Re: [DOC Patch] Add sample for @cc constraint

I've had it in a successful test run, and committed it with a minor tweak (__builtin_abort vs return 1). It didn't find anything, but it's probably good to have. As for the docs, I think you are unnecessarily worried about things that are never going to be a problem in practice. Perhaps

[patch] update handling of 'acc parallel loop' reductions for PR70626

This patch makes the c, c++ and fortran FEs duplicate the reduction clauses in a combined 'acc parallel loop' directive when it splits that directive into separate parallel and loop directives. So given something like #pragma acc parallel loop reduction(+:var) for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)

Re: [Patch, testsuite] Require int32plus and scheduling support for some tests

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 5:00 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj > wrote: > This patch add dg-require-effective-target directives to a few tests > that were failing unnecessarily for the AVR target. So the branch has been cut. We’re now in RM only mode. The change

Re: [PATCH v2] gcov: Runtime configurable destination output

Ping on this; what are the next steps? Thanks Aaron Conole writes: > The previous gcov behavior was to always output errors on the stderr channel. > This is fine for most uses, but some programs will require stderr to be > untouched by libgcov for certain tests. This change

[PATCH] [6 and trunk] Fix bootstrap with older host compilers

We didn't have __builtin_swap16 on all targets before GCC 4.8; hsa-brig tries to use it if the host GCC is 4.6 or up though, breaking bootstrap. This trivial patch fixes it. Noticed on gcc22. Is this okay for trunk and gcc-6? Segher 2016-04-15 Segher Boessenkool

C++ PATCH for c++/70505 (wrong error with template-id in default argument)

The problem here was that instantiation_dependent_r considered the instantiated TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR to be type-dependent because it had no type, rather than unknown_type_node like those built by lookup_template_function. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit

Re: Fix for PR70498 in Libiberty Demangler

Hi Bernd, >>> index = d_compact_number (di) + 1; if (index == 0) return NULL; >>> >>> which probably ought to have the same kind of check (I'll note that >>> at this point we've accumulated two "+1"s, I'll assume that's what >>> we want). >> Yes. There should be an overflow check here. > >

Re: [PATCH] [AArch64] support -mfentry feature for arm64

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Michael Matz wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > > > It appears that implementing -fprolog-pad=N option in GCC will not > > enable kernel live-patching support for AArch64. The proposal for the > > option was to make GCC output a given number of NOPs at

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:05:25PM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote: > > But don't you run the risk that the stack could be deallocated before the > > restores are done? This came up on the PA port a long time ago. IIRC the > > situations was something like this: > > > > We had a frame pointer and

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 18:42 , Jeff Law wrote: >> /* (mem:BLK (scratch)) is a special mechanism to conflict with everything. >> This is used in epilogue deallocation functions. */ > *That's* the one I was looking for :-) :-) >> Yes, I pondered this one and thought

Re: PATCH] Fix PR 31531: A microoptimization of isnegative of signed integer

--- a/gcc/match.pd +++ b/gcc/match.pd @@ -1896,10 +1896,13 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT) (for cmp (simple_comparison) scmp (swapped_simple_comparison) (simplify - (cmp (bit_not@2 @0) CONSTANT_CLASS_P@1) + (cmp (convert?@3 (bit_not@2 @0)) CONSTANT_CLASS_P@1) (if (single_use

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

On 04/14/2016 11:10 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote: On 14 Apr 2016, at 18:50, Jeff Law wrote: I thought we had code to handle this case specially, but I can't immediately find it in sched-deps.c. Unless I misunderstood what you were exactly looking for, the special code is in

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Work around PR target/64971

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 03:12:58PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 15/04/16 15:10, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >This is a repost of Andrew's fix for PR target/64971 that was originally > >posted at: > >https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00502.html > > > >The only change

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR31096

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote: I think we should handle at least INTEGER_CST and SSA_NAME with VRP, and it seems natural to add a VRP check The check should be added in the tree_single_nonzero_warnv_p for SSA_NAME case for tree_expr_nonzero_p. I think so. However, for

Re: a patch for PR68695

On 04/15/2016 10:20 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: This was resolved with: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00724.html Sorry, I should have replied to this thread... No worries. I probably should have checked the testcase before replying to the older email thread. jeff

Re: a patch for PR68695

On 15/04/16 17:18, Jeff Law wrote: On 04/15/2016 05:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 05/04/16 23:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: So for the test gcc.dg/pr10474.c on arm with -marm -O3 before this patch we perform shrink-wrapping:

Re: a patch for PR68695

On 04/15/2016 05:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 05/04/16 23:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: So for the test gcc.dg/pr10474.c on arm with -marm -O3 before this patch we perform shrink-wrapping: cmpr0, #0 bxeqlr

