C++ PATCH for C++/71121 (wrong -Waddress warning with PMF and constexpr)

The problem here was that the code that tries to prevent the -Waddress warning used cp_fully_fold, and later code used maybe_constant_value, and the latter simplified the operand more so that it exposed the ADDR_EXPR to the -Waddress warning. Fixed by calling maybe_constant_value from

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix up genericization ICE (PR c++/71941)

OK. On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > In PR69315, we've recently allowed recursive genericization, unfortunately > the bc_label handling isn't prepared for that, we ICE if we cp_genericize > some function (usually newly instantiated method) while

[libstdc++, C++17] Implement C++17 P0330 size_t UDL.

This patch defines operator""zu(unsigned long long __n) for size_t literals. for (auto k = 0zul; k < v.size(); ++k) ... Testing on x86-64-linux is finishing but I'm past these tests. OK? Ed 2016-07-21 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> Implement C++17 P0330

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR target/71733, ICE with -mcpu=power9 -mno-vsx

On 7/12/16 8:48 AM, Alan Modra wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 02:02:43PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: The second time around, get_secondary_mem should reuse the same stack slot it already allocated, and the elimination offsets should already be set to accommodate that stack slot, which means

Re: [PATCH] Fix source locations of bad enum values (PR c/71610 and PR c/71613)

On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 16:16 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jason Merrill > wrote: > > This needs a template testcase. > > Did you get this reply before? It bounced from the mailing list, but > I thought you would have gotten it directly. I did;

Re: [PATCH v2] x86: allow to suppress default clobbers added to asm()s

On 07/06/2016 08:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: While it always seemed wrong to me that there's no way to avoid the default "flags" and "fpsr" clobbers, the regression the fix for PR/60663 introduced (see PR/63637) makes it even more desirable to have such a mechanism: This way, at least asm()s with

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/21/16 00:19, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 07/21/16 00:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:50:03PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> But the built-in alloca is still recognized because the builtin >>> does have ECF_MAY_BE_ALLOCA and ECF_MALLOC. >> >> But

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/21/16 00:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:50:03PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> But the built-in alloca is still recognized because the builtin >> does have ECF_MAY_BE_ALLOCA and ECF_MALLOC. > > But __builtin_alloca_with_align likely doesn't have ECF_MALLOC set (even >

-.Job in Canada

The new canada hotel is looking for over 100 foreign workers. Contact the Canadian Administrator by e-mail: forapplica...@yahoo.ca, if it interests you. Ray

Re: fold x ^ y to 0 if x == y

On 20 July 2016 at 23:07, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 20 July 2016 at 16:35, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> >>> On 8 July 2016 at 12:29, Richard Biener wrote: >>> > On Fri, 8

Re: fold x ^ y to 0 if x == y

On 20 July 2016 at 16:35, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 8 July 2016 at 12:29, Richard Biener wrote: >> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Richard Biener wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >>

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:50:03PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > But the built-in alloca is still recognized because the builtin > does have ECF_MAY_BE_ALLOCA and ECF_MALLOC. But __builtin_alloca_with_align likely doesn't have ECF_MALLOC set (even when it should). Jakub

Re: [PATCH]: Introduce HOST_WIDE_INT_0{,U}

On 07/20/2016 11:16 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: As suggested by Jakub. 2016-07-20 Uros Bizjak * hwint.h (HOST_WIDE_INT_0): New define. (HOST_WIDE_INT_0U): Ditto. * double-int.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_0 instead of (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0. * dse.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_0U

Re: [PATCH][C++] C++ bitfield memory model for as-base classes

On 06/29/2016 05:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Currently as-base classes lack DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVEs which means RTL expansion doesn't honor the C++ memory model for bitfields in them thus for the following testcase struct B { B() {} int x; int a : 6; int b : 6; int

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/20/16 20:08, Richard Biener wrote: > On July 20, 2016 6:54:48 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger > wrote: >> >> But I think that alloca just should not be recognized by name any >> more. > > It was introduced to mark calls that should not be duplicated by inlining or

Re: [PATCH GCC]Vectorize possible infinite loops by versioning

On 06/28/2016 12:18 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: Hi, This patch improves vectorizer in order to handle possible infinite loops by versioning. Its changes fall in three categories. A) Changes in vect_get_loop_niters. AT the moment, it computes niter using number_of_executions_latch, in this way the

