Re: [PATCH] restore pedantic warning on flexible array members (c++/71290)

On 01/27/2017 05:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/27/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 01/27/2017 11:20 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: FWIW, I could avoid this awkward setup if I had just one repo for all my changes, shared

Re: [PATCH] restore pedantic warning on flexible array members (c++/71290)

On 01/27/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 01/27/2017 11:20 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: FWIW, I could avoid this awkward setup if I had just one repo for all my changes, shared across my various machines. Unfortunately,

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix fsel pattern (PR79211)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:36:10PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:11:46PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > The fsel define_insn uses fpr_reg_operand for its predicates. This > > won't work because passes can put a hard register in the operands: in > > the

Re: [PATCH] add missing overflow check to stpcpy (PR 79222)

On 01/24/2017 08:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: In implementing the -Wstringop-overflow warning I missed stpcpy. The attached patch adds the required checking. Given how simple it is, does it qualify for GCC 7 despite stage 4? Martin gcc-79222.diff PR middle-end/79222 - missing

Re: [PATCH][PR target/79170] fix memcmp builtin expansion sequence for rs6000 target.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:11:05PM -0600, Aaron Sawdey wrote: > The updated memcmp-1 testcase passes on ppc64le (p8/p9), ppc64 (p8/p9), > ppc32 (p8), and x86_64. Bootstrap was successful on ppc64/ppc64le. > Assuming regtest on ppc64/ppc64le passes, ok for trunk? > + ldbrx 10,6,9 > +

Re: [PATCH committed] Fix build failure with MPFR 2.4.x (gimple-ssa-sprintf.c)

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Rainer Orth wrote: > > This was changed once before for this reason (in r240350). I forgot > > all about it and put it back in my latest patch for some reason. I > > don't remember why exactly but I suspect I might have been trying to > > overcome some MPFR oddity. It

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix fsel pattern (PR79211)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:11:46PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > The fsel define_insn uses fpr_reg_operand for its predicates. This > won't work because passes can put a hard register in the operands: in > the testcase, combine likes to forward the parameter registers to what > then is still

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:17:42PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > >>My preference would be somehow either mark those insns as not fully > >>modeled and avoid speculating on them. Or invent a target hook to allow > >>the scheduler to query the backend. > > > >This is my preference -- have it in one

Re: [PATCH][RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] Improve overflow test optimization and avoid invalid warnings

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 01/27/2017 05:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Marc Glisse >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote: >>> > I assume this causes a regression for code

Re: [PATCH][RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] Improve overflow test optimization and avoid invalid warnings

On 01/27/2017 02:35 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On January 27, 2017 7:30:07 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/27/2017 05:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote: I assume

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On 01/27/2017 03:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:04:42AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: Well, the only thing from the pipeline description that is used here is the insn latency, which isn't all that much higher than "normal" FP insns. And simply "not decribed properly" won't

Re: [wwwdocs] Document in changes.html -fcode-hoisting, -fipa-bit-cp, -fipa-vrp, -fsplit-loops, GCJ removal, x86 ISA additions, -fshrink-wrap-separate etc.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:15:37PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > AArch64 also implements these hooks and so benefits from the > > > > optimisation as well. > > > > Perhaps move this to the general optimizer improvements section and > > > > mention it's only > > > > enabled for powerpc and

Re: [PATCH][RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] Improve overflow test optimization and avoid invalid warnings

On 01/27/2017 02:35 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On January 27, 2017 7:30:07 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/27/2017 05:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote: I assume

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:04:42AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > >Well, the only thing from the pipeline description that is used here is > >the insn latency, which isn't all that much higher than "normal" FP insns. > >And simply "not decribed properly" won't do much good -- if we could > >(without

Re: [PATCH][RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] Improve overflow test optimization and avoid invalid warnings

On January 27, 2017 7:30:07 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote: >On 01/27/2017 05:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Marc Glisse >wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote: >>> > I assume this causes a regression for code

Re: [PATCH] restore pedantic warning on flexible array members (c++/71290)