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Work around PR target/64971

On 04/15/2016 08:10 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, This is a repost of Andrew's fix for PR target/64971 that was originally posted at: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00502.html The only change is that I substituted DImode for Pmode and added a FIXME comment to remind us to

Re: [PATCH] rtlanal: Fix bits/bytes confusion in set_noop_p (PR68814)

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:41:25PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:37:07PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > On 04/15/2016 02:35 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > >This now also shows up on GCC 5, see PR70672. It there happens in > > >the jump1 pass already. > > > > > >Is

Re: [PATCH] [AArch64] support -mfentry feature for arm64

Hi, On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > It appears that implementing -fprolog-pad=N option in GCC will not > enable kernel live-patching support for AArch64. The proposal for the > option was to make GCC output a given number of NOPs at the beginning of > each function, and then the

Re: [PATCH, i386, AVX-512] Fix PR target/70662.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 06:21:56PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > Hi, > On 15 Apr 06:43, H.J. Lu wrote: > > [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ /export/build/gnu/gcc-x32/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc > > -B/export/build/gnu/gcc-x32/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/ -mx32 -mtune=slm > > -fno-diagnostics-show-caret

Re: [PATCH] [CLEANUP] Mark locally-used functions static

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:58:41 +0200, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: >> > This patch marks "static" a

Re: [PATCH, i386, AVX-512] Fix PR target/70662.

Hi, On 15 Apr 06:43, H.J. Lu wrote: > [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ /export/build/gnu/gcc-x32/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc > -B/export/build/gnu/gcc-x32/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/ -mx32 -mtune=slm > -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -Og > -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-fre -mavx512vbmi >

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 00:42 , Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > >> >> Something like the attached patch, at least for next stage1 until the >> more general issue is sorted out ? > > It's a bit heavy; as a workaround, we may want this clobber in the stack >

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/15/16 10:42, Jason Merrill wrote: OK, let's go ahead with this. Thanks for committing Jakub. I've just moved the changelog to cp/ChangeLog though. nathan

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

OK, let's go ahead with this. Jason

Re: C PATCH to improve location of bit-field error message (PR c/70671)

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 04:38:27PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > This patch improves the location of the error message about taking the address > of a bit-field. While at it, I also fixed two other similar spots. > > Not a regression, but given its extreme triviality I thought this could have >

C PATCH to improve location of bit-field error message (PR c/70671)

This patch improves the location of the error message about taking the address of a bit-field. While at it, I also fixed two other similar spots. Not a regression, but given its extreme triviality I thought this could have gone in even at this time. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok

[committed] nvptx: fix -moptimize help text

Hello, I have committed to trunk as obvious the following patch to add a missing period at the end of help text for the '-moptimize' NVPTX backend option. Alexander * config/nvptx/nvptx.opt (moptimize): Add a period at end of help text. --- gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.opt +++

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

Hi! On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:15:42 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:11:45PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:57:05 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/15/2016 06:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:26:11AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C: In instantiation of 'struct TestType<32u>': /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C:201:1:

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Work around PR target/64971

On 15/04/16 15:10, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, This is a repost of Andrew's fix for PR target/64971 that was originally posted at: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00502.html The only change is that I substituted DImode for Pmode and added a FIXME comment to remind us to

[PATCH][AArch64] Work around PR target/64971

Hi all, This is a repost of Andrew's fix for PR target/64971 that was originally posted at: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00502.html The only change is that I substituted DImode for Pmode and added a FIXME comment to remind us to revisit this (see the PR in bugzilla for more

Re: [PATCH, i386, AVX-512] Fix PR target/70662.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > Hello, > Patch in the bottom fixes memory operand modifiers > for Intel syntax on broadcast patter. > > Bootstrapped and regtested on 32,64b x86 target. > > I'll check it into main trunk and gcc-5 branch. > > gcc/ >

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

On 08/04/16 10:28, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: 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

Re: Fix some x86 peepholes vs. the red-zone

On 04/15/2016 10:32 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: This fixes possible wrong code with a tricky failure mode, so OK now. Thanks. [...] While changing this part, it can be rewritten using dg-additional options, e.g.: /* { dg-options "-Os -fomit-frame-pointer -fasynchronous-unwind-tables

Re: C PATCH to overhaul warning about dangling else (PR c/70436)

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:14:03PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > I revamped the warning so that it follows what the C++ FE does (i.e. passing > IF_P bools here and there) and it seems to work quite well. I didn't mean to > tackle the OMP bits but I bet it would be just a matter of passing IF_P >

Re: PATCH to fix ICE-on-invalid with wrong type of va_arg (PR c/70651)

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:58:21PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > Hopefully one of the last P1s for GCC 6. The problem in this PR was that we > were triggering an assert in build_va_arg on invalid code which used wrong > type > of va_arg. We should rather error out than ICE; this patch thus

