Re: Unreviewed patches

On 06/08/2017 04:08 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > The following patches have remained unreviewed for a week or more: > > [build] Support --sysroot with Solaris ld > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg02342.html > > This needs a build maintainer unless one considers it

Re: [PATCH GCC][5/5]Enable tree loop distribution at -O3 and above optimization levels.

On 06/07/2017 02:07 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 06/02/2017 05:52 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: >>> Hi, >>> This patch enables -ftree-loop-distribution by default at -O3 and above >>> optimization levels. >>> Bootstrap and test at O2/O3 on

Re: [PATCH] Fix expand_builtin_atomic_fetch_op for pre-op (PR80902)

On 05/28/2017 06:31 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > __atomic_add_fetch adds a value to some memory, and returns the result. > If there is no direct support for this, expand_builtin_atomic_fetch_op > is asked to implement this as __atomic_fetch_add (which returns the > original value of the mem),

Re: remove call to memset in value-prof.c:free_hist()

On 05/23/2017 07:50 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > Hi Jeff, > As discussed in the other thread, this patch removes dead call to > memset in free_hist(). > Bootstrap+tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > Cross-tested on arm*-*-*, aarch64*-*-*. > OK for trunk ? > > Thanks, > Prathamesh > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH, i386]: Enable post-reload compare elimination pass

On 05/17/2017 12:33 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > >>> But yes, we definitely should document the final canonical ordering. >> >> Is that about to also happen? >> >> I foresee in another half-a-dozen years, and *this*

Re: [PATCH] Always print attributes when dumping tree

On 05/16/2017 08:18 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > From: Andi Kleen > > A tree type dump currently doesn't print the attributes. Since we have > so many now and they do many interesting things dumping them can be > useful. So dump them by default for tree type dumps. > > Passes

Re: [PATCH] handle enumerated types in -Wformat-overflow (PR 80397)

On 05/08/2017 08:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 04/28/2017 12:35 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 04/26/2017 11:05 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> On 04/24/2017 03:35 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 04/11/2017 12:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > In a review of my fix for bug 80364 Jakub pointed out that to

Re: [PATCH] Fix-it hints for -Wimplicit-fallthrough

On 05/04/2017 12:16 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > As of r247522, fix-it-hints can suggest the insertion of new lines. > > This patch updates -Wimplicit-fallthrough to provide suggestions > with fix-it hints, showing the user where to insert "break;" or > fallthrough attributes. > > For example: >

Re: [PATCH][ PR rtl-optimization/79286] Drop may_trap_p exception to testing dominance in update_equiv_regs

On 04/29/2017 01:06 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 04/28/17 20:46, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 04/28/2017 11:27 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> Yes I agree, that is probably not worth it. So I could try to remove >>> the special handling of PIC+const and see what happens. >>> >>> However the

Re: [PR target/25111] New patterns for m68k bit insns

On 06/20/2017 04:28 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Tested on m68k, installed on trunk and gcc-7 branch. > > Andreas. > > PR target/80970 > * config/m68k/m68k.md (bsetdreg, bchgdreg, bclrdreg): Use "=d" > instead of "+d". Thanks for taking care of this. I've been buried in the

[PATCH] PR ipa/81185, Improve naming of target_clone cloned function names

he June 19th, 2017 change from Martin Liska , made the target_clones support more usable, in that it it changed the external name from being the default function to being the ifunc handler. This means that calls from other modules will call the appropriate clone based on what

[PATCH 2/2] C++: bulletproof the %H and %I format codes (PR c++/81167)

The %T format code in the C++ frontend gracefully handles being passed a NULL type, printing nothing (and hence '' for %qT). In r248698 (template type diff printing) I converted many uses of pairs of %qT in the C++ FE to %qH and %qI. PR c++/81167 reports a case where a NULL is passed to one of

[PATCH 1/2] Support C++-specific selftests

Currently the "make selftest" target run during each stage of the build just runs the selftests within cc1. As part of the fix for PR c++/81167 I want to be able to write C++-specific selftests (to exercise the C++ implementation of the pp's format_decoder). Hence this patch generalizes the

RE: [Neon intrinsics] Literal vector construction through vcombine is poor

Richard, I reworked the patch and retested on big endian as well as little. The original code was performing two swaps in the big endian case which works out to no swaps at all. I also updated the ChangeLog per your comments. Okay for trunk? 2017-06-19 Michael Collison

Re: RFC: stack/heap collision vulnerability and mitigation with GCC

Jeff Law wrote: > You can be in one of 3 states when you start the callee's prologue. > > 1. You're somewhere in the normal stack. > > 2. You've past the guard and are already in the heap or elsewhere > > 3. You're somewhere in the guard > > State #3 is what we're trying to address.  The attacker

[PATCH], PR target/80510, Optimize 32-bit offsettable memory references on power7/power8