On 01/27/2017 11:20 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: FWIW, I could avoid this awkward setup if I had just one repo for all my changes, shared across my various machines. Unfortunately, for it to really work I would also need to

Re: [wwwdocs] Document in changes.html -fcode-hoisting, -fipa-bit-cp, -fipa-vrp, -fsplit-loops, GCJ removal, x86 ISA additions, -fshrink-wrap-separate etc.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:05:40PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:38:17PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:34:53PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > > > + > > > > PowerPC / PowerPC64 / RS6000 > > > > > > > > The PowerPC port now uses

[wwwdocs] Omit reference to GCJ from projects/cli.html

Applied. Gerald Index: cli.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/projects/cli.html,v retrieving revision 1.28 diff -u -r1.28 cli.html --- cli.html28 May 2016 12:53:29 - 1.28 +++ cli.html27 Jan 2017 21:08:14

Re: [PATCH] prevent -Wno-system-headers from suppressing -Wstringop-overflow (PR 79214)

On 01/25/2017 02:12 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: While putting together examples for the GCC 7 changes document I noticed that a few of the buffer overflow warnings issued by -Wstringop-overflow are defeated by Glibc's macros for string manipulation functions like strncat and strncpy. While testing

Re: Enable jump threading on maths meeting hot paths

On 01/26/2017 03:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: + if (!contains_hot_bb && speed_p) + contains_hot_bb |= optimize_bb_for_speed_p (bb); + Hmm, but you are also counting the destination of the threading here which we

Re: [wwwdocs] Add various new warnings for GCC 7

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:32:05PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > For -Wregister I think it would be better to write more: > > -Wregister warns about uses of register > > storage > > specifier. In C++17 this keyword has been removed and

Re: [wwwdocs] Add -fdiagnostics-generate-patch to changes.html

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, David Malcolm wrote: > The following patch to the website adds -fdiagnostics-generate-patch > to gcc 7's changes.html. > > It consolidates the documentation with that for -fdiagnostics-parseable > -fixits, so that they can share an example. This looks fine, thank you,

Re: [wwwdocs] Add various new warnings for GCC 7

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > For -Wregister I think it would be better to write more: > -Wregister warns about uses of register > storage > specifier. In C++17 this keyword has been removed and for C++17 > this is a pedantic warning enabled by default. The

Re: [wwwdocs] Document in changes.html -fcode-hoisting, -fipa-bit-cp, -fipa-vrp, -fsplit-loops, GCJ removal, x86 ISA additions, -fshrink-wrap-separate etc.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:38:17PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:34:53PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > > + > > > PowerPC / PowerPC64 / RS6000 > > > > > > The PowerPC port now uses LRA by default. > > > GCC now diagnoses inline assembly that clobbers

Re: [PATCH] restore pedantic warning on flexible array members (c++/71290)

On 01/27/2017 11:20 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: FWIW, I could avoid this awkward setup if I had just one repo for all my changes, shared across my various machines. Unfortunately, for it to really work I would also need to

Re: One more cprop trap_if fix, PR79194

On 01/27/2017 10:47 AM, Pat Haugen wrote: On 01/27/2017 09:40 AM, Pat Haugen wrote: On 01/27/2017 06:55 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: I'd appreciate if someone ran full ppc tests with this though. I've started testing it on PowerPC, will post results when I have them. Bootstrap/regtest on

Re: [PATCH, rs6000, testsuite] Fix PR65484

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:02:41AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > For the record: approved for trunk. Thanks! > > > Would it be all right to back port this to GCC 5 and 6 after some burn-in? > I see now that the bug was reported against GCC 5. Sure. It only fixes a testcase so it won't really

Re: [PATCH][RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] Improve overflow test optimization and avoid invalid warnings

On 01/27/2017 05:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote: I assume this causes a regression for code like unsigned f(unsigned a){ unsigned b=a+1; if(b

Re: [PATCH] restore pedantic warning on flexible array members (c++/71290)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > FWIW, I could avoid this awkward setup if I had just one repo for all > my changes, shared across my various machines. Unfortunately, for it > to really work I would also need to be able to commit using Git rather > than

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On 01/27/2017 05:43 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 01/27/2017 02:19 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: But what is "insn cost"? Latency is no good at all -- we *want* insns with higher latency to be earlier. fsqrt is not pipelined, and that is what makes it so costly. (This isn't modeled in the

patch for PR71374

The following patch solves https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71374 The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86-64. Committed as rev. 244991. Index: ChangeLog === --- ChangeLog (revision 244990) +++

[PATCH][PR target/79170] fix memcmp builtin expansion sequence for rs6000 target.