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/15/16 05:57, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:43:26AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: On 04/14/2016 09:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 04/13/16 15:41, Jason Merrill wrote: The fini_constexpr stuff is

PATCH to fix ICE-on-invalid with wrong type of va_arg (PR c/70651)

Hopefully one of the last P1s for GCC 6. The problem in this PR was that we were triggering an assert in build_va_arg on invalid code which used wrong type of va_arg. We should rather error out than ICE; this patch thus turns asserts into errors. Only removing the assert would probably work as

Re: [Patch] Fix PR 60040

Bernd Schmidt writes: > On 04/07/2016 01:52 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: >>The below patch fixes PR 60040 by not halting with a hard error on >>a spill failure, if reload knows that it has to run again anyway. > > Some additional information as to how this situation creates a spill

Re: [PATCH] Fix -fcompare-debug issue caused by do_niy (PR c++/70675)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > The testcase in the PR (too large for the testsuite) fails -fcompare-debug, > because do_niy doesn't honor dump flags (TDF_NOUID in this case). > > Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for > trunk? Ok.

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] PR rtl-optimization/70681: XFAIL ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c and pr10474.c tests on arm, powerpc

On 15/04/16 13:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi Jakub, On 15/04/16 13:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: As reported (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00094.html)

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] PR rtl-optimization/70681: XFAIL ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c and pr10474.c tests on arm, powerpc

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Jakub, > > On 15/04/16 13:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > >>As reported (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00094.html) > >>these two tests now fail to

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] PR rtl-optimization/70681: XFAIL ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c and pr10474.c tests on arm, powerpc

Hi Jakub, On 15/04/16 13:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: As reported (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00094.html) these two tests now fail to perform shrinkwrapping after a regalloc change, but at least on arm the resulting

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:26:11AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > >/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C: In > >instantiation of 'struct TestType<32u>': > >/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C:201:1: > >required from here >

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] PR rtl-optimization/70681: XFAIL ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c and pr10474.c tests on arm, powerpc

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > As reported (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00094.html) > these two tests now fail to perform shrinkwrapping after a regalloc change, > but at least on arm the resulting code is not worse (not clear if better >

[PATCH][testsuite] PR rtl-optimization/70681: XFAIL ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c and pr10474.c tests on arm, powerpc

Hi all, As reported (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00094.html) these two tests now fail to perform shrinkwrapping after a regalloc change, but at least on arm the resulting code is not worse (not clear if better either). They have also been reported to fail on powerpc One of

[PATCH] Fix -fcompare-debug issue caused by do_niy (PR c++/70675)

Hi! The testcase in the PR (too large for the testsuite) fails -fcompare-debug, because do_niy doesn't honor dump flags (TDF_NOUID in this case). Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? 2016-04-15 Jakub Jelinek PR

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:11:45PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:57:05 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > For all the other splitting patches that I have posted/proposed, the

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

Hi! On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:57:05 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > For all the other splitting patches that I have posted/proposed, the idea > > then is to commit these onto both gcc-6-branch and trunk? > > If we

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:15:07 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:27:40PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:01:13 +0200, I wrote: > > > > "simdclone" pass,

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

Hi! On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:15:07 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:27:40PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:01:13 +0200, I wrote: > > > "simdclone" pass, with the > > > respective supporting code. I will certainly submit line-diff

Re: [PATCH] rtlanal: Fix bits/bytes confusion in set_noop_p (PR68814)

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:37:07PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/15/2016 02:35 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >This now also shows up on GCC 5, see PR70672. It there happens in > >the jump1 pass already. > > > >Is this okay to backport to 5 and 4.9? > > Ok. Can you please also create a

Re: Fix for PR70498 in Libiberty Demangler

On 04/13/2016 03:04 PM, Marcel Böhme wrote: Hi Bernd, Shouldn't we check for overflows before performing the +1 addition (i.e. 0 <= num < INT_MAX)? Ideally we'd also have a way to signal from d_number if we had an overflow while parsing that number. Without an overflow signal, d_number will

Re: [PATCH] rtlanal: Fix bits/bytes confusion in set_noop_p (PR68814)

On 04/15/2016 02:35 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: This now also shows up on GCC 5, see PR70672. It there happens in the jump1 pass already. Is this okay to backport to 5 and 4.9? Ok. Bernd

Re: PATCH to disable the canonical types check in verify_type (PR c++/70029)

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:40:43AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > Given the BZ & list discussion, I'd consider the patch approved. > > > > I *think* the way to deal with the BZ is to change the regression marker to > > 7 and the target milestone as well. I think leaving it as a P1 would be > >

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:27:40PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:01:13 +0200, I wrote: > > "simdclone" pass, with the > > respective supporting code. I will certainly submit line-diff patches if > > we agree that this is sound -- these two may actually be good candidates

Re: a patch for PR68695

On 05/04/16 23:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: So for the test gcc.dg/pr10474.c on arm with -marm -O3 before this patch we perform shrink-wrapping: cmpr0, #0 bxeqlr push{r4, lr} movr4, r0 ...

