Re: [wwwdocs] Added /gcc-7/porting_to.html

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Jonathan Wakely wrote: This adds the porting to guide for GCC 7. So far it only has details of C++ changes, mostly in the std::lib. Thanks for doing that, Jonathan! One minor observation: This has references to the GCC 5 and GCC 6 release notes, where the latter is a

Re: Fix profile updating in ifcombine

On 02/02/2017 01:29 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: Hi, this patches fixes profile updating in the ifcombine. This is not hard to do and ifcombine is #2 profile update offender out of tree passes (#1 is the vectorizer). I think this counts as a regression, becuase one can trigger arbitrarily bad

[wwwdocs] Consistently use "testsuite"

Of course, an innocent grep after providing this input in a review of a patch by David revealed that we have a number more cases where we used "test suite" instead of "testsuite". This fixes a number of those. Applied. Gerald Index: contributewhy.html

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

On 02/02/2017 09:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: Otherwise all the tests succeeded, though looking e.g. at the diff between builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c diagnostics with your patch and with the patch below instead, there are also differences like: -builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c:1119:3: note: using the range

Re: New Port for RISC-V v2

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > OK, thanks. As far as I know, I don't have write access to anything > yet. Should I request it from overse...@sourceware.org? I already have > binutils git access. Yes, and you can name me as your sponsor. Gerald

[wwwdocs] codingconventions.html - use "testsuite"

So, while checking this page for our preferred way to write "testsuite", I noticed it has a case of "test suite" itself. ;-) Fixed thusly. Gerald Index: codingconventions.html === RCS file:

Re: [wwwdocs] Mention GIMPLE and RTL frontends in changes.html

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, David Malcolm wrote: > This patch to the website moves the section about the selftest suite to > the bottom of "Other significant improvements" section, and rewrites it > to also cover the GIMPLE and RTL "frontends", and tries to couch these > changes in terms of the benefit to

Re: [PATCH] [AArch64] Implement popcount pattern

Hi Andrew, Thanks for clearing the confusion. > I don't understand this comment and how it relates to your updated patch foo, foo1 and foo2 generates calls to "popcountdi2" which should have been "popcountsi2" for foo1. When Kyrill commented on using the popcountsi2; I was confused :). Hence,

Re: [PATCH] [AArch64] Implement popcount pattern

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:55 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 04:03:42AM +, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote: >> Hi James and Kyrill, >> >> Thanks for the review and comments on the patch. >> >> >> On ILP32 systems this would still use the SImode

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

On 02/02/2017 05:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: - T (2, "%#hho",a); /* { dg-warning "nul past the end" } */ - T (2, "%#hhx",a); /* { dg-warning ".%#hhx. directive writing between 3 and . bytes into a region of size 2" } */ + T (2, "%#hho",a); + T (2, "%#hhx",

[PATCH] assume arrays at end of structs are unbounded (PR 79352)

Bug 79352 points out that the gimple-ssa-printf pass doesn't allow for an array at the end of a struct to be treated as a poor man's flexible array member and hold a string that's longer than the upper bound of the array. Rather, the pass assumes that the string's length must at most as long as

Re: [doc] extend.texi - "lock critical sections"?

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:44:10PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Hi Andi, or Uros, > > I am not sure, but got a pointer off-list. Is the patch below > appropriate, or is the term "lock critical section" a special > one for x86? Hi Gerald, The patch is ok. Lock critical region isn't a special

Re: [PATCH rs6000 testsuite] Fix PR79158

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:09:55PM -0600, Pat Haugen wrote: > The testcase has been failing on BE because the compiler is simply storing > the value straight from the GPRs. The following patch fixes the issue by > using 'r' in an expression which forces the value back to a VSR. Verified the >

Re: New Port for RISC-V v2

On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 13:07:25 PST (-0800), ger...@pfeifer.com wrote: > Hi Palmer, > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> Additionally, here's a diff against wwwdocs. This is really just to >> check this is all I'm supposed to do, I can submit a proper patch via >> the mailing list (I