[PATCH]: Introduce HOST_WIDE_INT_0{,U}

As suggested by Jakub. 2016-07-20 Uros Bizjak * hwint.h (HOST_WIDE_INT_0): New define. (HOST_WIDE_INT_0U): Ditto. * double-int.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_0 instead of (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0. * dse.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_0U instead of (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) 0. *

[C++ PATCH] Fix up genericization ICE (PR c++/71941)

Hi! In PR69315, we've recently allowed recursive genericization, unfortunately the bc_label handling isn't prepared for that, we ICE if we cp_genericize some function (usually newly instantiated method) while inside of some loop in the outer function. Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on

Re: [PATCH] target lib tests with build sysroot PR testsuite/71931

On 07/20/2016 08:04 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: Fix target library tests when gcc is built using --with-build-sysroot. The dejagnu find_gcc function cannot handle if CC needs extra flags like --sysroot. So for testing target libraries use the same CC that was used for building the target libs.

Re: [PATCH] Fix source locations of bad enum values (PR c/71610 and PR c/71613)

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > This needs a template testcase. Did you get this reply before? It bounced from the mailing list, but I thought you would have gotten it directly. Jason

Re: [PATCH] Fix source locations of bad enum values (PR c/71610 and PR c/71613)

On 06/22/2016 08:52 PM, David Malcolm wrote: PR c/71613 identifies a problem where we fail to report this enum: enum { e1 = LLONG_MIN }; with -pedantic, due to LLONG_MIN being inside a system header. This patch updates the C and C++ frontends to use the location of the name as the primary

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH] Fix asm X constraint (PR inline-asm/59155)

On 06/22/2016 02:48 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: On 06/22/16 21:51, Jeff Law wrote: On 06/19/2016 07:25 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Hi, ping... As this discussion did not make any progress, I just attached the latest version of my patch with the the changes that Vladimir proposed. Boot-strapped

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

> Very few targets continue to use SJLJ eh (perhaps just cygwin/mingw). > *But* I think the Ada front-end explicitly uses SJLJ EH, so if you want > to get some smoke testing, the Ada testsuite is probably the place to go. Right, the Ada front-end uses an EH scheme directly based on

Re: [PATCH build/doc] Replacing libiberty with gnulib

On 20 July 2016 at 19:21, ayush goel wrote: > Hey, > As a first step of my GSOC project > (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/replacelibibertywithgnulib) I have imported > the gnulib library inside the gcc tree. I have created gnulib as a top > level directory which contains the

Re: [PATCH] RFC: On-demand locations within string-literals

On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 17:49 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: [...] > Also, this patch currently makes the assumption (in charset.c) > that there's a 1:1 correspondence between bytes in the source > character set and bytes in the execution character set. This can > be the case if both are, say, UTF-8,

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

=== acats Summary === # of expected passes2320 # of unexpected failures0 Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu === gnat tests === Running target unix FAIL: gnat.dg/vect3.adb scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 15 FAIL:

Re: [Fortran, Patch] First patch for coarray FAILED IMAGES (TS 18508)

Le 20/07/2016 à 11:39, Andre Vehreschild a écrit : Hi Mikael, + if(st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE) +new_st.op = EXEC_FAIL_IMAGE; + else +gcc_unreachable(); You can use gcc_assert (st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE); foo...; instead of if (st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE) foo...;

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/20/2016 10:30 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: On 07/20/16 18:15, Jeff Law wrote: On 07/20/2016 05:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Is it OK after boot-strap and regression-testing? I think the __builtin_setjmp change is wrong - __builtin_setjmp is _not_ 'setjmp' it is part of the GCC internal

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/20/2016 10:54 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Yes. That is another interesting observation. I think, originally this flag was introduced by Jan Hubicka, and should mean, "it may be alloca or a weak alias to alloca or maybe even something different". But some of the later optimizations use it

Re: [PATCH] c++/60760 - arithmetic on null pointers should not be allowed in constant expressions

