Re: [EVRP] Fold stmts with vrp_fold_stmt

Hi Richard, Thanks for the review. On 04/10/16 19:56, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, kugan wrote: Hi, This patch improves Early VRP by folding stmts using vrp_fold_stmt as it is done in ssa_propagate for VRP. Why? I thought it would be good for early vrp to simplify stmts

Re: [PATCH] DWARF: remove pessimistic DWARF version checks for imported entities

The new patch works on darwin without new regression. Thanks, Dominique > Le 4 oct. 2016 à 15:58, Pierre-Marie de Rodat a écrit : > > Hello, > > Thank you very much for you help, Dominique! > > On 09/29/2016 03:16 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> FAIL:

[Patch, libgfortran] Inquire internal unit within child dtio procedure

Committed as trivial. Reported on c.l.f Regression tested on x86-64. Regards, Jerry 2016-10-04 Jerry DeLisle io/inquire.c (inquire_via_unit): Add check for internal unit passed into child IO procedure. 2016-10-04 Jerry DeLisle

Re: C++ PATCH for C++17 class template placeholders

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > C++17 adds the ability to omit the template arguments for a class > template when declaring a variable with an initializer, much like auto > but supporting a wider variety of initialization. This is intended to > replace

[gomp4] update tile clause lowering in fortran

Nathan noticed that the fortran FE wasn't lowering tiled loops in the same format as the C/C++ FEs. The canonical format of tiled loops going forward is that of omp/acc collapsed loops; tiled loops are lowered into a collection of tightly nested for loops. While making this change, I noticed that

Re: [PATCH] - improve sprintf buffer overflow detection (middle-end/49905)

On 10/04/2016 06:21 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: I've built the sparc-sun-solaris2.12 toolchain and reproduced these warnings. They are vestiges of those I saw and some of which I fixed before. The problem is that %lc expects a wint_t argument which on this

Re: [PATCH] - improve sprintf buffer overflow detection (middle-end/49905)

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > I've built the sparc-sun-solaris2.12 toolchain and reproduced these > warnings. They are vestiges of those I saw and some of which I fixed > before. The problem is that %lc expects a wint_t argument which on > this target is an alias for long in but the

GCC patch committed: fix -fsplit-stack alloca with -mno-accumulate-outgoing-args

Than McIntosh encountered a bug on 32-bit x86 with code that calls alloca when using -fsplit-stack when -mno-accumulate-outgoing-args is in effect. When alloca is called after a function call, the arguments are left on the stack, which can cause the stack to become misaligned. The problem is

Re: [PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

On 10/04/2016 01:01 PM, Mike Stump wrote: On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it

Re: [PATCH] - improve sprintf buffer overflow detection (middle-end/49905)

as it happens, I'd already started bootstraps with your patch before your mail arrived :-) Thanks for your help getting to the bottom of this! We're left with FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-4.c (test for

Re: Patch, Split powerpc -mfloat128 into 2 parts

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:42:21PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Michael Meissner wrote: > > > It also changes __ibm128/__float128, and only registers the keywords if the > > long double type is not IBM extended double or IEEE 128-bit floating point > > respectively. If the

Re: [PATCH v2] add -fprolog-pad=N option to c-family

> On Sep 29, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > In case anybody missed it, the Linux kernel side to make use > of this has also been finished meanwhile. Of course it can not > be accepted without compiler support; and this feature patch > is much more versatile than just

Re: Patch, Split powerpc -mfloat128 into 2 parts

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Michael Meissner wrote: > It also changes __ibm128/__float128, and only registers the keywords if the > long double type is not IBM extended double or IEEE 128-bit floating point > respectively. If the long double type matches one of those types, instead it > will issue a

Patch, Split powerpc -mfloat128 into 2 parts

In working on the IEEE 128-bit floating point support, I've run into situations where it would be to have the basic KFmode type available under Linux, but not allow the __float128 and _Float128 keywords to be used until the library work is done. But the library functions might want to use some

C++ PATCH for c++/77775 (wrong folding of PMF comparison)

The RECORD_TYPE for a PMF does not have variants in the usual way; rather, a variant PMF will have a distinct RECORD_TYPE where the pfn field has a variant type. As a result, if we cast a constant PMF to a variant type, we will end up looking up a different field than we initialized. Deal with