This patch changes the generated sequence for builtin expansion of memcmp to one that is actually correct. The old sequence did not work right if the subf overflowed subtracting two 64-bit chunks, or if extsw overflowed after subtraction of two 32-bit chunks. Included is an expansion of the

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On 01/27/2017 04:32 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:00:44PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Thu, Jan 26,

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On 01/27/2017 07:19 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:30:49PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: Ok, maybe with -fno-trapping-math we don't consider that case but even then generating a NaN is usually dreadfully slow so avoiding speculation of such insns looks good in any case

Re: One more cprop trap_if fix, PR79194

On 01/27/2017 09:40 AM, Pat Haugen wrote: > On 01/27/2017 06:55 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> I'd appreciate if someone ran full ppc tests with this though. > I've started testing it on PowerPC, will post results when I have them. Bootstrap/regtest on PowerPC was fine. -Pat

Re: [PATCH] restore pedantic warning on flexible array members (c++/71290)

On Jan 27 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: > FWIW, I could avoid this awkward setup if I had just one repo for all > my changes, shared across my various machines. Unfortunately, for it > to really work I would also need to be able to commit using Git rather > than Subversion which

[gomp4] partially enable GOMP_MAP_FIRSTPRIVATE_POINTER in gfortran

This patch partially enables GOMP_MAP_FIRSTPRIVATE_POINTER in gfortran. gfortran still falls back to GOMP_MAP_POINTER for arrays with descriptors and derived types. The limitation on derived types is there because we don't have much test coverage for it, and this patch series was more exploratory

Re: [wwwdocs] Add various new warnings for GCC 7

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:36:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:13:22PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > +-Wregister warns about uses of register storage > > specifier. > > + > > For -Wregister I think it would be better to write more: > -Wregister

Re: [PATCH] restore pedantic warning on flexible array members (c++/71290)

On 01/27/2017 02:45 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: Martin Sebor writes: The improvements to the handling of flexible array members in C++ in GCC 6 inadvertently removed the pedantic warnings GCC used to issue for their declarations. The attached patch restores it. After this

One more patch for PR79131

The following patch permits to compile last 3 test cases on https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79131 The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86-64. Committed as rev. 244989. Index: ChangeLog === ---

Re: [libcc1] add support for C++

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > - introduced, new_friend can be called after the befriended class is > + introduced, new_friend can be called after the befriending class is s/new/add/ in the comment, too. > +/* Build a template-dependent template

Re: [patch] Fix PR middle-end/78468

On 01/27/2017 06:43 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 01/27/2017 01:02 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: The attached patch is a middle ground between the previously working and currently broken situations: if the back-end defines STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET, then the middle-end assumes that STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET

Re: [wwwdocs] Document in changes.html -fcode-hoisting, -fipa-bit-cp, -fipa-vrp, -fsplit-loops, GCJ removal, x86 ISA additions, -fshrink-wrap-separate etc.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:34:53PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > + > > PowerPC / PowerPC64 / RS6000 > > > > The PowerPC port now uses LRA by default. > > GCC now diagnoses inline assembly that clobbers register r2. > > This has always been invalid code, and is no longer

Re: [wwwdocs] Add various new warnings for GCC 7

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:13:22PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > +-Wregister warns about uses of register storage > specifier. > + For -Wregister I think it would be better to write more: -Wregister warns about uses of register storage specifier. In C++17 this keyword

Re: [wwwdocs] Document in changes.html -fcode-hoisting, -fipa-bit-cp, -fipa-vrp, -fsplit-loops, GCJ removal, x86 ISA additions, -fshrink-wrap-separate etc.

