Re: [PATCH] [RFA] [PR tree-optmization/69740] Schedule loop fixups when needed

On 02/25/2016 03:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote: So I fail to see how only successor edges are relevant. Isn't the important case to catch whether we remove an edge marked EDGE_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP? Even if the BB persists we might have exposed a new loop here. Note that it is not safe to look at

[PATCH, rs6000] Fixing PR 67145

It's the simplify-rtx.c portion of the patch that fixes the i686 regression. In the PR, Alan raises some good points, but I don't believe that we can address those for gcc6. A new rtl reassoc optimization that takes loop invariance into account will have to wait. But we do need to take care

C++ PATCH for c++/69889 (ICE with lambda conversion)

Here, we were crashing because the artificial thunk returned by the lambda conversion operator was dereferencing an invisible reference parameter instead of passing it through. I needed to fix cp_genericize_r to avoid that like it already does for virtual function thunks. Tested

[PATCH] add more style checks to check_GNU_style.sh

Recently I had the opportunity to learn about a number of rather subtle style conventions sometimes enforced during code reviews (though not inconsistently followed in GCC code). To help find these kinds of problems before a patch is submitted and cut down on the subsequent back-and-forth, I've

[RFC][PATCH][PR63586] Convert x+x+x+x into 4*x

Hi, This is an attempt to fix missed optimization: x+x+x+x -> 4*x as reported in PR63586. Regression tested and bootstrapped on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new regressions. Is this OK for next stage1? Thanks, Kugan gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-02-26 Kugan Vivekanandarajah

[RFC][PATCH][PR40921] Convert x + (-y * z * z) into x - y * z * z

Hi, This is an attempt to fix missed optimization: x + (-y * z * z) => x - y * z * z as reported in PR40921. Regression tested and bootstrapped on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new regressions. Is this OK for next stage1? Thanks, Kugan gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-02-26 Kugan Vivekanandarajah

Re: [PATCH] hurd: align -p and -pg behavior on Linux

Samuel Thibault, on Thu 25 Feb 2016 00:18:21 +0100, wrote: > Thomas Schwinge, on Wed 24 Feb 2016 23:46:36 +0100, wrote: > > I guess getting -D_REENTRANT for -pthread won't do us any harm? > > It won't. (Actually we've been using this in Debian for a long time). Samuel

[PATCH][SPARC] sparc: switch -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on by default.

In sparc systems glibc uses libgcc's unwinder to implement the backtrace(3) function, defaulting to a simple non-dwarf unwinder if libgcc_s doesn't provide a working _Unwind_Backtrace. However, libgcc's unwinder uses .eh_frame instead of .frame_debug, and .eh_frame is fully populated only if

Re: [PATCH] Fix DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer referring to DW_TAG_dwarf_procedure (PR debug/69947)

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:46:40PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:53:58PM +0100, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > > I introduced a DW_OP_call* traversal for this: > > > > * prune_unused_types_mark traverses attributes using > > prune_unused_types_walk_attribs; > > >

[PATCH 2/3] Add x86_64-*-rtems* target

* gcc/config.gcc, libgcc/config.host: Add x86_64-*-rtems*. * gcc/config/i386/rtems-64.h: New file. --- gcc/config.gcc | 3 +++ gcc/config/i386/rtems-64.h | 30 ++ libgcc/config.host | 2 +- 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1

[PATCH 1/3] Add aarch64-*-rtems* target

* gcc/config.gcc, libgcc/config.host: Add aarch64-*-rtems*. * gcc/config/aarch64/rtems.h: New file. --- gcc/config.gcc | 11 +-- gcc/config/aarch64/rtems.h | 28 libgcc/config.host | 2 +- 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+),

[PATCH 3/3] contrib/config-list.mk: Add aarch64-rtems and x86_64-rtems

* contrib/config-list.mk: Add aarch64-rtems and x86_64-rtems --- contrib/config-list.mk | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/contrib/config-list.mk b/contrib/config-list.mk index 0f15464..6a83a84 100644 --- a/contrib/config-list.mk +++

