Re: [PATCH, PR68953] Fix pdr accesses order

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > pdr_0 (read > in gimple stmt: _9 = yu[_8][0]; > data accesses: { S_4[i1, i2] -> [1, 0, 1 + i1] } data access should be { S_4[i1, i2] -> [1, 1 + i1, 0] } > subscript sizes: { [1, i1, 0] : i1 >= 0 and i1 <= 3 } > )

Re: Patches to fix optimizer bug & C++ exceptions for GCC VAX backend

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 07:51, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Jake Hamby wrote: > >> There's one more thing that's broken in the VAX backend which I'd >> *really* like to fix: GCC can't compile many of its own files at -O2, as >> well as a few other .c

Re: [SH][committed] Fix PR 70416

On Sun, 2016-04-03 at 21:55 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > The attached patch fixes PR 70416. For details, please see the PR > audit trail. > > Tested on sh-elf with > make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb, > -m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}" > > and no new

[C++ Patch] PR 68722

Hi, I'm having a look at this ICE during error recovery regression and I have a couple of different proposals which both pass testing. In the first case, instead of reaching (in cp_parser_cache_defarg): default_argument = make_node (DEFAULT_ARG); DEFARG_TOKENS (default_argument) =

Document C++ Special Math Functions.

I wanted to ship the TR29124 special math functions in libstdc++ with some documentation. More could be done but this covers the function definitions, argument ranges, template parms, and arguments. There is a little mainpage with some overview, history, biblio, and links. 2016-04-08 Edward

Re: [PATCH] Fix ifcombine (PR tree-optimization/70586)

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > Hmm, I think this means GIMPLE_has_side_effects is to be fixed then. > Note that honza had plans to compute things like 'uses FP' and 'contains > arith with undefined overflow' and propagate that alongside pure/const-ness. > >

Re: [PATCH] Fix ifcombine (PR tree-optimization/70586)

On April 8, 2016 7:16:48 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >The following testcase is miscompiled by tree-ssa-ifcombine.c, because >it sees: > if (_5 != 0) >goto ; > else >goto ; > > : > iftmp.0_12 = foo.part.0 (_11, _5); > _14 = iftmp.0_12 > 0; > _15 =

Re: [C PATCH] PR43651: add warning for duplicate qualifier

On 04/04/2016 04:29 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote: Hi all! Currently GCC produces pedantic warning, if variable declaration (or typedef) has duplicate qualifier, but only when compiling as C89 (not C99 or C11). Presumably that's because C89 makes duplicating a type qualifier a constraint

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/70590 (error: location references block not in block tree)

OK. Jason

Re: [PATCH] Don't add REG_EQUAL notes in fwprop for paradoxical subregs (PR rtl-optimization/70574)

On 04/08/2016 07:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: After IRC discussions, I've bootstrapped/regtested following patch that just punts if *loc contains any paradoxical subregs, together with additional statistics gathering that proved that the new testcase is the only spot in which this patch makes a

[PATCH] Fix ifcombine (PR tree-optimization/70586)

Hi! The following testcase is miscompiled by tree-ssa-ifcombine.c, because it sees: if (_5 != 0) goto ; else goto ; : iftmp.0_12 = foo.part.0 (_11, _5); _14 = iftmp.0_12 > 0; _15 = (int) _14; if (_5 != 0) goto ; else goto ; and bb_no_side_effects_p says that bb5

Re: [PATCH] Fix ssa coalescing with inline asm (PR middle-end/70593)

On April 8, 2016 6:10:05 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 06:04:38PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> Hmm, don't we simply want to do this for all stmts (OK, only asm have >multiple defs...)? > >For all stmts that have multiple defs (which is only

Re: [PATCH] Don't add REG_EQUAL notes in fwprop for paradoxical subregs (PR rtl-optimization/70574)

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:18:50PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/07/2016 11:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >Not sure if this patch catches everything though, perhaps there could be > >e.g. > >(set (reg:SI ...) (plus:SI ((subreg:SI (reg:QI ...) 0) (const_int ...))) > >and we'd still assign

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add support for int versions of vec_adde

On 04/08/16 09:50, Segher Boessenkool wrote: Hi Bill, On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:04:30PM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote: On 04/05/16 21:27, David Edelsohn wrote: On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Bill Seurer * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c

[PATCH] Fix PR c++/70590 (error: location references block not in block tree)

My recent change that avoided needlessly unsharing expressions during constexpr evaluation introduced a regression. If we reuse the result of the same constexpr call from the constexpr_call_table in two separate caller functions then both functions will be sharing this reused tree in their