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 07/20/2016 07:52 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/20/2016 12:30 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: On 07/20/16 20:08, Richard Biener wrote: On July 20, 2016 6:54:48 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Yes. That is another interesting observation. I think, originally this flag was introduced by Jan Hubicka, and

Re: [PATCH] Add priority_queue::value_compare (LWG 2684)

On 24/05/16 17:02 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: * include/bits/stl_queue.h (priority_queue::value_compare): Define. This is only Tentatively Ready but I don't think there's any harm in making the change now. Libc++ have been shipping this for years, without realising it wasn't actually

[PATCH] LWG 2441 Provide exact-width atomic typedefs

* include/std/atomic (atomic_int8_t, atomic_uint8_t, atomic_int16_t) (atomic_uint16_t, atomic_int32_t, atomic_uint32_t, atomic_int64_t) (atomic_uint64_t): Define (LWG 2441). * testsuite/29_atomics/headers/atomic/std_c++0x_neg.cc: Remove empty lines.

[Committed] S/390: Remove mode size check in encode_section_info.

With the last change the not-aligned symbol ref markers are always set for modes with size zero. This is wrong since for larl the size of the access does not matter. This patch removes that check entirely from s390_encode_section_info. Modes with a size of 0 get rejected in

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/20/16 20:08, Richard Biener wrote: > On July 20, 2016 6:54:48 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger > wrote: >> >> Yes. That is another interesting observation. I think, originally this >> flag was introduced by Jan Hubicka, and should mean, "it may be alloca >> or a

[PATCH] LWG 2328 Rvalue stream extraction should use perfect forwarding

* include/std/istream (operator>>(basic_istream&&, _Tp&)): Adjust to use perfect forwarding (LWG 2328). * testsuite/27_io/rvalue_streams.cc: Test perfect forwarding. * doc/xml/manual/intro.xml: Document DR 2328 status. Teted x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.

[PATCH build/doc] Replacing libiberty with gnulib

Hey, As a first step of my GSOC project (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/replacelibibertywithgnulib) I have imported the gnulib library inside the gcc tree. I have created gnulib as a top level directory which contains the necessary scripts to import the modules. It also contains the necessary

Re: [PATCH] c++/60760 - arithmetic on null pointers should not be allowed in constant expressions

On 07/20/2016 07:52 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: @@ -2911,6 +2923,14 @@ cxx_eval_indirect_ref (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t,

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On July 20, 2016 6:54:48 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >On 07/20/16 18:20, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 07/20/2016 09:41 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> On 07/20/16 12:44, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi! > > As

Re: [PATCH test]XFAIL gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c

On 07/20/2016 10:58 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: Hi, After patch @238301, issue reported in PR65206 is also exposed by case gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c. This patch xfail the case for the moment. Test result checked, is it OK? Thanks, bin gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog 2016-07-14 Bin Cheng

Re: [Patch, testsuite, tentative] Explicitly disable pointer <-> int cast warnings for avr?

On Jul 19, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > The patch fixes a couple of testsuite failures that show up for the > avr target because it has different sizes for longs and pointers (4 > bytes versus 2), by explicitly disabling the warning for

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Fix pr67443.c.

On 07/20/2016 01:55 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote: > The attached patch rewrites the pr67443.c testcase in a different > way so that the test still works with the changed allocation of > globals pinned to registers. The test ist hopefully more robust > now. The test ist hopefully more robust now.

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Xfail some tests in insv-[12].c.

On 07/19/2016 11:40 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote: > The attached patch XFAILs some of the "insv" testcases as > discussed internally. Tested on s390x biarch and s390. Applied. Thanks! -Andreas-

[PATCH #2], PowerPC support to enable -mlra and/or -mfloat128

This patch renames the configure switches to be explicit that they are for the PowerPC, and that they are temporary. I would hope by the time GCC 7 exits stage1 that these switches will be removed, but having them now will allow us to move to LRA and __float128 in an orderly fashion. I built a

Re: [AArch64][8/14] ARMv8.2-A FP16 two operands scalar intrinsics

On 07/07/16 17:17, Jiong Wang wrote: This patch add ARMv8.2-A FP16 two operands scalar intrinsics. The updated patch resolve the conflict with https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00309.html The change is to let aarch64_emit_approx_div return false for HFmode. gcc/ 2016-07-20