Re: [PATCH] libffi testsuite: Use split to ensure valid tcl list

Hi! On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:45:06 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Feb 25, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > +set lines [libffi_target_compile $src /dev/null assembly “"] > > Does this work on a dos box, or windows or other random

Re: [patch, libstdc++] In debug mode, diagnose empty initializer_list in min/max/minmax

On 2016-02-23 23:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/02/16 22:03 +0100, Eelis wrote: The std::min, std::max, and std::minmax overloads that take a std::initializer_list all require that the list is not empty. The attached patch adds debug mode checks for this. Nice, thanks for the patch. Hi

Re: [PATCH] libffi testsuite: Use split to ensure valid tcl list

On Feb 25, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > +set lines [libffi_target_compile $src /dev/null assembly “"] Does this work on a dos box, or windows or other random non-posix systems?

Re: [PATCH] libffi testsuite: Use split to ensure valid tcl list

Hi! Already had noticed something odd here months ago; now finally looked into it... On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:59:30 -0400, John David Anglin wrote: > The attached change fixes tcl errors that occur running the complex.exp and > go.exp test sets. > See:

Re: [PATCH] Do not gather mem stats in run_exit_handles (PR middle-end/69919)

On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 12:07 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69919#c3 > , following patch > guards usage of memory statistics infrastructure after a > mem_alloc_description is already > destructed. > > Patch can lto-bootstrap on

Re: [PATCH] Add -funknown-commons to work around PR/69368 (and others) in SPEC2006

On 22/02/16 12:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > (f) A global command-line option, which we check alongside DECL_COMMON and > further tests (basically, we want only DECL_COMMON decls that either have > ARRAY_TYPE, or some other aggregate type with flexible array member or some > other trailing array in

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Replace ENABLE_CHECKING macro with flag_checking in HSA

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:59:11PM +0100, Martin Liska wrote: > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2016-02-24 Martin Liska > > * hsa-gen.c (generate_hsa): Replace ENABLE_CHECKING macro > with flag_checking. > * hsa-regalloc.c (linear_scan_regalloc): Likewise. OK, thanks,

Re: [PATCH 3/9] S/390: Get rid of Y constraint in rotate patterns.

Andreas Krebbel wrote: > * config/s390/predicates.md (const_int_6bitset_operand): New > predicates. > * config/s390/s390.md: Include subst.md. > ("rotl3"): New expander. > ("rotl3", "*rotl3_and"): Merge insn definitions into > ... > ("*rotl3"): New insn

[PATCH] Fix DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer referring to DW_TAG_dwarf_procedure (PR debug/69947)

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:53:58PM +0100, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > I introduced a DW_OP_call* traversal for this: > > * prune_unused_types_mark traverses attributes using > prune_unused_types_walk_attribs; > > * …_walk_attribs walks location descriptions and location lists using >

Re: [PATCH] [RFA] [PR tree-optmization/69740] Schedule loop fixups when needed

On 02/25/2016 03:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote: + /* Look at BB's successors, if any are marked as BB_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP, then + removing BB (and its outgoing edges) may make the loop a natural + loop. In which case we need to schedule loop fixups. */ + if (current_loops) +for

Re: [PATCHES, PING*5] Enhance standard DWARF for Ada

On 02/25/2016 04:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Do you have some short Ada testcase where the DW_OP_call4 referring to DW_TAG_dwarf_procedure is supposed to be emitted? I believe you must be getting there the .Ldebug_info0+0 invalid reference in the DW_OP_call4 operand. Sure! Here’s one: $ gcc

Re: [PATCHES, PING*5] Enhance standard DWARF for Ada

On 02/25/2016 10:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The first one just fixes what I mainly care about, the committed patch assumed that DW_TAG_dwarf_procedure is always only created for the Ada variable sized structures or whatever it was meant for, which is not the case, and thus if we emit

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Handle DImode rotatert implemented with rlwinm (PR69946)

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Some DImode rotate-right-and-mask can be implemented best with a rlwinm > instruction: those that could be a lshiftrt instead of a rotatert, while > the mask is not right-aligned. Why the rotate in the