Hi Jakub, On 27/01/17 16:30, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! This patch attempts to document some new features (without warnings, those are partially covered by Marek's patch, C++ FE (would be nice to document -faligned-new, -fnew-inheriting-ctors, -fnew-ttp-matching, -fstrong-eval-order and what

[wwwdocs] Document in changes.html -fcode-hoisting, -fipa-bit-cp, -fipa-vrp, -fsplit-loops, GCJ removal, x86 ISA additions, -fshrink-wrap-separate etc.

Hi! This patch attempts to document some new features (without warnings, those are partially covered by Marek's patch, C++ FE (would be nice to document -faligned-new, -fnew-inheriting-ctors, -fnew-ttp-matching, -fstrong-eval-order and what from C++ is supported) and the BRIG FE). Ok for

[PATCH] PR libstdc++/79254 fix exception-safety in std::string::operator=

This implements the strong exception-safety guarantee that is required by [string.require] p2, which the new string can fail to meet when propagate_on_container_copy_assignment (POCCA) is true. The solution is to define a helper that takes ownership of the string's memory (and also the

[wwwdocs] Add various new warnings for GCC 7

This patch adds a description for the following warnings: -Wimplicit-fallthrough -Wpointer-compare -Wduplicated-branches -Wrestrict -Wmemset-elt-size -Wint-in-bool-context -Wswitch-unreachable -Wexpansion-to-defined -Wregister -Wvla-larger-than=N -Wduplicate-decl-specifier -Waligned-new

[wwwdocs] Add -fdiagnostics-generate-patch to changes.html

The following patch to the website adds -fdiagnostics-generate-patch to gcc 7's changes.html. It consolidates the documentation with that for -fdiagnostics-parseable -fixits, so that they can share an example. Successfully validated. OK to commit?Index: htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html

[gomp4] optimize GOMP_MAP_TO_PSET

This patch optimizes GOMP_MAP_TO_PSET in libgomp by installing the remapped pointer to the array data directly in the PSET, instead of uploading it separately with GOMP_MAP_POINTER. Effectively this eliminates the GOMP_MAP_POINTER that is associated with the PSET, thereby eliminating an additional

Re: [PATCH, rs6000, testsuite] Fix PR65484

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 6:40 PM, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:31:16PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: >>> So for older targets it used to run the final, but not after the patch; and >>> for newer targets it used to not run it, but it does

Re: [PATCH 5/5] add support for width and precision ranges (PR 78703)

On 2017.01.27 at 08:45 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 01/27/2017 12:44 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.01.22 at 16:53 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > This is the last patch in the series. It adds logic to handle > > > non-constant width and precision with range information to help >

Re: [PATCH/AARCH64] Enable software prefetching (-fprefetch-loop-arrays) for ThunderX 88xxx

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >>> Hi, >>> This patch enables

[gomp4] enable GOMP_MAP_FIRSTPRIVATE_INT in OpenACC

This patch does the following two things: 1) Enable GOMP_MAP_FIRSTPRIVATE_INT in OpenaCC. 2) Extends the 'INT' values to handle floats and doubles via type casting. OpenACC handles OMP_CLAUSE_FIRSTPRIVATE slightly different to OpenMP; lower_omp_target changes it to a data map clause.