Re: [AArch64][7/14] ARMv8.2-A FP16 one operand scalar intrinsics

On 07/07/16 17:17, Jiong Wang wrote: This patch add ARMv8.2-A FP16 one operand scalar intrinsics Scalar intrinsics are kept in arm_fp16.h instead of arm_neon.h. The updated patch resolve the conflict with https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00308.html The change is to let

Re: [AArch64][3/14] ARMv8.2-A FP16 two operands vector intrinsics

On 07/07/16 17:15, Jiong Wang wrote: This patch add ARMv8.2-A FP16 two operands vector intrinsics. The updated patch resolve the conflict with https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00309.html The change is to let aarch64_emit_approx_div return false for V4HFmode and V8HFmode.

Re: [AArch64][2/14] ARMv8.2-A FP16 one operand vector intrinsics

On 07/07/16 17:14, Jiong Wang wrote: This patch add ARMv8.2-A FP16 one operand vector intrinsics. We introduced new mode iterators to cover HF modes, qualified patterns which was using old mode iterators are switched to new ones. We can't simply extend old iterator like VDQF to conver HF

[PATCH test]XFAIL gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c

Hi, After patch @238301, issue reported in PR65206 is also exposed by case gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c. This patch xfail the case for the moment. Test result checked, is it OK? Thanks, bin gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog 2016-07-14 Bin Cheng *

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/20/16 18:20, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/20/2016 09:41 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> On 07/20/16 12:44, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> Hi! As discussed at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71876, we have a _very_ old hack in

[PATCH GCC]Cleanup lt_to_ne handling in niter analyzer

Hi, This patch cleans up function number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne mainly by removing computation of may_be_zero. The computation is unnecessary and may_be_zero in this case must be true. Specifically, DELTA is integer constant and iv0.base < iv1.base bounds to be true because the false case is

Re: [Re: RFC: Patch 1/2 v3] New target hook: max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 01:41:39PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 07/20/2016 11:51 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > > >2016-07-20 James Greenhalgh > > > > * target.def (max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost): New. > > * doc/tm.texi.in (TARGET_MAX_NOCE_IFCVT_SEQ_COST):

Re: [PATCH] Fix assembler arguments for -m16

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 04:18:49PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > At the moment the -m16 option only passes the "--32" parameter to the > assembler on glibc OSes, while on other OSes the assembler is called without > any specific flag. This is wrong and causes the assembler to fail. Fix it > by

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/20/16 18:15, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/20/2016 05:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Is it OK after boot-strap and regression-testing? >> >> I think the __builtin_setjmp change is wrong - __builtin_setjmp is >> _not_ 'setjmp' it is part of the GCC internal machinery (using setjmp >> and longjmp

Re: Merge switch statements in tree-cfgcleanup

On 07/20/2016 06:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote: So I'm going to let Richi run with the review on this one since the two of you are already iterating. But I did have one comment on the placement of the pass. I believe one of the key things to consider for whether or not something like this belongs in

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

On 07/20/2016 08:37 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: Here is an updated version. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-07-20 Ilya Enkovich * dbgcnt.def (vect_tail_combine): New. * params.def (PARAM_VECT_COST_INCREASE_COMBINE_THRESHOLD): New. *

Re: [PATCH GCC]Improve no-overflow check in SCEV using value range info.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Bin Cheng

Re: [PATCH] Fix unsafe function attributes for special functions (PR 71876)

On 07/20/2016 05:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Is it OK after boot-strap and regression-testing? I think the __builtin_setjmp change is wrong - __builtin_setjmp is _not_ 'setjmp' it is part of the GCC internal machinery (using setjmp and longjmp in the end) for SJLJ exception handing. Am I

Re: Merge switch statements in tree-cfgcleanup

On 07/20/2016 05:14 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 07/19/2016 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 07/19/2016 12:35 PM, Richard Biener wrote: I think that start/end_recording_case_labels also merged adjacent labels via

Re: [PATCH]: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_{,M}1{,U} some more

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > On 07/20/2016 02:25 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >> 2016-07-19 14:46 GMT+02:00 Uros Bizjak : >>> >>> The result of exercises with sed in gcc/ directory. >> >> >> Some more conversions: >> >>