Re: [PATCHES, PING*5] Enhance standard DWARF for Ada

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:35:07AM +0100, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > On 02/25/2016 10:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >Unfortunately, this broke the DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer support, on vast > >majority of binaries and libraries gcc now emits invalid DWARF (which both > >gdb and dwz complain

[PATCH 1/4] Replace ENABLE_CHECKING macro with flag_checking in HSA

gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-02-24 Martin Liska * hsa-gen.c (generate_hsa): Replace ENABLE_CHECKING macro with flag_checking. * hsa-regalloc.c (linear_scan_regalloc): Likewise. --- gcc/hsa-gen.c | 25 + gcc/hsa-regalloc.c | 7

[PATCH 0/4] Replace remaining ENABLE_CHECKING macros

Hello Following series removes remaining usage of ENABLE_CHECKING macro, where the last patch eventually poisons the macro. The series has been tested in common and survives regbootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu with default options (and Ada enabled) and --enable-checking=none. Ready for trunk?

[PATCH 3/4] Replace ENABLE_CHECKING with CHECKING_P in dwarf2out

gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-02-25 Martin Liska * dwarf2out.c (new_loc_descr): Replace ENABLE_CHECKING with CHECKING_P. (resolve_args_picking_1): Likewise. * dwarf2out.h (struct GTY): Likewise. --- gcc/dwarf2out.c | 6 +++--- gcc/dwarf2out.h | 2 +- 2

[PATCH 4/4] Poison ENABLE_CHECKING macro

gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-02-25 Martin Liska * system.h: Poison ENABLE_CHECKING macro. --- gcc/system.h | 4 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/system.h b/gcc/system.h index 445073c..cb54541 100644 --- a/gcc/system.h +++ b/gcc/system.h @@ -1014,6

[PATCH 2/4] Replace ENABLE_CHECKING macro with flag_checking in GNAT

gcc/ada/ChangeLog: 2016-02-24 Martin Liska * gcc-interface/utils.c (set_reverse_storage_order_on_pad_type): Replace ENABLE_CHECKING macro with flag_checking. --- gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils.c | 12 +++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix option handling when -std=gnu++14 is not used (PR 69865)

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 06:38:05AM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi, > > as almost expected r233572 needs to be back-ported to gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 > branches in order to be built by gcc-6. It applies cleanly to both > branches. But unfortunately PR 69881 prevents boot-strapping gcc-4.9 > in the

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/69842 (wrong error with generic lambda)

On 02/17/2016 03:44 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: The problem here was that the call from the stub returned by the conversion function to the op() was changing an xvalue to an lvalue, leading to a parameter of the wrong type in the op(). ...and now, handling variadic templates as well. Tested

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:15 PM, David Brown wrote: > Great link, thanks!

Re: [Fortran, Patch] (Coarrays) Wrong events size

* PING * 2016-02-20 18:25 GMT+01:00 Alessandro Fanfarillo : > Dear all, > > currently, the compiler doesn't pass the right size to the > registration routine of OpenCoarrays for event variables: > > size.15 = 0; > > ev.data = (void * restrict) _gfortran_caf_register

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:15 PM, David Brown wrote: > The "t" is thumb, "e" means "DSP-like extensions", and I suspect the "l" > is a misprint for "j", meaning the Jazelle (Java) acceleration instructions. I doubt that as "armv5tejl" is also quite common.

Re: [PATCH] Do not gather mem stats in run_exit_handles (PR middle-end/69919)

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69919#c3, > following patch > guards usage of memory statistics infrastructure after a > mem_alloc_description is already > destructed. > > Patch can

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On 25/02/16 14:15, David Brown wrote: > On 25/02/16 14:32, Stefan Ring wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) >> wrote: >>> The point is to permit the compiler to use interworking compatible >>> sequences of code when generating ARM code,

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On 25/02/16 14:32, Stefan Ring wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) > wrote: >> The point is to permit the compiler to use interworking compatible >> sequences of code when generating ARM code, not to force users to use >> Thumb code. The