C++ PATCH for C++17 class template placeholders

C++17 adds the ability to omit the template arguments for a class template when declaring a variable with an initializer, much like auto but supporting a wider variety of initialization. This is intended to replace functions like make_tuple. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit

PING Re: [PATCH] Don't peel extra copy of loop in unroller for loops with exit at end

Ping for the following patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01612.html -Pat

Re: [PATCH] add uClibc target hook (PR bootstrap/77819)

On 10/04/2016 08:54 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 10/04/2016 04:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I copied the conditional from config/linux.h but I admit I don't fully understand when the macro is defined. AFAICT it's done in config.gcc, for a limited set of targets. Should I still remove it from

PING Re: [PATCH] PR68212, Correct frequencies/counts when unrolling

Ping for the following patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01363.html -Pat

Re: [PATCH] DWARF: remove pessimistic DWARF version checks for imported entities

OK. On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > Hello, > > Thank you very much for you help, Dominique! > > On 09/29/2016 03:16 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/binding_label_tests_16.f03 -g (internal compiler >> error) >> FAIL:

Re: [PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

On 10/04/2016 12:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:05:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it to

Re: [PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed > that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available > there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it to it? > >

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

> On 4 Oct 2016, at 18:23, Mike Stump wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >> On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote: >>> Hi Matthias, >>> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote: > As discussed. I think I should ask a

Re: [PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:05:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed > that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available > there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it to it? > >

[PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it to it? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01617.html Martin

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >> On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote: >>> Hi Matthias, >>> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote: > As discussed. I think I should ask a

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote: >> Hi Matthias, >> >>> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote: As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this one. For obvious reasons I haven't included

[PATCH] Move strchr folding to gimple-fold

As suggested in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg02216.html, move all existing strchr and strrchr folding from builtins.c to gimple-fold.c. Passes C/C++ regression & bootstrap. 2016-10-04 Wilco Dijkstra * builtins.c (fold_builtin_strchr): Remove

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55152

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > Possibly. Though then for FP we also want - abs (a) -> copysign (a, -1). > > > > For architectures such as powerpc that have a negated-abs instruction,

Re: [PATCH] Fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough -C, handle some more comment styles and comments in between FALLTHRU comment and label

> I think the vast majority of the comments I changed (removing "...") > wouldn't have to be changed were this patch in. So can we install it instead of arguing about hypothetical things? -- Eric Botcazou

Always support float128 on ia64 (PR target/77586)

Bug 77586, and previously , reports ia64-elf failing to build because of float128_type_node being NULL, but being used by the back end for __float128. The global float128_type_node is only available conditionally, if target hooks indicate

Re: [PATCH] Fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough -C, handle some more comment styles and comments in between FALLTHRU comment and label

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:58:17PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > - /* ... fall through for unsigned ints ... */ > > > + /* fall through */ > > > > > > -/* For other instructions, fallthru. */ > > > +

Re: [PATCH] Fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough -C, handle some more comment styles and comments in between FALLTHRU comment and label

Hi, On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > - /* ... fall through for unsigned ints ... */ > > + /* fall through */ > > > > -/* For other instructions, fallthru. */ > > +/* fallthru. */ > > > > - /* fall thru to manual case */ > > +

RE: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808, ICE in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 starting with r240439

Richard Biener writes: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Doug Gilmore > wrote: > > My commit r240439 didn't handle the situation where setting --param > > prefetch-latency=0 can cause the prefetch address to be the same as > > the original

Re: [PATCH] Fix bootstrap with --enable-languages=all,go

On 10/03/2016 06:53 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: Andrew Haley writes: On 30/09/16 23:16, Rainer Orth wrote: me too, though mostly to have maximum test coverage (primarily on Solaris). As expected, a x86_64-apple-darwin16 bootstrap with --enable-objc-gc just failed for me. I'm

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix ICE during C++11 lambda error recovery (PR c++/77791)

OK. On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > In param_list some entries could be error_mark_node, we should just ignore > those. ALso, this patch optimizes by testing cxx_dialect < cxx14 just once. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and

Re: [PATCH] fix PR c++/77804 - ICE on placement VLA new

OK. On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > The attached patch removes an assumption from the implementation > of the -Wplacement-new warning that the size of the array type > enclosed in parentheses and accepted by G++ as an extension is > constant. The