Re: [PATCH] Maybe change __size_t definition in ?

On 15/04/16 12:23, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >I work currently on a better FreeBSD compatibility for Newlib. For >RTEMS we use the network, USB, SD/MMC stacks from FreeBSD. It would be >nice to use ,

[RFC][PR68217] Improve value range for signed & sign-bit-CST

As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should be [-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as happens now. This patch fixes this. I bootstrapped and regression tested for x86-64-linux-gnu with no new regression. Is this OK for statege-1. Thanks, Kugan

Re: [PATCH] Maybe change __size_t definition in ?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > I work currently on a better FreeBSD compatibility for Newlib. For > RTEMS we use the network, USB, SD/MMC stacks from FreeBSD. It would be > nice to use , etc. from Newlib directly to compile FreeBSD

[PATCH 2/2] [ARC] Add TLS support.

TLS mods for ARC backend. OK to apply? Claudiu gcc/ 2016-04-15 Claudiu Zissulescu Joern Rennecke * config/arc/arc-protos.h (arc_legitimize_pic_address): Remove declaration. (emit_pic_move): Remove.

[PATCH 1/2] [ARC/LIBGCC] Add TLS support.

TLS mods for libgcc. OK to apply? Claudiu libgcc/ 2016-04-15 Claudiu Zissulescu Joern Rennecke * config/arc/crttls.S: New file. * config/arc/t-arc: New rule. * config.host (arc*-*-elf*, arc*-*-linux*):

[PATCH 0/2] [ARC] Add TLS support for ARC.

Hi, This series of two patches are adding TLS support for ARC processors. The first patch is changing libgcc, the second patch is changing the ARC' backend. I've tested the mods using dg.exp, compile.exp, tls.exp, and execute.exp. Ok to apply? Claudiu Claudiu Zissulescu (2): [ARC/LIBGCC] Add

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:43:26AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On 04/14/2016 09:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >> >On 04/13/16 15:41, Jason Merrill wrote: >> > >> >>The fini_constexpr stuff is OK immediately. >> > >> >As

[PATCH] Maybe change __size_t definition in ?

I work currently on a better FreeBSD compatibility for Newlib. For RTEMS we use the network, USB, SD/MMC stacks from FreeBSD. It would be nice to use , etc. from Newlib directly to compile FreeBSD user and kernel space files. Various FreeBSD source and header files need a typedef __size_t via .

"const" qualifier vs. OpenACC data/OpenMP map clauses (was: [patch] fix an openacc test case)

Hi! On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:21:33 -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > This patch fixes a segfault in libgomp.oacc-fortran/non-scalar-data.f90. > The problem here is that 'n' is a parameter, and the kernels region > implicitly adds a copy clause to n. Naturally, the test

Re: [PATCH, i386, AVX-512] Fix PR target/70662.

On 15 Apr 10:57, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > Hello, > Patch in the bottom fixes memory operand modifiers > for Intel syntax on broadcast patter. > > Bootstrapped and regtested on 32,64b x86 target. > > I'll check it into main trunk and gcc-5 branch. > > gcc/ > PR target/70662 > *

[PATCH, i386, AVX-512] Fix PR target/70662.

Hello, Patch in the bottom fixes memory operand modifiers for Intel syntax on broadcast patter. Bootstrapped and regtested on 32,64b x86 target. I'll check it into main trunk and gcc-5 branch. gcc/ PR target/70662 * config/i386/sse.md: Use proper memory operand

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 06:37 , Andreas Krebbel > wrote: >> /* (mem:BLK (scratch)) is a special mechanism to conflict with everything. >> This is used in epilogue deallocation functions. */ >> ... > > Ok thanks. I've verified that the dependencies are also

[PATCH] Real fix for PR70623

The previous "fix" for the PR just fixed the testcase by chance. The following (more dangerous at this point I thought) fix instead attacks the issue correctly, fixing the DF problem to be no longer unstable. Hopefully - the events are that while everything is sound value-wise (which is where we

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 14 April 2016 at 17:26, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 04/14/2016 04:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> Martin Sebor writes: >> >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C >>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index

__DTOR_LIST__ and __CTOR_END__ undeclared when portting to new ARM target

Hi All, I'm trying to port GCC 5.2.0 (with intention to send it here later) for new target OS - Phoenix-RTOS. However I'm experiencing compilation error and I can't figure out why. Port is supposed to work for ARM Cortex-A5. Here is my patch, that I try to apply:

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code

Hi! On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:27:40 +0200, I wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:01:13 +0200, I wrote: > > "simdclone" pass, with the > > respective supporting code. I will certainly submit line-diff patches if > > we agree that this is sound -- these two may actually be good candidates > > to do