

Re: [PATCH, 2/2] Handle recursive restrict in function parameter

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 03/11/15 16:08, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > > On 01/11/15 19:20, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > On 01/11/15 19:03, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > > So, the new patch series is: > > > > > > > > > >1

Re: [PATCH] Make CCP effectively remove UNDEFINED defs

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote: The following patch makes sure that CCP when it computes a lattice value to UNDEFINED ends up replacing uses with default defs (and thus removes such UNDEFINED producing defs). This optimizes the testcase below to : return _6(D); in the first CCP.

Re: [PATCH] Add support for ARM embedded multilibs

Hello Ramana! > Thank you for your patch - In this case before you make any more > changes to this patch - comparing your patch and Terry's patch here > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00729.html shows no real > differences As I wrote in the patch, it is a port from the

Re: [gomp4, committed] Implement -foffload-alias

Hi Tom! On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:33:17 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 03/11/15 15:19, Tom de Vries wrote: > > I've dropped the two testcases from this patch, I'll commit in a > > follow-up patch. > > Committed to gomp-4_0-branch, as attached. > --- /dev/null > +++

  1   2   >