Re: [C++ PATCH] Delete GCJ - C++ part

OK. On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 03:27:09PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Things we may want to remove: >> >> - references to java in contrib (download_ecj, gcc_update, >> patch_tester.sh, update-copyright.py) >> - GCJ,

[PATCH, i386]: Remove TARGET_VECTORIZE_DOUBLE

... and use TARGET_BONNELL in ix86_add_stmt_cost. Now that TARGET_VECTORIZE_DOUBLE is used only as a cost option in ix86_add_stmt_cost, there is no point to have a tuning option that covers a single target in a single place. 2016-10-04 Uros Bizjak *

Re: [RFC] Extend ipa-bitwise-cp with pointer alignment propagation

> Hi, > Sorry for late response, I was travelling. > I tried to verify the alignments are monotonously worse with the > attached patch (verify.diff), > which asserts that alignment lattice is not better than bits lattice > during each propagation > step in propagate_constants_accross_call(). >

Re: [PATCH] Improve target pass registration

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:48:15PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > This patch allows backends to provide their *-passes.def file with > > instructions how to ammend passes.def, which then can be inspected in > > pass-instances.def the script

Re: [PATCH] add uClibc target hook (PR bootstrap/77819)

On 10/04/2016 04:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I copied the conditional from config/linux.h but I admit I don't fully understand when the macro is defined. AFAICT it's done in config.gcc, for a limited set of targets. Should I still remove it from targhooks.c? That is compiled for all

Re: [PATCH] Improve target pass registration

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > This patch allows backends to provide their *-passes.def file with > instructions how to ammend passes.def, which then can be inspected in > pass-instances.def the script generates. A few minor comments: > --- gcc/gen-pass-instances.awk.jj

Re: [ipa-prop] set m_vr and bits to NULL in ipcp_transform_function

> Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > OK to commit if passes ? > > Thanks, > Prathamesh > diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.c b/gcc/ipa-prop.c > index 5ed9bbf..d71ffcf 100644 > --- a/gcc/ipa-prop.c > +++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.c > @@ -5667,6 +5667,9 @@ ipcp_transform_function (struct

Re: [PATCH] add uClibc target hook (PR bootstrap/77819)

On 10/04/2016 02:42 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 10/03/2016 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: I couldn't find a good uclibc-only file where to put the new definition of the hook so I conditionally added it to targethooks.c. diff --git a/gcc/targhooks.c b/gcc/targhooks.c index d75650f..77b4a18

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Canonicalize address multiplies

On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 12:53 +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > GCC currently doesn't canonicalize address expressions. As a result > inefficient code is generated even for trivial index address > expressions, > blocking CSE and other optimizations: > > int f(int *p, int i) { return p[i+2] + p[i+1]; }

Re: [PATCHv2][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 04/10/16 14:24, mickael guene wrote: > Hi Andre, > > I can't see new testsuite files in trunk : > gcc.target/arm/pure-code/ffunction-sections.c > gcc.target/arm/pure-code/no-literal-pool.c > gcc.target/arm/pure-code/pure-code.exp > > It seems you forgot to include them in your patch. > Can

Re: [PATCH] DWARF: remove pessimistic DWARF version checks for imported entities

Hello, Thank you very much for you help, Dominique! On 09/29/2016 03:16 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: FAIL: gfortran.dg/binding_label_tests_16.f03 -g (internal compiler error) FAIL: gfortran.dg/module_commons_3.f90-g (internal compiler error) FAIL:

Re: [Patch 3/11] Implement TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION for s390

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > > (b) Handling EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_IMPLICIT like > > EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FAST would accurately describe what the back end > > does. It would mean that the default FLT_EVAL_METHOD is 0, which is a > > more accurate description of how the

Re: [Patch 3/11] Implement TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION for s390

On 09/30/2016 07:57 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Jeff Law wrote: > >> On 09/30/2016 11:34 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, James Greenhalgh wrote: >>> + case EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_STANDARD: + case EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_IMPLICIT: + /*

Re: [PATCH] Remove x86 pcommit instruction

Hello! > 2016-10-03 Andrew Senkevich > >gcc/ > >* common/config/i386/i386-common.c (OPTION_MASK_ISA_PCOMMIT_UNSET, >OPTION_MASK_ISA_PCOMMIT_SET): Deleted definitions. >(ix86_handle_option): Deleted handle of OPT_mpcommit. >*