Re: [PATCH 2/6] RISC-V Port: gcc

On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 10:08:27 PST (-0800), jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > >> +@table @gcctabopt >> +@item -mbranch-cost=@var{N} >> +@opindex mbranch-cost >> +Set the cost of branches to roughly N instructions. > > @var{n} (both places; Texinfo may

Re: New Port for RISC-V v2

On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 09:58:32 PST (-0800), jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > >> Additionally, here's a diff against wwwdocs. This is really just to check >> this >> is all I'm supposed to do, I can submit a proper patch via the mailing list >> (I >>

Re: [PATCH 2/6] RISC-V Port: gcc

On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 11:17:42 PST (-0800), mer...@debian.org wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:05:13AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > >> diff --git a/gcc/doc/contrib.texi b/gcc/doc/contrib.texi >> index 5554d5f..5b14fc4 100644 >> --- a/gcc/doc/contrib.texi >> +++ b/gcc/doc/contrib.texi >> @@

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

On 02/02/2017 04:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:59:11PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: - T (2, "%#hho",a); /* { dg-warning "nul past the end" } */ - T (2, "%#hhx",a); /* { dg-warning ".%#hhx. directive writing between 3 and . bytes into a region of

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 05:31:19PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > index 9e099f0..84dd3671 100644 > --- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c > +++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-sprintf.c > @@ -1242,6 +1242,10 @@ format_integer (const directive , tree arg) > of the format string by returning [-1, -1]. */ >

Re: [patch 79279] combine/simplify_set issue

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:27:12AM +0100, Aurelien Buhrig wrote: > > Hrm, maybe you can show the RTL before and after this transform? > RTL before combine: > (set (reg:SI 31 (lshiftt:SI (reg:SI 29) (const_int 16 > (set (reg:HI 1 "r1") (reg:HI 25)) > (set (reg:HI 0 "r0") (subreg:HI (reg:SI 31)

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

- T (2, "%#hho",a); /* { dg-warning "nul past the end" } */ - T (2, "%#hhx",a); /* { dg-warning ".%#hhx. directive writing between 3 and . bytes into a region of size 2" } */ + T (2, "%#hho",a); + T (2, "%#hhx",a); On reflection, this isn't quite the

RE: [PATCH] MIPS: Fix mode mismatch error between Loongson builtin arguments and insn operands.

Toma Tabacu writes: > > From: Matthew Fortune > > > +/* The third argument needs to be in SImode in order to succesfully > > > match > > > + the operand from the insn definition. */ > > > > Please refer to operand here not argument as it is the second argument >

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:59:11PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > - T (2, "%#hho",a); /* { dg-warning "nul past the end" } */ > > > - T (2, "%#hhx",a); /* { dg-warning ".%#hhx. directive > > > writing between 3 and . bytes into a region of size 2" } */ > > > + T (2,

[RFC] Attacking 79095 -- a new approach

This is an RFC on the updated work for fix 79095. I've got to work on the testcases tomorrow, but wanted to give folks the option for early feedback. There's been a number of ratholes and restarts, but I think where things are going now is significantly better than prior work. The

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:12:32AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 02/01/2017 03:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > I agree. But this means we should look for a vectorizer-local fix > > without a new global predicate then (there seem to be subtly different > > needs and coming up with good names

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

Hi! Note, the second patch I've posted passed bootstrap/regtest on both x86_64-linux and i686-linux. On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:58:06AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > > int > > main (void) > > { > > int i; > > char buf[64]; > > if (__builtin_sprintf (buf, "%#hho", a) > 1) > >

[wwwdocs] Mention GIMPLE and RTL frontends in changes.html

This patch to the website moves the section about the selftest suite to the bottom of "Other significant improvements" section, and rewrites it to also cover the GIMPLE and RTL "frontends", and tries to couch these changes in terms of the benefit to the end-user (i.e. a more reliable compiler).

Re: [PATCH v3][PR lto/79061] Fix LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco".