Re: [PATCH 5/5] add support for width and precision ranges (PR 78703)

On 01/27/2017 12:44 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2017.01.22 at 16:53 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: This is the last patch in the series. It adds logic to handle non-constant width and precision with range information to help reduce both false positives false negatives. The patch replaces

Re: One more cprop trap_if fix, PR79194

On 01/27/2017 06:55 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > I'd appreciate if someone ran full ppc tests with this though. I've started testing it on PowerPC, will post results when I have them. -Pat

Re: [gomp4] don't error on implicitly private induction variables in gfortran

On 01/27/2017 07:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 07:02:45AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: >> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/openmp.c b/gcc/fortran/openmp.c >> index 61940d7..2782a8d 100644 >> --- a/gcc/fortran/openmp.c >> +++ b/gcc/fortran/openmp.c >> @@ -5192,7 +5192,8 @@

Re: [gomp4] don't error on implicitly private induction variables in gfortran

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 07:02:45AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > While experimenting with some new OpenACC benchmarks, I noticed that > gfortran errors when the user explicitly marks loop induction variables > as private. I applied this patch to gomp-4_0-branch to resolve that problem. > >

[PATCH] rs6000: Fix fsel pattern (PR79211)

The fsel define_insn uses fpr_reg_operand for its predicates. This won't work because passes can put a hard register in the operands: in the testcase, combine likes to forward the parameter registers to what then is still an smin, and then split1 uses "*s3_fpr" (which has gpc_reg_operand). And

Go patch committed: Let static initializers hold the addresses of fields

In libgo the runtime.dbgvars initializer looks like var dbgvars = []dbgVar{ {"allocfreetrace", }, } Because the field address was not recognized as valid for a static initializer, the variable was initialized at runtime. Normally that would be fine, but for the runtime package it meant that

[gomp4] don't error on implicitly private induction variables in gfortran

While experimenting with some new OpenACC benchmarks, I noticed that gfortran errors when the user explicitly marks loop induction variables as private. I applied this patch to gomp-4_0-branch to resolve that problem. Cesar 2017-01-26 Cesar Philippidis gcc/fortran/ *

libgo patch committed: Update to go1.8rc3

This patch to libgo updates to the go1.8rc3 release (release candidate 3 for the Go 1.8 release). Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian Index: libgo/MERGE === --- libgo/MERGE (revision

Re: [PATCH PR78559][RFC]Proposed fix

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:08:54PM +, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> > I was worried this patch would prevent too many other optimisations, >> > so I looked into better options. I didn't find any. I tested the >>

Re: [PATCH] docs: Add __GIMPLE and __RTL to the "Internals" doc

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 13:20 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:52 PM, David Malcolm > wrote: > > The "internals" documentation has a "Testsuites" chapter; this > > patch > > adds some notes to it, describing the __GIMPLE and __RTL extensions > > to the C

Re: [PATCH] BRIG frontend: request for a global review

Hi, I have just committed the patch, as it is, except that a couple of two-spaces-after Pekka's name in Changelogs had already been corrected (sorry for that mistake) and I have also On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:31:34AM +0200, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > --- a/gcc/brig/ChangeLog > +++

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:30:49PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >> Ok, maybe with -fno-trapping-math we don't consider that case but even > >> then generating > >> a NaN is usually dreadfully slow so avoiding speculation of such insns > >> looks good in > >> any case (w/o considering its cost).

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:43:30PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 01/27/2017 02:19 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > >But what is "insn cost"? Latency is no good at all -- we *want* insns > >with higher latency to be earlier. fsqrt is not pipelined, and that is > >what makes it so costly.

Re: [patch] Fix PR middle-end/78468

On 01/27/2017 01:02 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: The attached patch is a middle ground between the previously working and currently broken situations: if the back-end defines STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET, then the middle-end assumes that STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET maintains the alignment; if it doesn't, which

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:15:27PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> As both SQRT and DIV may trap I wonder how we can end up speculating >> them at all? > > The testcase uses -ffast-math. > >> Ok, maybe with

Re: Fix ICE with -Wduplicated-branches (PR c/79199)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > FAIL: c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-13.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess > errors) > Excess errors: > /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20170127/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-13.c:11:7: > warning: this d

Re: Fix ICE with -Wduplicated-branches (PR c/79199)

FAIL: c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-13.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20170127/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-13.c:11:7: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90 /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20170127/gcc/testsuite/c-c

One more cprop trap_if fix, PR79194

This PR seems to be curable by fixing up the CFG a little earlier. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux, and it seems to cure the testcase with a ppc cross. I'd appreciate if someone ran full ppc tests with this though. Ok? Bernd PR rtl-optimization/79194 * cprop.c (one_cprop_pass):