Re: [PATCH] Fix ssa coalescing with inline asm (PR middle-end/70593)

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 06:04:38PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > Hmm, don't we simply want to do this for all stmts (OK, only asm have > multiple defs...)? For all stmts that have multiple defs (which is only GIMPLE_ASM right now). Though, of course, if you want, unconditionally doing:

Re: [PATCH] Fix ssa coalescing with inline asm (PR middle-end/70593)

On April 8, 2016 4:54:22 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >xen is miscompiled since Alex' SSA coalescing changes. >The problem is that we have there inline asm that sets more than one >SSA_NAME, one of them is dead though (has zero uses) and because of >the zero uses

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

> On Apr 8, 2016, at 17:37 , Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:24:50AM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote: >>> But I expect for stage4, the best solution is to strengthen the stack_tie >>> pattern to block all memory. Early scheduling of the

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:24:50AM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote: > > But I expect for stage4, the best solution is to strengthen the stack_tie > > pattern to block all memory. Early scheduling of the stack frame > > deallocation (a simple logic insn) can't really be that important to > >

Re: openacc reference reductions

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 07:35:35AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > The FEs a little inconsistent, and I didn't want to make this patch that > invasive. Can the FE changes wait to gcc7? Sure. > 2016-04-08 Cesar Philippidis > > PR lto/70289 > PR ipa/70348

[wwwdocs] Simplify gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html (and convert to global CSS)

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > I plan on tackling the other C++ status pages in the coming days > as well. Here is the version for gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html. (My bad, I should have noticed those areas of simplification earlier on, that would have saved the C++ guys some effort, too,

Re: Fix for PR70498 in Libiberty Demangler

I've been looking through this patch. I had intended to commit it, but after looking through it a little more carefully I think there are a few things left to solve. So, d_number/d_compact_number now return ints rather than longs, which makes sense since the lengths in things like struct

[PATCH] Fix ssa coalescing with inline asm (PR middle-end/70593)

Hi! xen is miscompiled since Alex' SSA coalescing changes. The problem is that we have there inline asm that sets more than one SSA_NAME, one of them is dead though (has zero uses) and because of the zero uses coalescing doesn't see any conflicts and puts both the SSA_NAMEs in the two GIMPLE_ASM

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add support for int versions of vec_adde

Hi Bill, On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:04:30PM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote: > On 04/05/16 21:27, David Edelsohn wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Bill Seurer > >> * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_overloaded_builtins, > >>

Re: openacc reference reductions

On 04/08/16 07:46, Cesar Philippidis wrote: I'm not sure what the purpose of a firstprivate parallel reduction is anyway. I'm not sure either. Tom and I were pushing to make parallel reductions imply copy (or present_or_copy in openacc 2.0). Did that fall through? It doesn't seem to have

Re: openacc reference reductions

On 04/08/2016 07:14 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 04/08/16 00:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>> +/* OpenACC parallel reductions need a present_or_copy clause to ensure >>> + that the original variable used in the reduction gets updated on >>> + the host. Scan the list of clauses for reduction

Re: openacc reference reductions

On 04/08/2016 12:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:34:43PM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote: >> --- a/gcc/gimplify.c >> +++ b/gcc/gimplify.c >> @@ -5802,7 +5802,8 @@ omp_add_variable (struct gimplify_omp_ctx *ctx, tree >> decl, unsigned int flags) >> flags |= GOVD_SEEN;

Re: openacc reference reductions

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 07:14:13AM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 04/08/16 00:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > >>+/* OpenACC parallel reductions need a present_or_copy clause to ensure > >>+ that the original variable used in the reduction gets updated on > >>+ the host. Scan the list of

Re: openacc reference reductions

On 04/08/16 00:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote: +/* OpenACC parallel reductions need a present_or_copy clause to ensure + that the original variable used in the reduction gets updated on + the host. Scan the list of clauses for reduction so that any existing + data clause can be adjusted if

Re: [patch, driver] Ignore -ftree-parallelize-loops={0,1}

Hi! On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:43:49 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:38:06PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: > > On 08/04/16 12:35, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > I've looked at the patch, it looks good to me. > > > > I think it can be committed as obvious. > > The

Fortran OpenACC host_data construct ICE (was: [gomp4] Re: [OpenACC 0/7] host_data construct)

Hi! On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:13:58 +0100, I wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:58:45 +0100, I wrote: > > Cesar and Jim copied, for help with Fortran and generally testsuite > > things. (Just in case you happen to have any ideas.) > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:30:34 +, Julian Brown