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:02:07PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > Hi, > > PR lto/79061 actually affects gcc-{5, 6}-branch too > Is it OK to apply following patch on branches? > > -Maxim > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2017-02-02 Maxim Ostapenko > > PR lto/79061 >

[wwwdocs] gcc-6/changes.html: use command-line option

...instead of command line option. Spotted while looking for something else, but since it was easy to fix...applied. Gerald Index: gcc-6/changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-6/changes.html,v retrieving revision

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] Mention native CPU detection in aarch64 notes for GCC 6

On Tue, 26 May 2015, James Greenhalgh wrote: > I think I remember Gerald saying in the past that it is within the > remit of port maintainers/reviewers to OK these, but be ready to > revert or update it if I am wrong! You were (and are) very much quite right, James. :-) (And given that Gerald

[wwwdocs] update about.html (was: Skeleton for GCC 6 release notes)

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> is it possible checking outhttps://gcc.gnu.org/about.html is all >> you are looking for, or am I thinking to simple?:-) > I searched the web and found this page before. Then I clicked at "browse the > repository

Re: Fix profile updating in ifcombine

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > this patches fixes profile updating in the ifcombine. This is not hard to do > and ifcombine is #2 profile update offender out of tree passes (#1 is the > vectorizer). > > I think this counts as a regression, becuase one

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

Hi Marek, a couple of comments (and minor changes) below. Once you have made those, this is okay to commit. Quite some stuff going into GCC 7! On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Marek Polacek wrote: > Index: changes.html > === > +New

Re: New Port for RISC-V v2

Hi Palmer, On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > Additionally, here's a diff against wwwdocs. This is really just to > check this is all I'm supposed to do, I can submit a proper patch via > the mailing list (I just don't know how to use CVS, sorry). > > Index:

Re: [Patch][ARM,AArch64] more poly64 intrinsics and tests

Hello, Is it too late for this patch? On 11 January 2017 at 11:13, Christophe Lyon wrote: > Ping? > > James, I'm not sure whether your comment was a request for a new > version of my patch or just FYI? > > > On 3 January 2017 at 16:47, Christophe Lyon

Fix profile updating in ifcombine

Hi, this patches fixes profile updating in the ifcombine. This is not hard to do and ifcombine is #2 profile update offender out of tree passes (#1 is the vectorizer). I think this counts as a regression, becuase one can trigger arbitrarily bad profile after ifconversion and defnitly construct a

[PATCH] diagnostics: fix end-points of ranges within macros (PR c++/79300)

PR c++/79300 identifies an issue in which diagnostics_show_locus prints the wrong end-point for a range within a macro: assert ((p + val_size) - buf == encoded_len); ~^~~~ as opposed to: assert ((p + val_size) - buf == encoded_len);

[PATCH rs6000 testsuite] Fix PR79158

The testcase has been failing on BE because the compiler is simply storing the value straight from the GPRs. The following patch fixes the issue by using 'r' in an expression which forces the value back to a VSR. Verified the testcase now passes for powerpc64 and still passes for powerpc64le.

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

So far I haven't done full bootstrap/regtest on this, just make check-gcc -j16 -k RUNTESTFLAGS=tree-ssa.exp which revealed the need for gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c hunk below. Here it is turned into a short wrong-code without the patch below: volatile int a; int main (void) { int

Re: [PATCH][libgcc, fuchsia]

Ping? On 1/17/17 10:40 AM, Josh Conner wrote: The attached patch adds fuchsia support to libgcc. OK for trunk? Thanks - Josh 2017-01-17 Joshua Conner * config/arm/unwind-arm.h (_Unwind_decode_typeinfo_ptr): Use pc-relative indirect handling for fuchsia.

[PATCH] Improve aarch64 conditional compare usage

This patch extends conditional compare code generation for aarch64.  Right now if there is an AND or OR of two compares, GCC will generate a compare followed by a conditional compare.  But if you have a _Bool variable on one side (or both sides) instead of a comparision than ccmp.c does not

Re: [PATCH] Add support for Fuchsia (OS)

On 2/1/17 3:29 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Josh Conner via gcc-patches wrote: Attached is my recommended patch for changes to the web docs describing Fuchsia support. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. This looks fine (just remove the blank before