Re: fold x ^ y to 0 if x == y

On 07/20/2016 09:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote: I have reported it as PR71947. Could you help me point out how to fix this ? Not record both equivalences. This might break the testcase it was introduced for (obviously). Which is why I CCed Jeff for his opinion. It's on my todo list. I'm

Re: [PATCH 2/3][AArch64] Improve zero extend

Richard Earnshaw wrote: > So under what circumstances does it lead to sub-optimal code? If the cost is incorrect Combine can make the wrong decision, for example whether to emit a multiply-add or not. I'm not sure whether this still happens as Kyrill fixed several issues in Combine since this

Re: fold x ^ y to 0 if x == y

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 8 July 2016 at 12:29, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Richard, > >> > For the following test-case: > >> > > >> > int

Re: [PATCH 2/3][AArch64] Improve zero extend

On 20/07/16 16:28, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> Both of which look reasonable to me. > > Yes the code we generate for these examples is fine, I don't believe this > example ever went bad. It's just the cost calculation that is incorrect with > the outer check. > > Wilco >

Re: [PATCH 2/3][AArch64] Improve zero extend

Richard Earnshaw wrote: > Both of which look reasonable to me. Yes the code we generate for these examples is fine, I don't believe this example ever went bad. It's just the cost calculation that is incorrect with the outer check. Wilco

Re: [AArch64][3/3] Migrate aarch64_expand_prologue/epilogue to aarch64_add_constant

On 20/07/16 16:02, Jiong Wang wrote: > On 20/07/16 15:18, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 20/07/16 14:03, Jiong Wang wrote: >>> Those stack adjustment sequences inside aarch64_expand_prologue/epilogue >>> are doing exactly what's aarch64_add_constant offered, except they also >>> need to be

Re: [PATCH 8/9] shrink-wrap: shrink-wrapping for separate concerns

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 01:23:44PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >>>But you need the profile to make even reasonably good decisions. > >> > >>I'm not worried about making cost decisions: as far as I'm concerned > >>it's perfectly fine for that. I'm worried about correctness - you can't > >>validly

Re: [AArch64][3/3] Migrate aarch64_expand_prologue/epilogue to aarch64_add_constant

On 20/07/16 15:18, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 20/07/16 14:03, Jiong Wang wrote: Those stack adjustment sequences inside aarch64_expand_prologue/epilogue are doing exactly what's aarch64_add_constant offered, except they also need to be aware of dwarf generation. This patch teach

Re: [PATCH v2] C++ FE: handle misspelled identifiers and typenames

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:46 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > @@ -1407,6 +1407,10 @@ lookup_field_fuzzy_info::fuzzy_lookup_field (tree type) > The TYPE_FIELDS of TYPENAME_TYPE is its TYPENAME_TYPE_FULLNAME. */ > return; > > + /* TYPE_FIELDS is not valid for a

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

On 14 Jul 16:04, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/28/2016 06:24 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > > > >Here is an updated patch version. > > > >Thanks, > >Ilya > >-- > >gcc/ > > > >+/* Function vect_gen_loop_masks. > >+ > >+ Create masks to mask a loop described by LOOP_VINFO. Masks > >+ are created

Re: [PATCH] disable ifunc on *-musl by default

On 20/07/16 15:13, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >> On 20/07/16 14:45, David Edelsohn wrote: Musl libc does not support gnu ifunc, so disable it by default. (not disabled on s390-* since that has no musl support

Re: [patch,avr] make progmem work on AVR_TINY, use TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_DIAGNOSE_USAGE

On 18.07.2016 08:58, Denis Chertykov wrote: 2016-07-15 18:26 GMT+03:00 Georg-Johann Lay : This patch needs new hook TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_DIAGNOSE_USAGE: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00839.html This patch turns attribute progmem into a working feature for AVR_TINY

Re: [PATCH v2] C++ FE: handle misspelled identifiers and typenames

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:46:58AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > + /* Skip anticipated decls of builtin functions. */ > + if (TREE_CODE (t) == FUNCTION_DECL) > + if (DECL_BUILT_IN (t)) > + if (DECL_ANTICIPATED (t)) Just a style comment, wouldn't if (TREE_CODE (t) ==