C++ PATCH for c++/67364 (constexpr vs. empty class)

We don't bother evaluating a store to an empty class member, and we shouldn't complain about accesses either. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 5. commit fd0e8f3776afa35340bcd3c555280012aa82f645 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Wed Feb 24 17:14:41 2016 -0500

C++ PATCH for c++/68049 (ICE with may_alias)

strip_typedefs was failing to strip the typedef in this case, because TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT doesn't strip attributes, which were applied after applying the typedef name. Fixed by explicitly using DECL_ORIGINAL_TYPE. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 5. commit

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On 25/02/16 13:32, Stefan Ring wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) > wrote: >> The point is to permit the compiler to use interworking compatible >> sequences of code when generating ARM code, not to force users to use >> Thumb code. The

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > The point is to permit the compiler to use interworking compatible > sequences of code when generating ARM code, not to force users to use > Thumb code. The necessary instruction (BX) is available in

[PATCH] Fix PR48795

The following fixes a bogus Warray-bound warning by consolidating some (slightly bogus) duplicate code in tree-vrp.c Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2016-02-25 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/48795 * tree-vrp.c

[testsuite, c++] Require init_priority support for g++.dg/ext/attr-constructor1.C

The new g++.dg/ext/attr-constructor1.C FAILs on Solaris 10 and 11: FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-constructor1.C -std=c++11 (test for errors, line 5) FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-constructor1.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-constructor1.C -std=c++14 (test for errors, line 5)

Re: [PATCHES, PING*5] Enhance standard DWARF for Ada

> I agree that catching this in scan-assembler test is hard, but guality test > would catch this. It is true that some guality tests (mostly the ones that > test behaviour of optimized code, which differs a lot between different > architectures) have known FAILs (or known XFAILs), because the

[wwwdocs] Update -Wnonnull description

Now that -Wnonnull-comare has been split out of -Wnonnull, we should also update the porting_to text. Is this sufficient? Index: porting_to.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-6/porting_to.html,v retrieving revision 1.15

Re: [wwwdocs] Describe behavior of -flifetime-dse in class constructors

On 02/19/2016 05:52 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > thank you for working this out and writting summary. I think in a shorter > form this would make > excellent entry for changes.html, too. We tell about the new feature and > warn users about fallout > that is always good. Good idea. That's a

[PATCH] Do not gather mem stats in run_exit_handles (PR middle-end/69919)

Hello. As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69919#c3, following patch guards usage of memory statistics infrastructure after a mem_alloc_description is already destructed. Patch can lto-bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu with --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats and survives

[PATCH][AArch64] Set TREE_TARGET_GLOBALS in aarch64_set_current_function when new tree is the default node to recalculate optab availability

Hi all, Seems like aarch64 is suffering from something similar to PR 69245 as well. If a target pragma sets the target state to the same as the target_option_default_node the node is just a pointer to target_option_default_node rather than a distinct identical node. So we must still restore

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Remove an unused reload hook.

Hi, On 26 January 2015 at 18:01, Matthew Wahab wrote: > Hello, > > The LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS macro is only needed for reload. Since the > Aarch64 backend no longer supports reload, this macro is not needed and this > patch removes it. > > Tested aarch64-none-linux-gnu

Re: [PATCHES, PING*5] Enhance standard DWARF for Ada

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:35:07AM +0100, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > As I said at the end of a message in another thread > (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01078.html), I always feel > uncomfortable writing brittle dg-scan testcases, hence the current lack of > testcases for

Re: [PATCHES, PING*5] Enhance standard DWARF for Ada

On 02/25/2016 10:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Unfortunately, this broke the DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer support, on vast majority of binaries and libraries gcc now emits invalid DWARF (which both gdb and dwz complain about and dwz refuses to optimize because of that). Arg, sorry about this!