Re: New Port for RISC-V v2

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > Additionally, here's a diff against wwwdocs. This is really just to check > this > is all I'm supposed to do, I can submit a proper patch via the mailing list (I > just don't know how to use CVS, sorry). Other parts of the wwwdocs changes

Re: [PATCH 2/6] RISC-V Port: gcc

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > +@table @gcctabopt > +@item -mbranch-cost=@var{N} > +@opindex mbranch-cost > +Set the cost of branches to roughly N instructions. @var{n} (both places; Texinfo may convert to uppercase depending on the output format). > +@item -mplt > +@itemx

Re: [PATCH] relax -Wformat-overflow for precision ranges (PR 79275)

On 02/02/2017 11:09 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: It seems to me that we should be able to write these expressions the way that's natural to us and at the same time be able to comfortably read them both ways. As always, I fully support consistency and following a coding style where it matters. I

Re: [PATCH doc] clean up -fdump-tree- options (PR 32003)

On 02/01/2017 10:28 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: On 02/01/2017 08:26 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 02/01/2017 08:06 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: On 02/01/2017 06:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: As discussed in bug 32003 - Undocumented -fdump-tree options, rather than duplicating the same boiler-plate

Re: [PATCH] relax -Wformat-overflow for precision ranges (PR 79275)

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:00:44AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/02/2017 10:26 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in > > > glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found > >

Re: [PATCH] relax -Wformat-overflow for precision ranges (PR 79275)

On 02/02/2017 10:26 AM, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found during a Glibc build and caused by the checker using the upper bound of a range

Re: [PATCH] Fix memory leaks in IPA CP (PR ipa/79337).

On 02/02/2017 09:37 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 02/02/2017 05:13 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: Hi, On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:53:35PM +0100, Martin Liska wrote: Hello. As mentioned in the PR, there is memory leak that is caused by fact, that ipa_node_params_t does release memory just in

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 13:58 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > The other failures I saw didn't seem atomics related > > (eg, openacc) > > I suppose you're testing without nvptx offloading -- which failures do > you see for OpenACC testing? (There shouldn't be any for host fallback > testing.)

Re: Enable jump threading on paths meeting hot paths

On 02/02/2017 06:49 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: Hi, it seems I forgot to send the updated patch. Here it is. We now dump info like: Checking profitability of path: 5 (16 insns) 3 (2 insns) 34 (2 insns) 33 (4 insns) 32 (1 insns) 10 (3 insns) 6 Control statement insns: 16 Overall: 12 insns

Re: [PATCH] Fix memory leaks in gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (PR tree-optimization/79339).

On 02/02/2017 07:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hi. As mentioned in the PR, mpfr_clear should be called in order to release memory. Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. Ready to be installed? Martin

Re: [PATCH] relax -Wformat-overflow for precision ranges (PR 79275)

On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found during a Glibc build and caused by the checker using the upper bound of a range of precisions in string directives with

Re: [PATCH] relax -Wformat-overflow for precision ranges (PR 79275)

My general inclination is to ask this to wait for gcc-8 as it is not a regression, but instead a false positive in a new warning. So as I mentioned in my message to Joseph, I'm going to go with Joseph & Jakub's view that this should be considered a regression. Okay. I'll wait for your

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On 02/01/2017 03:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: I agree. But this means we should look for a vectorizer-local fix without a new global predicate then (there seem to be subtly different needs and coming up with good names for all of them sounds difficult...). Well, we could go with Jakub's

Re: [PATCH] Fix bool vs. unsigned:1 vectorization (PR tree-optimization/79284)

On 02/01/2017 01:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote: +/* Nonzero if TYPE represents a (scalar) boolean type or type + in the middle-end compatible with it. */ + +#define INTEGRAL_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P(TYPE) \ + (TREE_CODE (TYPE) == BOOLEAN_TYPE\ + || ((TREE_CODE (TYPE) == INTEGER_TYPE

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

On 02/02/2017 02:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 08:37:07AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: + if (res.range.max < res.range.min) + { + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT tmp = res.range.max; + res.range.max = res.range.min; + res.range.min = tmp; These 3

Re: [PATCH] relax -Wformat-overflow for precision ranges (PR 79275)

On 02/01/2017 05:40 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 01/31/2017 03:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found during a Glibc build and caused by

Re: [PATCH] relax -Wformat-overflow for precision ranges (PR 79275)

On 01/31/2017 03:59 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote: My general inclination is to ask this to wait for gcc-8 as it is not a regression, but instead a false positive in a new warning. I'd hope it would be possible for current releases of GCC and glibc to build with

Re: [PATCH] Fix memory leaks in IPA CP (PR ipa/79337).