Re: [AArch64][3/3] Migrate aarch64_expand_prologue/epilogue to aarch64_add_constant

On 20/07/16 14:03, Jiong Wang wrote: > Those stack adjustment sequences inside aarch64_expand_prologue/epilogue > are doing exactly what's aarch64_add_constant offered, except they also > need to be aware of dwarf generation. > > This patch teach existed aarch64_add_constant about dwarf

Re: [PATCH] disable ifunc on *-musl by default

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 20/07/16 14:45, David Edelsohn wrote: >>> Musl libc does not support gnu ifunc, so disable it by default. >>> (not disabled on s390-* since that has no musl support yet.) >> >> Musl libc now supports PPC64. Support

[PATCH v2] C++ FE: handle misspelled identifiers and typenames

Changes in v2: - split out the non-C++ parts already approved by Jeff (I've committed these as r238522). - updated to mirror the fixes for PR c/71858 Jakub made to the corresponding C implementation in r238352, skipping anticipated decls of builtin functions - rewritten to more closely

Re: [AArch64][2/3] Optimize aarch64_add_constant to generate better addition sequences

On 20/07/16 14:02, Jiong Wang wrote: > This patch optimize immediate addition sequences generated by > aarch64_add_constant. > > The current addition sequences generated are: > > * If immediate fit into unsigned 12bit range, generate single add/sub. > * Otherwise if it fit into unsigned

Re: [PATCH] Avoid invoking ranlib on libbackend.a

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 07/19/2016 10:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > I like it. Improving re-build time in my dev tree is very much > > welcome, and yes, > > libbackend build time is a big part of it usually (plus of course cc1 > > link time). > > Since that wasn't an

Re: [PATCH] disable ifunc on *-musl by default

On 20/07/16 14:45, David Edelsohn wrote: >> Musl libc does not support gnu ifunc, so disable it by default. >> (not disabled on s390-* since that has no musl support yet.) > > Musl libc now supports PPC64. Support for s390 is in progress. > it seemed to me that on ppc64 ifunc is disabled by

Re: [AArch64][1/3] Migrate aarch64_add_constant to new interface & kill aarch64_build_constant

On 20/07/16 14:02, Jiong Wang wrote: > Currently aarch64_add_constant is using aarch64_build_constant to move > an immediate into the destination register. > > It has considered the following situations: > > * immediate can fit into bitmask pattern that only needs single > instruction. >

[PATCH] target lib tests with build sysroot PR testsuite/71931

Fix target library tests when gcc is built using --with-build-sysroot. The dejagnu find_gcc function cannot handle if CC needs extra flags like --sysroot. So for testing target libraries use the same CC that was used for building the target libs. This change assumes the test is ran from make.

[PATCH] check -nopie in configure

since gcc can be built with --enable-default-pie, there is a -no-pie flag to turn off PIE. gcc cannot be built as PIE (pr 71934), so the gcc build system has to detect the -no-pie flag to disable PIE. historically default pie toolchains used the -nopie flag (e.g. gentoo hardened), those

Re: [PATCH 2/3][AArch64] Improve zero extend

On 20/07/16 14:40, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> Why does combine care what the cost is if the instruction isn't valid? > > No idea. Combine does lots of odd things that don't make sense to me. > Unfortunately the costs we give for cases like this need to be accurate or >

Re: [PATCH] c++/60760 - arithmetic on null pointers should not be allowed in constant expressions

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> @@ -2911,6 +2923,14 @@ cxx_eval_indirect_ref (const constexpr_ctx >>> *ctx, tree t, >>>if (*non_constant_p) >>>

[PATCH] disable ifunc on *-musl by default

Musl libc does not support gnu ifunc, so disable it by default. (not disabled on s390-* since that has no musl support yet.) gcc/ 2016-07-20 Szabolcs Nagy * config.gcc (*-*-*musl*): Disable gnu-indirect-function. diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc

Re: [PATCH] disable ifunc on *-musl by default

> Musl libc does not support gnu ifunc, so disable it by default. > (not disabled on s390-* since that has no musl support yet.) Musl libc now supports PPC64. Support for s390 is in progress. - David

Re: [C++ PATCH] cp_parser_save_member_function_body fix (PR c++/71909)