Re: Fix for PR70492

On 04/01/2016 05:03 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote: This fixes the invalid write of size 8 detailed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70492 Handle the special case when consume_count returns -1 due to an integer overflow when parsing the length of the virtual table qualifier in

C++ PATCH to fix a part of c++/70513 (ICE-on-invalid with enums)

This is my attempt to fix at least a part of this PR. I haven't been able to come up with a fix that fixes the other part involving templates. We were ICEing on code such as struct S { enum E : int; enum S::E : int { foo } e; }; Clang rejects this with "extra qualification" error. When I

Re: [patch, driver] Ignore -ftree-parallelize-loops={0,1}

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:38:06PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 08/04/16 12:35, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > I've looked at the patch, it looks good to me. > > I think it can be committed as obvious. The patch is ok for trunk. > >>commit df7d7943ae64f6df74d360e71f7c495c78647fda > >>Author:

Re: [C PATCH] PR43651: add warning for duplicate qualifier

On 04/08/2016 12:50 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > New options need documenting in invoke.texi. > Done. -- Regards, Mikhail Maltsev gcc/c/ChangeLog: 2016-04-08 Mikhail Maltsev PR c/43651 * c-decl.c (declspecs_add_qual): Warn when

Re: [patch, driver] Ignore -ftree-parallelize-loops={0,1}

On 08/04/16 12:35, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! Ping. On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:24:48 +0100, I wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:36:25 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: On 14/07/15 06:54, Jeff Law wrote: On 07/13/2015 04:58 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: On 07/07/15 09:53, Tom de Vries

Re: [PATCH] Don't add REG_EQUAL notes in fwprop for paradoxical subregs (PR rtl-optimization/70574)

On 04/07/2016 11:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Not sure if this patch catches everything though, perhaps there could be e.g. (set (reg:SI ...) (plus:SI ((subreg:SI (reg:QI ...) 0) (const_int ...))) and we'd still assign REG_EQUAL note. So maybe instead we should walk the *loc expression and look

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Certainly. On one side I'd say it is too late now in stage3, on the other > > side when would be better time to do that, during stage1 people will have > > more likely out of the tree branches with more changes (I'm aware we

Re: [PATCH, libgomp] Rewire OpenACC async

Ping. On 2016/3/29 5:48 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote: > I've updated this patch for trunk (as attached), and re-tested without > regressions. This patch is still a fix for > libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/asyncwait-1.c, > which FAILs right now. > > ChangeLog is still as before. Is this okay for trunk? >

Re: [PATCH][PR sanitizer/70541] Fix unnoticed invalid dereference when using AddressSanitizer.

On 08/04/16 12:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:52:32AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: 2016-04-08 Maxim Ostapenko PR sanitizer/70541 * asan.c (instrument_derefs): If we get unknown location, extract it with EXPR_LOCATION.

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi, On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > > > > >In

Re: [patch, driver] Ignore -ftree-parallelize-loops={0,1}

Hi! Ping. On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:24:48 +0100, I wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:36:25 +0200, Tom de Vries > wrote: > > On 14/07/15 06:54, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 07/13/2015 04:58 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > > >> On 07/07/15 09:53, Tom de Vries wrote: > > >>> currently,

Re: [PATCH][ARM][RFC] PR target/65578 Fix gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/builtin-apply-4.c for single-precision fpus

On 09/02/16 17:21, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > In this wrong-code PR the builtin-apply-4.c test fails with -flto but > only when targeting an fpu > with only single-precision capabilities. > > bar is a function returing a double. For non-LTO compilation the caller > of bar reads the

Re: [PING][PATCH] Remove incorrect warning for parallel firstprivate clause

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:32:34AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: > Patch updated as attached. > > OK for stage4/stage1 trunk? Ok for stage4, thanks. > Remove incorrect warning for parallel implicit firstprivate clause > > 2016-03-24 Tom de Vries > > * omp-low.c

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi! On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > > >In addition to that, how about we split up gcc/omp-low.c into several > > >files? Would

Re: [PING][PATCH] Remove incorrect warning for parallel firstprivate clause

On 05/04/16 17:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:17:16PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: On 24/03/16 18:02, Tom de Vries wrote: Remove incorrect warning for parallel firstprivate clause 2016-03-24 Tom de Vries * omp-low.c (lower_omp_target): Set

Re: [PATCH][ARM] PR target/70566 Check that condition register is dead in tst-imm -> lsls-imm Thumb2 peepholes