On 02/02/2017 05:13 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:53:35PM +0100, Martin Liska wrote: >> Hello. >> >> As mentioned in the PR, there is memory leak that is caused by fact, that >> ipa_node_params_t >> does release memory just in ipa_node_params_t::remove. That's

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

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:55:34AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > 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

Re: [v3] Solaris baseline maintenance

On 02/02/17 11:09 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: This patch consists of two parts: * The first just updates the Solaris libstdc++ baselines for GCC 7. * However, there's a maintenance issue that has been bothering me for some time: on 32-bit x86, there are the CXXABI_FLOAT128 on top of what's in

Re: [PATCH] Fix memory leaks in IPA CP (PR ipa/79337).

Hi, On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:53:35PM +0100, Martin Liska wrote: > Hello. > > As mentioned in the PR, there is memory leak that is caused by fact, that > ipa_node_params_t > does release memory just in ipa_node_params_t::remove. That's wrong because > the callback is called > just when

Re: [RFC] Bug lto/78140

Hi, I am sorry, I am apparently not really able to follow all email this week and am mostly skimming through this thread too, but... On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:48:26PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > 2017-02-02 Kugan Vivekanandarajah > > > > * ipa-cp.c

Re: [PATCH/AARCH64] Add scheduler for Thunderx2t99

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 05:21:05AM +, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for reviewing the patch and comments. > > >> I wonder whether the current modeling of: > >> (define_insn_reservation "thunderx2t99_asimd_load4_elts" 6 > >> Actually benefits the schedule in a meaningful

Re: [Patch AArch64] Use 128-bit vectors when autovectorizing 16-bit float types

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:23:48AM +, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > Hi, > > As subject, we have an oversight in aarch64_simd_container_mode for > HFmode inputs. This results in trunk only autovectorizing to a 64-bit vector, > rather than a full 128-bit vector. > > The fix is obvious, we just

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 14:48 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly > > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. > > > > If there is no hardware-backed atomic load

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] Mention -march=armv8.3-a -msign-return-address= for GCC 7

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Jiong Wang wrote: Please review, thanks. Looks good to me, thank you! Gerald

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On 02/02/17 14:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:48:42PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote: This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. If there

Re: [gomp4] optimize GOMP_MAP_TO_PSET

On 01/30/2017 02:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > ... also there is some bug somewhere; I see: > > PASS: libgomp.fortran/examples-4/async_target-2.f90 -O0 (test for > excess errors) > [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} libgomp.fortran/examples-4/async_target-2.f90 -O0 > execution test > PASS:

Re: [PATCH v3][PR lto/79061] Fix LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco".

Hi, PR lto/79061 actually affects gcc-{5, 6}-branch too Is it OK to apply following patch on branches? -Maxim gcc/ChangeLog: 2017-02-02 Maxim Ostapenko PR lto/79061 * asan.c (asan_add_global): Force has_dynamic_init to zero in LTO mode. diff --git a/gcc/asan.c

Re: [PATCH] IPA: enhance dump output

> 2017-01-24 Martin Liska > > * cgraph.c (cgraph_node::dump): Dump function version info. > * symtab.c (symtab_node::dump_base): Add missing new line. > --- > gcc/cgraph.c | 10 ++ > gcc/symtab.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:48:42PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly > > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. > > > > If there is no hardware-backed

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] Mention -march=armv8.3-a -msign-return-address= for GCC 7

On 02/02/17 13:31, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Jiong Wang wrote: This patch adds a short entry for the -march=armv8.3-a and -msign-return-address= options in GCC 7 to the "AArch64" section. Thanks, Jiong. Index: gcc-7/changes.html