Re: [PATCHv2][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

Hi Andre, I can't see new testsuite files in trunk : gcc.target/arm/pure-code/ffunction-sections.c gcc.target/arm/pure-code/no-literal-pool.c gcc.target/arm/pure-code/pure-code.exp It seems you forgot to include them in your patch. Can you post a new one with those files ? Regards Mickael

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55152

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > Possibly. Though then for FP we also want - abs (a) -> copysign (a, -1). > > For architectures such as powerpc that have a negated-abs instruction, > does it get properly generated from the copysign

[gomp4] auto partitioning tweak

We were determining in the host compiler as to whethe a particular loop had no explicit partitioning. That'll break down if device_type comes into play. My tiling patch exposed this difficulty, as tiling itself ends up essentially being two nested loops, one of which could be explicitly

[RFC][PATCH] Canonicalize address multiplies

GCC currently doesn't canonicalize address expressions. As a result inefficient code is generated even for trivial index address expressions, blocking CSE and other optimizations: int f(int *p, int i) { return p[i+2] + p[i+1]; } sxtwx1, w1 add x1, x1, 2 add

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55152

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > Possibly. Though then for FP we also want - abs (a) -> copysign (a, -1). For architectures such as powerpc that have a negated-abs instruction, does it get properly generated from the copysign code? (The relevant pattern in rs6000.md uses (neg

Re: [PATCH] Set -fprofile-update=atomic when -pthread is present

On 10/03/2016 02:26 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 10/03/16 08:13, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 08/18/2016 05:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 08/18/2016 09:51 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications. > The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.

Re: [PATCH] Fix fallout of PR77399 fix

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> >> x86 targets should always be in pair, so "target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*", >> >> with an optional

[PATCH] Fix PR77826

The following will fix PR77826, the issue that in match.pd matching up two things uses operand_equal_p which is too lax about the type of the toplevel entity (at least for integer constants). Bootstrap / regtest pending on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Richard. 2016-10-04 Richard Biener

Re: [PATCH] Fix fallout of PR77399 fix

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > >> x86 targets should always be in pair, so "target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*", > >> with an optional ia32 target addition when the test is valid for 32 > >> bit targets only, or { !

Re: [PATCH] read-md.c: track column numbers

On 09/30/2016 05:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote: This patch adds rudimentary column-number tracking to read-md.c, to give more precise locations for messages for problems in .md files (and in the RTL frontend I'm working on): ../../src/gcc/config/i386/i386.md:1204:22: error: unknown rtx code

Re: [gomp4] map the '*' tile argument onto integer_zero_node in fortran

On 10/03/16 17:50, Cesar Philippidis wrote: As the subject states, this patch maps the '*' tile clause arguments onto integer_zero_node. Before the fortran FE was using mapping it onto -1. This patch should make the clause parsing in fortran on par with the C and C++ FEs. This patch has been

Re: [PATCH] Fix fallout of PR77399 fix

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> x86 targets should always be in pair, so "target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*", >> with an optional ia32 target addition when the test is valid for 32 >> bit targets only, or { ! ia32 } addition when test is valid for 64-bit >>

Re: [PATCH] Fix fallout of PR77399 fix

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Hello! > > > Andreas noticed I forgot to check if the target can fix/float a vector. > > > > Bootstrap / regtest pending on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Verified > > the fix with a cross to ia64-linux. > > > > Richard. > > > > 2016-10-04 Richard Biener

Re: [PATCH] Fix fallout of PR77399 fix

Hello! > Andreas noticed I forgot to check if the target can fix/float a vector. > > Bootstrap / regtest pending on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Verified > the fix with a cross to ia64-linux. > > Richard. > > 2016-10-04 Richard Biener > > PR tree-optimization/77399 > *

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55152

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > Possibly. Though then for FP we also want - abs (a) -> copysign (a, -1). > > I thought this might fix PR 62055, but at least on x86_64, we generate much > worse code for copysign(,-1) than for -abs :-( I

Re: [RFC] Speed-up -fprofile-update=atomic

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 09/07/2016 02:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> On 08/18/2016 06:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On August 18, 2016 5:54:49 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55152

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: Possibly. Though then for FP we also want - abs (a) -> copysign (a, -1). I thought this might fix PR 62055, but at least on x86_64, we generate much worse code for copysign(,-1) than for -abs :-( -- Marc Glisse

[PATCH] Fix PR77833

The following fixes PR77833. Bootstrap / regtest pending on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Richard. 2016-10-04 Richard Biener PR middle-end/77833 * explow.c (plus_constant): Verify the mode of the constant pool offset before calling plus_constant.