OK. On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > This patch fixes two issues: > 1) as shown in the first testcase, cp_parser_save_member_function_body >adds the catch () { ... } tokens into the saved token range >even when there is no function try

Re: [PATCH 2/3][AArch64] Improve zero extend

Richard Earnshaw wrote: > Why does combine care what the cost is if the instruction isn't valid? No idea. Combine does lots of odd things that don't make sense to me. Unfortunately the costs we give for cases like this need to be accurate or they negatively affect code quality. The reason for

Re: [C++ PATCH] Allow frexp etc. builtins in c++14 constexpr (PR c++/50060)

OK. On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> Ah, I guess we need to check cxx_dialect in cxx_eval_store_expression, >> not just in potential_constant_expression. > > Here is an updated version,

[PATCH] report supported function classes correctly on *-musl

All function classes listed in gcc/coretypes.h are supported by musl. Most of the optimizations based on these function classes are not relevant for standard conform c code, but this is required to get rid of some test system noise. gcc/ 2016-07-20 Szabolcs Nagy

[PATCH] Consider functions with xloc.file == NULL (PR, gcov-profile/69028)

Hi. Following patch addresses ICE which happens when coverage.c computes checksum of a function w/o xloc.file. My patch assumes it's a valid state having a function w/o xloc.file, which is situation exposed by cilkplus functions. Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives

Re: [PATCH] c++/58796 Make nullptr match exception handlers of pointer type

On 19/07/16 10:32 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 18/07/16 12:49 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: Perhaps the right answer is to drop support for catching nullptr as a pointers to member from the language. Yes, I've been drafting a ballot comment along those lines. On the CWG reflector Richard

Re: [PATCH 2/3][AArch64] Improve zero extend

On 20/07/16 14:08, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> I'm not sure about this, while rtx_cost is called recursively as it >> walks the RTL, I'd normally expect the outer levels of the recursion to >> catch the cases where zero-extend is folded into a more complex >> operation.

Re: [PATCH]: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_{,M}1{,U} some more

On 07/20/2016 02:25 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: 2016-07-19 14:46 GMT+02:00 Uros Bizjak : The result of exercises with sed in gcc/ directory. Some more conversions: 2016-07-20 Uros Bizjak * cse.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_M1 instead of ~(HOST_WIDE_INT) 0.

Re: [PATCH 2/3][AArch64] Improve zero extend

Richard Earnshaw wrote: > I'm not sure about this, while rtx_cost is called recursively as it > walks the RTL, I'd normally expect the outer levels of the recursion to > catch the cases where zero-extend is folded into a more complex > operation.  Hitting a case like this suggests that something

[AArch64][3/3] Migrate aarch64_expand_prologue/epilogue to aarch64_add_constant

Those stack adjustment sequences inside aarch64_expand_prologue/epilogue are doing exactly what's aarch64_add_constant offered, except they also need to be aware of dwarf generation. This patch teach existed aarch64_add_constant about dwarf generation and currently SP register is supported.

[AArch64][2/3] Optimize aarch64_add_constant to generate better addition sequences

This patch optimize immediate addition sequences generated by aarch64_add_constant. The current addition sequences generated are: * If immediate fit into unsigned 12bit range, generate single add/sub. * Otherwise if it fit into unsigned 24bit range, generate two add/sub. *

[AArch64][1/3] Migrate aarch64_add_constant to new interface & kill aarch64_build_constant

Currently aarch64_add_constant is using aarch64_build_constant to move an immediate into the destination register. It has considered the following situations: * immediate can fit into bitmask pattern that only needs single instruction. * immediate can fit into single movz/movn. *

[patch,avr] More insns to handle (inverted) bit-bit moves

This adds some insns that set a destination bit expressed as zero_extract to a source bit expressed as extract, right shift, and simple combinations thereof. Purpose is smaller code and to avoid costly extracts or shifts. This applies mostly to bitfields; for open-coded bit insertions the

Re: fold x ^ y to 0 if x == y

On 8 July 2016 at 12:29, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> >> > Hi Richard, >> > For the following test-case: >> > >> > int f(int x, int y) >> > { >> >int ret; >> > >> >if (x == y) >>

  1   2   >