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote: This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. If there is no hardware-backed atomic load for a certain memory location, the current implementation can implement the

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Remove movdi_vfp_cortexa8

ping From: Wilco Dijkstra Sent: 29 November 2016 11:05 To: GCC Patches Cc: nd Subject: [PATCH][ARM] Remove movdi_vfp_cortexa8   Merge the movdi_vfp_cortexa8 pattern into movdi_vfp and remove it to avoid unnecessary duplication and repeating bugs like PR78439 due to changes being applied

Re: Enable jump threading on paths meeting hot paths

> > + if (!contains_hot_bb && speed_p && j < path_length - 1) > > j < path_length - 1 is already checked above? > > Otherwise looks ok. If it does fix the regression - does it? Thanks, yes it fixes the regression. Honza

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix ldrd offsets

  ping From: Wilco Dijkstra Sent: 03 November 2016 12:20 To: GCC Patches Cc: nd Subject: [PATCH][ARM] Fix ldrd offsets     Fix ldrd offsets of Thumb-2 - for TARGET_LDRD the range is +-1020, without -255..4091.  This reduces the number of addressing instructions when using DI mode operations

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Improve max_insns_skipped logic

  ping From: Wilco Dijkstra Sent: 10 November 2016 17:19 To: GCC Patches Cc: nd Subject: [PATCH][ARM] Improve max_insns_skipped logic     Improve the logic when setting max_insns_skipped.  Limit the maximum size of IT to MAX_INSN_PER_IT_BLOCK as otherwise multiple IT instructions are

Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit

ping From: Wilco Dijkstra Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14 To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh Cc: nd Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit   Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a declaration is an integer. So the

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Remove Thumb-2 iordi_not patterns

ping From: Wilco Dijkstra Sent: 17 January 2017 18:00 To: GCC Patches Cc: nd; Kyrylo Tkachov; Richard Earnshaw Subject: [PATCH][ARM] Remove Thumb-2 iordi_not patterns   After Bernd's DImode patch [1] almost all DImode operations are expanded early (except for -mfpu=neon). This means the

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Remove DImode expansions for 1-bit shifts

ping From: Wilco Dijkstra Sent: 17 January 2017 19:23 To: GCC Patches Cc: nd; Kyrill Tkachov; Richard Earnshaw Subject: [PATCH][ARM] Remove DImode expansions for 1-bit shifts   A left shift of 1 can always be done using an add, so slightly adjust rtx cost for DImode left shift by 1 so that

libgomp, nvptx plugin: Make "nvptx_exec" static (was: [PATCH 7/10] OpenACC 2.0 support for libgomp - OpenACC runtime, NVidia PTX/CUDA plugin)

Hi! On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:19:31 +0100, Julian Brown wrote: > This patch contains the bulk of the OpenACC 2.0 runtime support, [...] > --- /dev/null > +++ b/libgomp/plugin-nvptx.c > +void > +PTX_exec (void (*fn), size_t mapnum, void **hostaddrs, void **devaddrs, > +

[PATCH] Fix memory leaks in gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (PR tree-optimization/79339).

Hi. As mentioned in the PR, mpfr_clear should be called in order to release memory. Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. Ready to be installed? Martin >From 627ea01882a2a307b107e5e4aa8de6dc60530a81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date:

Re: Enable jump threading on paths meeting hot paths

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > it seems I forgot to send the updated patch. Here it is. > We now dump info like: > Checking profitability of path: 5 (16 insns) 3 (2 insns) 34 (2 insns) 33 (4 > insns) 32 (1 insns) 10 (3 insns) 6 > Control statement

Re: libgomp: Normalize the names of a few functions of the libgomp plugin API

Hi! On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:27:11 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:22:37PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:44:46 +0100, I wrote: > > > --- libgomp/libgomp.h > > > +++ libgomp/libgomp.h > > > @@ -882,31 +882,35 @@ typedef struct

Re: [PATCH] use zero as the lower bound for a signed-unsigned range (PR 79327)

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:52:18AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > That said, as I've said in the PR and earlier in December on gcc-patches, > the way format_integer is structured is not really maintainable, has > very different code paths for arguments with known ranges and without them >

