From: Andi Kleen
Using autofdo is currently something difficult. It requires using the
model specific branches taken event, which differs on different CPUs.
The example shown in the manual requires a special patched version of
perf that is non standard, and also will likely
From: Andi Kleen
Extend the existing bprob and tree-prof tests to also run with autofdo.
The test runtimes are really a bit too short for autofdo, but it's
a reasonable sanity check.
This only works natively for now.
dejagnu doesn't seem to support a wrapper for unix
From: Andi Kleen
Currently, on a checking enabled compiler when -fauto-profile does
not find the profile feedback file it errors out with assertation
failures. Add proper errors for this case.
gcc/:
2016-03-27 Andi Kleen
* auto-profile.c
PR other/70428
* final.c (remap_debug_filename): Use lrealpath to translate
relative path before remapping
Signed-off-by: Hongxu Jia
---
gcc/ChangeLog | 6 ++
gcc/final.c | 15 ---
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:04:39PM +0100, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> The visible effect is a powerpc-eabispe compiler (no red-zone) producing an
> epilogue sequence like
>
>addi %r11,%r1,184# temp pointer within frame
The normal -m32 compiler here generates code like
lwz 11,0(1)
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 05:29:26PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> 70353 is a problem with the function-local static declaration of
> __func__. Normally constexpr functions can't have local statics, so
> this is only an issue with __func__. Meanwhile, core issue 1962 looks
> like it's going to
The results you want to see for the test program are the following:
throwtest(0) returned 0
throwtest(1) returned 1
Caught int exception: 123
Caught double exception: 123.45
Caught float exception: 678.900024
enter recursive_throw(6)
calling recursive_throw(5)
enter recursive_throw(5)
calling
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> In unrolling of the inner loop in the test case below we introduce
> unreachable code that otherwise contains out-of-bounds array accesses.
> This is because the estimation of the maximum number of iterations of
> the
I'm very pleased to report that I was able to successfully build a NetBSD/vax
system using the checked-in GCC 5.3, with the patches I've submitted, setting
FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER to 17 and DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS to 16. The kernel
produced with GCC 5.3 crashes (on a real VS4000/90 and also SimH)
Thank you for the offer. I already tested it on an Amiga 3000 w/ 68040 card
when I made the fix. The bug manifested as the cross-compiler crashing with a
failure to find a suitable insn, because it couldn’t find the correct FP
instruction to expand to. I believe it manifested when running
Thanks for the feedback. While I agree with some of this, there are
parts that I want to defend. If after explaining why I did what I did
you still feel it should be changed, I'm prepared to do that.
On 3/24/2016 8:00 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> More problematic than a lack of documentation
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Patrick Palka wrote:
> In unrolling of the inner loop in the test case below we introduce
> unreachable code that otherwise contains out-of-bounds array accesses.
> This is because the estimation of the maximum number of iterations of
> the inner loop is too conservative: we
Andre,
In order to apply the patch on a recent trunk
@@ -1070,7 +1089,7 @@ gfc_copy_class_to_class (tree from, tree to, tree nelems,
bool unlimited)
if (unlimited)
{
if (from_class_base != NULL_TREE)
- from_len = gfc_class_len_get (from_class_base);
+ from_len =
In unrolling of the inner loop in the test case below we introduce
unreachable code that otherwise contains out-of-bounds array accesses.
This is because the estimation of the maximum number of iterations of
the inner loop is too conservative: we assume 6 iterations instead of
the actual 4.
Hi Andre,
The patch looks to be fine to me for both trunk and 5-branch.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On 27 March 2016 at 18:53, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> and here is already the follow-up. In the initial patch a safe wasn't
> commenced
> before pulling the patch,
Hi Alessandro,
The patch is fine for trunk and 5-branch - going on trivial, I would
say! Are you going to add the testcase?
Thanks a lot! I am impressed that you are doing these between
celebrating your doctorate and preparing for your move :-)
Paul
On 27 March 2016 at 17:10, Alessandro
Jake Hamby writes:
> As an added bonus, I see that my patch set also included an old m68k patch
> that had been sitting in my tree, which fixes a crash when -m68040 is
> defined.
> I may have submitted it to port-m68k before. It hasn't been tested with the
> new compiler either. Here's that
Hi all,
and here is already the follow-up. In the initial patch a safe wasn't commenced
before pulling the patch, which lead to a refactoring of the new functions node
to be partial only. Sorry for the noise.
- Andre
Am Sun, 27 Mar 2016 18:49:18 +0200
schrieb Andre Vehreschild :
Hi all,
attached is a patch to fix an ICE on allocating an unlimited polymorphic entity
from a non-poly class or type without an length component. The routine
gfc_copy_class_to_class() assumed that both the source and destination object's
type is unlimited polymorphic, but in this case it is true
Dear all,
the attached patch fixes the issue reported by Anton Shterenlikht
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-03/msg00037.html). The compiler
delegates the external library to manage the STOP statement in case
-fcoarray=lib is used.
Built and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Ok for trunk
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted
by the Danish team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/da.po
(This file,
cpplib-6.1-b20160131.da.po.gz
Description: Binary data
The Translation Project robot, in the
name of your translation coordinator.
On 2016/3/25 上午 02:40, Martin Jambor wrote:
> On the whole, I am fine with the patch but there are two issues:
>
> First, and generally, when you change the return type of a function,
> you must document what return values mean in the comment of the
> function. Most importantly, it must be
This is a regression present on the mainline and 5 branch, for a double record
extension involving a size clause on the root type and a discriminant with
variant part on the first extension...
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline and 5 branch.
2016-03-27 Eric Botcazou
24 matches
Mail list logo