On 07/04/16 15:51, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > In this wrong-code PR we have a Thumb2 peephole transforming: > tstr3, #2 > bne.L3 > beq.L6 > > into: > lslsr3, r3, #30 // LSLS is shorter than TST in Thumb2 > bmi.L3 > beq.L6 > > that is,

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Add deprecation warning on pre-v4t architecture revisions

On 01/03/16 16:17, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > For GCC 6 we want to deprecate architecture revisions prior to ARMv4T. > This patch implements this by documenting the deprecation in invoke.texi > and adding > a warning whenever the user specifies an -march or -mcpu option that > selects

Re: [PATCH][PR sanitizer/70541] Fix unnoticed invalid dereference when using AddressSanitizer.

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:52:32AM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > 2016-04-08 Maxim Ostapenko > > PR sanitizer/70541 > * asan.c (instrument_derefs): If we get unknown location, extract it > with EXPR_LOCATION. > (maybe_instrument_call):

Re: [PING][PATCH] Remove incorrect warning for kernels copy clause

On 05/04/16 12:16, Tom de Vries wrote: On 24/03/16 17:59, Tom de Vries wrote: Hi, This patch fixes an incorrect warning for the oacc copy clause. Consider this test-case: ... void foo (void) { int i; #pragma acc kernels { i = 1; } } ... When compiling with -fopenacc

[PATCH][PR sanitizer/70541] Fix unnoticed invalid dereference when using AddressSanitizer.

Hi, this patch actually fixes two issues: * In some cases the dereferences in function argument list are not instrumented and ASan can miss errors, e.g. heap-use-after-free. To resolve this, we can just iterate through gimple_call's arguments and add ASAN_CHECK statements for them if needed.

[gomp4] [PR testsuite/70579, PR testsuite/70580] Fix test cases failing because of the compiler's "avoid offloading" decision (was: Also test -O0 for OpenACC C, C++ offloading test cases)

Hi! On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:29:45 +0200, I wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:55:49 +0200, I wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:31:29 +0100, I wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:57:50 +0100, Bernd Schmidt > > > wrote: > > > > Ok with [...]. > > > > > > Thanks for the review;

[PATCH] [ARC] Add SIMD extensions for ARC HS

This patch adds support for the new SIMD operations added to ARC HS cpu class. The proposed patch doesn't chase for performance but offers support for those newly added operations, and autovectorization. The patch is tested using dg.exp, compile.exp, and execute.exp for both arc700 and archs with

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

Hello Richard & Alan, Thanks for your feedback. Back on it after a few extra experiments. > On Mar 28, 2016, at 19:41 , Richard Henderson wrote: > >> Let's see what rth thinks. He did say the patch might need to be >> redone. :) >>

Re: openacc reference reductions

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:40:54AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > So, you can do all the checking there. Say on OMP_CLAUSE_REDUCTION > for the ORT_ACC_PARALLEL check the flags if they include GOVD_PRIVATE > or GOVD_FIRSTPRIVATE, if yes, complain. Also check if GOVD_MAP is included, Though, void

Re: openacc reference reductions

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:34:43PM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > --- a/gcc/gimplify.c > +++ b/gcc/gimplify.c > @@ -5802,7 +5802,8 @@ omp_add_variable (struct gimplify_omp_ctx *ctx, tree > decl, unsigned int flags) > flags |= GOVD_SEEN; > >n = splay_tree_lookup (ctx->variables,

Re: [PATCH] Avoid needless unsharing during constexpr evaluation (PR c++/70452)

On 2016.04.06 at 18:25 -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Patrick Palka wrote: > Here is a safer and simpler approach that just walks the expression > being unshared to try to find a CONSTRUCTOR node. If it finds one, then > we unshare the whole expression. Otherwise we return the

[PATCH, PR68953] Fix pdr accesses order

Hi, this patch fixes wrong-code PR68953, a graphite 6 regression. I. Consider test.c: ... int yu[4][1] = { { 1 }, { 2 }, { 3 }, { 4 } }; int main (void) { int zh, ro; for (zh = 0; zh < 2; ++zh) for (ro = 0; ro < 3; ++ro) yu[ro][0] = yu[zh + 1][0]; return yu[0][0]; } ...

Re: [gomp4] Avoiding predication for certain blocks

Hi! I cleaned up this remnant from an earlier OpenACC execution model implementation: On Fri, 29 May 2015 18:23:21 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > When predicating the code for OpenACC, we should avoid the entry block > in an offloaded region, which contains setup code