Re: [PATCH] c++/78771 ICE with inheriting ctor

On 01/25/2017 05:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: Something smaller would be moving the call to deduce_inheriting_ctor to build_over_call; we can get away with that because calling is the only way to refer to a constructor. What do you think of this approach? LGTM, thanks! nathan -- Nathan

[C++ PATCH] pr 67273 & 79253 lambdas, warnings & ICEs

Jason, I happened to be working on 67273, noticed a problem with my 77585 fix, and coincidentally 79253 got filed, which this also fixes. In 67253, Wshadow checking was getting confused when determining the return type of an instantiated lambda. template void Foo (T &) { int ARG = 2;

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On 01/27/2017 02:19 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: But what is "insn cost"? Latency is no good at all -- we *want* insns with higher latency to be earlier. fsqrt is not pipelined, and that is what makes it so costly. (This isn't modeled in the scheduling description btw: that would make the

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:32:32AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > >>> Seems like it should be checking the insn cost and compare that > >>> against some parameter. That is possibly set by the target if needed. > >> > >> But what is "insn cost"? Latency is no good at all -- we *want* insns

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:15:27PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > As both SQRT and DIV may trap I wonder how we can end up speculating > them at all? The testcase uses -ffast-math. > Ok, maybe with -fno-trapping-math we don't consider that case but even > then generating > a NaN is usually

Re: [PATCH] docs: Add __GIMPLE and __RTL to the "Internals" doc

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:52 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > The "internals" documentation has a "Testsuites" chapter; this patch > adds some notes to it, describing the __GIMPLE and __RTL extensions > to the C frontend. > > Builds; passed visual inspection of .info, .html, .pdf.

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Scheduling should never move very expensive instructions to places they > are executed more frequently. This patch fixes that, reducing the > execution time of c-ray by over 40% (I tested on a BE Power7

Re: [PATCH, ARM] PR71607: New approach to arm_disable_literal_pool

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 20/01/17 14:08, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andre Vieira (lists) >> wrote: >>> On 29/11/16 09:45, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:

Re: [PATCH/AARCH64] Enable software prefetching (-fprefetch-loop-arrays) for ThunderX 88xxx

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> Hi, >> This patch enables -fprefetch-loop-arrays for -mcpu=thunderxt88 and >> -mcpu=thunderxt88p1. I filled out the tuning

Re: [PATCH/AARCH64] Enable software prefetching (-fprefetch-loop-arrays) for ThunderX 88xxx

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Hi, > This patch enables -fprefetch-loop-arrays for -mcpu=thunderxt88 and > -mcpu=thunderxt88p1. I filled out the tuning structures for both > thunderx and thunderx2t99. No other core current enables software >

Re: [PATCH][RFA][PR tree-optimization/79095] Improve overflow test optimization and avoid invalid warnings

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > >>> I assume this causes a regression for code like >>> >>> unsigned f(unsigned a){ >>> unsigned b=a+1; >>> if(b>> return b; >>> } >> >> Yes. The

[patch] Fix PR middle-end/78468

Hi, this is the regression introduced on 32-bit SPARC by this change: 2016-11-18 Dominik Vogt Re-apply after PR bootstrap/77359 is fixed: 2016-08-23 Dominik Vogt * explow.c (get_dynamic_stack_size): Take known

[PATCH] Fix PR71433 (again)

A slightly adjusted testcase of the PR shows my lame attempt at fixing the issue easily breaks down. So the following implements the full solution to sinking common asserts. Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress. Richard. 2017-01-27 Richard Biener

[committed] Decrease testing time of g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/fib-opr-overload.cc test

Hi! Richard reported too many resources required for this test, on a fast 8c16ht box I get for time make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS=cilk-plus.exp=fib-opr* real0m17.801s user2m8.345s sys 0m0.734s With the following patch that I've installed after IRC discussions I get: real0m3.953s