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

On 02/25/2016 11:15 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Sure. Just working on that. Great, thank you! -- Pierre-Marie de Rodat

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

On 02/25/2016 11:14 AM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > Understood. Martin, as the ENABLE_CHECKING refactoring is not comitted yet, > could you do the substitution ENABLE_CHECKING → CHECKING_P for these > dwarf2out.* occurences as part of it? Sure. Just working on that. Martin

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

On 02/25/2016 10:24 AM, Richard Biener wrote: So what about removing the field (in struct dw_loc_descr_node) and replacing the visited hash set with a frame_offset hash map (in resolve_args_picking)? This hash map would remember the information we currently store in the field. Sounds

Re: [wwwdocs] Describe behavior of -flifetime-dse in class constructors

On 2016.02.25 at 11:07 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.02.25 at 11:01 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > > On 02/17/2016 04:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > > > On 02/17/2016 03:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > >> "has been" looks weird. I'd say that the C++ compiler is now more > > >>

Re: [wwwdocs] Describe behavior of -flifetime-dse in class constructors

On 2016.02.25 at 11:01 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > On 02/17/2016 04:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > > On 02/17/2016 03:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> "has been" looks weird. I'd say that the C++ compiler is now more > >> aggressive... > >> > I've been thinking if the suggested patch makes sense

Re: [wwwdocs] Describe behavior of -flifetime-dse in class constructors

On 02/17/2016 04:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 02/17/2016 03:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> "has been" looks weird. I'd say that the C++ compiler is now more >> aggressive... >> >> Jakub > > Sending v3. > > M. > Hi. I've been thinking if the suggested patch makes sense any longer

Re: [PATCH] [RFA] [PR tree-optmization/69740] Schedule loop fixups when needed

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > PR69740 shows two instances where one or more transformations ultimately > lead to the removal of a basic block. > > In both cases, removal of the basic block removes a path into an irreducible > region and turns the

Re: [patch] libstdc++/69945 Add __gnu_cxx::__freeres hook

On 25/02/16 10:36 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: This adds a new function to libsupc++ which will free the memory still in use by the pool used for allocating exceptions when malloc fails. This is similar to glibc's

Re: [ARM] Add support for overflow add, sub, and neg operations

Hi Michael, On 24/02/16 23:02, Michael Collison wrote: This patch adds support for builtin overflow of add, subtract and negate. This patch is targeted for gcc 7 stage 1. It was tested with no regressions in arm and thumb modes on the following targets: arm-non-linux-gnueabi

Re: [PATCHES, PING*5] Enhance standard DWARF for Ada

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 09:53:37AM +0100, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > On 12/11/2015 09:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > >Hmm, can we generate the DWARF procedures during finalize_size_functions > >to avoid the need for preserve_body? > > Good idea, thank you! Here’s the updated patch

Re: [patch] libstdc++/69945 Add __gnu_cxx::__freeres hook

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > This adds a new function to libsupc++ which will free the memory still > in use by the pool used for allocating exceptions when malloc fails. > > This is similar to glibc's __libc_freeres, which valgrind (and other >

[PATCH][AArch64] PR target/69613: Return zero TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK when SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED is false

Hi all, In this wrong-code PR we get bad code when synthesising a TImode right shift by variable amount using DImode shifts during expand. The expand_double_word_shift function expands two paths: one where the variable amount is greater than GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode) (word_mode for aarch64) at

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 02/23/2016 04:21 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote: >>> On 11/03/2015 02:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote: This is good fore the trunk too. Please install.

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > On 02/24/2016 03:53 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >> >> On 02/24/2016 03:27 PM, Michael Matz wrote: >>> >>> But nothing can set ENABLE_CHECKING anymore (the macro is meanwhile >>> called >>> CHECKING_P), so all that

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On 24/02/16 17:38, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > >> After discussion with the ARM port maintainers we have decided that now >> is probably the right time to deprecate support for versions of the ARM >> Architecture prior to ARMv4t. This will allow

Re: [PATCH PR69052]Check if loop inv can be propagated into mem ref with additional addr expr canonicalization

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 02/22/2016 02:22 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >>> My only question is why didn't you use FOR_EACH_SUBRTX_VRA from >>> rtl-iter.h >>> to walk the RTX expressions in collect_address_parts and >>> canonicalize_address_mult? >> >> Hi