Re: [PATCH] - improve sprintf buffer overflow detection (middle-end/49905)

Hi Martin, +FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf.c execution test FAIL: test_a_double:364: "%a" expected result for "0x0.0p+0" doesn't match function call return value: 20 != 6 FAIL: test_a_double:365: "%a" expected result for "0x1.0p+0"

Re: [PATCH] Improve target pass registration

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> As discussed earlier on IRC, the current way of registering target specific >> passes has various issues: >> 1) for -da, the target specific dump files appear last,

Re: [PATCH] Fix bootstrap with --enable-languages=all,go

On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 12:16:20AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Eric, > > >> I haven't tried to readd the boehm-gc objc support that has also been > >> disabled, don't know about anybody using that. > > > > I always configure with --enable-objc-gc. The only reason Apple > > deprecated garbage

[PATCH] Fix warnings for profiledbootstrap (PR bootstrap/77788)

Hello. In the attached patch I resolve couple of warnings seen during make profiledbootstrap. I can survive bootstrap on both ppc64le-redhat-linux and x86_64-linux-gnu targets. Ready to be installed? Martin >From 510ac204f2e448d244c8eec5ab8aeab85f6041a9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin

Re: [EVRP] Fold stmts with vrp_fold_stmt

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, kugan wrote: > Hi, > > This patch improves Early VRP by folding stmts using vrp_fold_stmt as it is > done in ssa_propagate for VRP. Why? I'd like us to move away from the fold_stmt callback of substitute-and-fold (I have actually started some work towards that). > I have

Re: [PATCH] Improve target pass registration

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > As discussed earlier on IRC, the current way of registering target specific > passes has various issues: > 1) for -da, the target specific dump files appear last, regardless on where >exactly they appear in the pass queue, so one has to

[PATCH] Fix fallout of PR77399 fix

Andreas noticed I forgot to check if the target can fix/float a vector. Bootstrap / regtest pending on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Verified the fix with a cross to ia64-linux. Richard. 2016-10-04 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/77399 *

Re: [PATCH] add uClibc target hook (PR bootstrap/77819)

On 10/03/2016 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: I couldn't find a good uclibc-only file where to put the new definition of the hook so I conditionally added it to targethooks.c. diff --git a/gcc/targhooks.c b/gcc/targhooks.c index d75650f..77b4a18 100644 --- a/gcc/targhooks.c +++

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Matthias, > >> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this >>> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted >>> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

Hi Matthias, > On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote: >> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this >> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted >> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion, >> is at

Re: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808, ICE in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 starting with r240439

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Doug Gilmore wrote: > My commit r240439 didn't handle the situation where setting > --param prefetch-latency=0 can cause the prefetch address to > be the same as the original address. In this case, no > copying of points-to information

Re: [PATCH][v4] GIMPLE store merging pass

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Richard, > > On 29/09/16 11:45, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> >> + gimple_seq seq = NULL; >> + unsigned int num_stmts = 0; >> + tree offset_type = get_type_for_merged_store (group); >> + tree last_vdef,

Re: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808, ICE in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 starting with r240439

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Doug Gilmore wrote: > It looks like my email being sent from my company is being dropped, re sending > via my gmail account. > > Doug > > From: Doug Gilmore > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 6:35 PM

Re: [PATCH] Remove .jcr registry from the crtfiles

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 03:26:10PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > As usual when removing target macros they should be poisoned in system.h. > > Here is the patch with that poisoning. Bootstrapped/regtested on > x86_64-linux and i686-linux again, ok for

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55152

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Joseph Myers wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > > >> > > Index:

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR77407

On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > --- gcc/match.pd(revision 240565) > > +++ gcc/match.pd(working copy) > > @@ -147,12 +147,25 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT) > > (op @0 integer_onep) > > (non_lvalue @0))) > > > >

Re: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808, ICE in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 starting with r240439

On 3 October 2016 at 20:36, Doug Gilmore wrote: >>From: Christophe Lyon [christophe.l...@linaro.org] >>Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:23 AM >>To: Doug Gilmore >>Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >>Subject: Re: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808, ICE in