[PATCH] Fx PR79245

The following fixes a reported slowdown in 171.swim due to "better" loop distribution dependence analysis. We really should apply the (weak) costing model also to builtin partitions. (and work on a better one so we can enable loop distribution by default at -O3) Bootstrapped on

[PATCH] Fix PR79244

The following restores forceful propagation of assert-exprs from SSA names which we know will restore valid IL even if the source is abnormal. Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress. Richard. 2017-01-27 Richard Biener PR

Re: [RFC] sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:00:44PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Segher Boessenkool >>>

Re: [PR tree-optimization/71691] Fix unswitching in presence of maybe-undef SSA_NAMEs (take 2)

On 01/26/2017 07:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 01/24/2017 07:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Your initial on-demand approach is fine to catch some of the cases but it will not handle those for which we'd need

Re: [GCC][PATCH]{AArch64][Testsuite] Fix failing vector_initialization_nostack.c

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Tamar Christina wrote: > Hi all, > > This fixes (PR78142) by only creating one vector in the char case. > r241590 is causing more registers to be used and so > the SP registered happens to be picked and used. > > This test I believe was

Re: [PATCH/AARCH64] Enable software prefetching (-fprefetch-loop-arrays) for ThunderX 88xxx

On 26/01/17 20:56, Andrew Pinski wrote: Hi, This patch enables -fprefetch-loop-arrays for -mcpu=thunderxt88 and -mcpu=thunderxt88p1. I filled out the tuning structures for both thunderx and thunderx2t99. No other core current enables software prefetching so I set them to 0 which does not

[GCC][PATCH]{AArch64][Testsuite] Fix failing vector_initialization_nostack.c

Hi all, This fixes (PR78142) by only creating one vector in the char case. r241590 is causing more registers to be used and so the SP registered happens to be picked and used. This test I believe was checking explicitly that the SP is not used if not needed. By creating a single vector then less

Re: [PATCH committed] Fix build failure with MPFR 2.4.x (gimple-ssa-sprintf.c)

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 08:41:59AM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > > > On 01/24/2017 02:37 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > >> MPFR_RNDx was introduced in MPFR 3.0.0. Since the minimal version that > > >> gcc checks for is 2.4.0, this leads to a build

Re: [PATCH committed] Fix build failure with MPFR 2.4.x (gimple-ssa-sprintf.c)

Hi Jakub, > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 08:41:59AM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: >> > On 01/24/2017 02:37 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> >> MPFR_RNDx was introduced in MPFR 3.0.0. Since the minimal version that >> >> gcc checks for is 2.4.0, this leads to a build failure. >> >> >> >> The fix is

Re: [wwwdocs] changes.html - Fortran changes

On 01/26/2017 06:12 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On Wed, 25 Jan 2017, Martin Liška wrote: >> Following patch documents DO loop changes which were done for upcoming >> GCC 7.1. > > thanks for putting this together. > > Index: htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html >

Re: [PATCH] restore pedantic warning on flexible array members (c++/71290)

Martin Sebor writes: > The improvements to the handling of flexible array members in > C++ in GCC 6 inadvertently removed the pedantic warnings GCC > used to issue for their declarations. The attached patch > restores it. After this patch, I get FAIL:

Re: Fix ICE with -Wduplicated-branches (PR c/79199)

David Edelsohn writes: > I'm receiving the following error message for the new testcase: > > FAIL: c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-13.c -std=gnu++98 (test for > excess errors) > Excess errors: >

Re: libgomp: Provide prototypes for functions implemented by libgomp plugins

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:19:18AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > During development, I had been changing the libgomp plugin API, which > should have caused build failures in unmodified plugins -- but it didn't. > Here is patch to address that. OK for trunk? Should this also go into > release

libgomp: Provide prototypes for functions implemented by libgomp plugins

Hi! During development, I had been changing the libgomp plugin API, which should have caused build failures in unmodified plugins -- but it didn't. Here is patch to address that. OK for trunk? Should this also go into release branches? commit 01828b7ec25f2087548b5c75568b545aa0d16c3b Author:

  1   2   >