Re: Enable jump threading on paths meeting hot paths

Hi, it seems I forgot to send the updated patch. Here it is. We now dump info like: Checking profitability of path: 5 (16 insns) 3 (2 insns) 34 (2 insns) 33 (4 insns) 32 (1 insns) 10 (3 insns) 6 Control statement insns: 16 Overall: 12 insns Registering FSM jump thread: (6, 10) incoming

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] Mention -march=armv8.3-a -msign-return-address= for GCC 7

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Jiong Wang wrote: This patch adds a short entry for the -march=armv8.3-a and -msign-return-address= options in GCC 7 to the "AArch64" section. Thanks, Jiong. Index: gcc-7/changes.html === + The

[PATCH] IPA: enhance dump output

Following patch was helpful to deal with the PR. Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. Ready to be installed or is it stage1 material? Martin >From dc02af2bbbe67d9d1fb6119b606b3c1fea726062 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date: Tue, 24

Re: [PATCH] Make multiple_target.c aware of LTO (PR lto/66295)

Ok, I spent more time with understanding how that pass works and I believe it can be significantly simplified. I guess target_clones are very close to 'target' attribute that is handled by C++ FE. It creates cgraph_function_version_info and function dispatcher is generated. I hope doing the

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

Hi! On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:54:00 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. [...] > I've tested this on an x86_64-linux bootstrap build and see no >

Re: [RFC] Bug lto/78140

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> >>> 2017-02-02 Kugan Vivekanandarajah >>> >>> * ipa-cp.c (ipcp_store_bits_results): Construct bits vector. >>>

Re: [RFC] Bug lto/78140

On 02/02/2017 02:36 AM, kugan wrote: > This is due to an existing issue. That is, in ipa_node_params_t::remove, m_vr > and bits vectors are not set to null such that the gc can claim it. I've just sent patch that should remove such need as ~ipa_node_params_t should be called just once:

[PATCH] Fix memory leaks in IPA CP (PR ipa/79337).

Hello. As mentioned in the PR, there is memory leak that is caused by fact, that ipa_node_params_t does release memory just in ipa_node_params_t::remove. That's wrong because the callback is called just when cgraph_removal_hook is triggered. Thus the proper implementation is to move it do

Re: [RFC] Bug lto/78140

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> 2017-02-02 Kugan Vivekanandarajah >> >> * ipa-cp.c (ipcp_store_bits_results): Construct bits vector. >> (ipcp_store_vr_results): Constrict m_vr vector. >> * ipa-prop.c

Re: [RFC] Bug lto/78140

> > 2017-02-02 Kugan Vivekanandarajah > > * ipa-cp.c (ipcp_store_bits_results): Construct bits vector. > (ipcp_store_vr_results): Constrict m_vr vector. > * ipa-prop.c (ipa_node_params_t::remove): Set transaction summary to > null. >

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

> Here's a revised version along these lines, OK for mainline after testing? > > > PR middle-end/78468 > * emit-rtl.c (init_emit): Add ??? comment for problematic alignment > settings of the virtual registers. > > Revert again > 2016-08-23 Dominik Vogt

Re: libgomp: Normalize the names of a few functions of the libgomp plugin API (was: libgomp: Provide prototypes for functions implemented by libgomp plugins)

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:22:37PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:44:46 +0100, I wrote: > > --- libgomp/libgomp.h > > +++ libgomp/libgomp.h > > @@ -882,31 +882,35 @@ typedef struct acc_dispatch_t > > > + __typeof (GOMP_OFFLOAD_openacc_parallel) *exec_func; > >

libgomp: Normalize the names of a few functions of the libgomp plugin API (was: libgomp: Provide prototypes for functions implemented by libgomp plugins)

Hi! On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:44:46 +0100, I wrote: > --- libgomp/libgomp.h > +++ libgomp/libgomp.h > @@ -882,31 +882,35 @@ typedef struct acc_dispatch_t > + __typeof (GOMP_OFFLOAD_openacc_parallel) *exec_func; As can be seen here, for a handful of functions, the name of the implementation in the

  1   2   >