Andreas Schwab noticed that the two tests for PR 80510 failed on 32-bit systems due to long being only a 32-bit type. Yesterday, I committed this patch to disable the test for 32-bit: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01607.html This patch implements the necessary move and peephole

libgo patch committed: Uncomment check for gchelper on g0 stack

This libgo patch uncomments a check. Now that systemstack changes to the g0 stack, the check passes. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE === ---

libgo patch committed: Mark dropm and callees nowritebarrierrec

The CgocallbackDone function calls dropm after it calls entersyscall, which means that dropm must not have any write barriers. Mark it accordingly. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE

libgo patch committed: Export getm for test

This patch to libgo exports the getm function so that it can be referenced by a test (from runtime/testdata/testprogcgo/dropm_stub.go). The test is not currently run, but it will be soon. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian Index:

[PATCH] reorganize block/string move/compare expansions out of rs6000.c

This patch moves about 1400 lines of code for various block and string compare/move/zero expansions out of rs6000.c into a new file  rs6000-string.c. Segher had asked me to do this before I go adding new code here. Bootstrap passes on ppc64le, regtest in progress. OK for trunk if that passes?

[patch,avr][ping #1] PR81075: Move jump-tables out of .text

Ping #1 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01029.html Georg-Johann Lay schrieb: Hi, Since PR71151 we have jump-tables in .text so that branches crossing the tables have longer offsets that needed. This moves jump-tables out of test again, but not into .progmem.gcc_sw_tables like

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

* Jeff Law: > But I still think we're going to want to explicitly test the various > cases where we want to see probes vs when we do not. That kind of > testing won't be covered unless we explicitly do so and the least > painful way to cover may be via dump messages or the unit testing >

Re: libgo patch committed: Fix ptrace implementation on MIPS

h:57:8: error: redefinition of 'struct ia64_fpreg' > struct ia64_fpreg { > ^~ > In file included from /usr/include/signal.h:339:0, > from > /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20170622/Build/gcc/include-fixed/sys/ucontext.h:32, > from /usr/include/ucont

Re: libgo patch committed: Change some stack fields to uintptr

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> Because of how gccgo implements cgo calls, the code in dropm may not >> have any write barriers. As a step toward implementing that, change >> the gcstack, gcnextsegment, and gcnextsp fields of the g struct

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On 06/22/2017 12:23 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Mike Stump: > >> On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> Sure. I'll do something with 20031023-1.c to ensure it or an equivalent >>> is compiled with -fstack-check. That isn't totally unexpected. I >>> would have

[C++ PATCH] Special identifier marking

This patch starts cleaning up how we mark special identifiers. We currently use some of the TREE_LANG_FLAGS on IDENTIFIER_NODEs for various things, but most of those things are mutually exclusive, so an enumeration is better -- it allows us to distinguish more things with fewer bits. This

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 08:42:54PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >The thought of scanning the assembly code or RTL is too painful to > >contemplate. THus I've been pondering having the prologue expanders > >emit notes into the dump file about what they did and why WRT probing. > > > >Or maybe we

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On June 22, 2017 7:17:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote: >On 06/22/2017 11:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:02:16AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >>> On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote: Sure. I'll do something with

Re: [PATCH][AArch64][GCC 6] PR target/79041: Correct -mpc-relative-literal-loads logic in aarch64_classify_symbol

Hi all, On 16 January 2017 at 16:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 13/01/17 16:35, James Greenhalgh wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:32:45PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> In this PR we generated ADRP/ADD instructions with :lo12:

Re: [PATCH] consider casts in -Wclass-memaccess (PR c++/81169)

OK. On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > By making use of STRIP_NOPS() on the destination of the memory > function call, besides discarding the (implicit) conversion to > void* the warning also strips any explicit casts that remove > cv-qualifiers. This

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

* Mike Stump: > On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> Sure. I'll do something with 20031023-1.c to ensure it or an equivalent >> is compiled with -fstack-check. That isn't totally unexpected. I >> would have also been receptive to adding -fstack-check to the

Re: libgo patch committed: Change some stack fields to uintptr

Hi Ian, > Because of how gccgo implements cgo calls, the code in dropm may not > have any write barriers. As a step toward implementing that, change > the gcstack, gcnextsegment, and gcnextsp fields of the g struct to > uintptr, so that assignments to them do not require write barriers. > The

[PATCH] consider casts in -Wclass-memaccess (PR c++/81169)

By making use of STRIP_NOPS() on the destination of the memory function call, besides discarding the (implicit) conversion to void* the warning also strips any explicit casts that remove cv-qualifiers. This causes warnings that should otherwise be suppressed, as pointed out in bug 81169. The

Re: [PATCH 1/2] i386: Consider Kaby Lake to be equivalent to Skylake

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> Currently -march=native selects -march=broadwell on Kaby Lake systems, >> since its model numbers are missing from the switch statement. It falls

Re: [committed] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On Jun 22, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > This time with the test. Just #includes 20031023-1.c with a suitable dg > directive to ensure we compile with -fstack-check. > > I won't be surprised if other targets fail this test. It's a really big > stack frame :-) The

Re: [committed] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:21:15AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > +2017-06-22 Jeff Law > + > + * gcc.c-torture/compile/stack-check-1.c: New test. > + > 2016-06-22 Richard Biener > > * gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-1.c: Remove xfail. > diff --git

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix for vec_mulo and vec_mule test case

Hi Carl, On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:04:38AM -0700, Carl Love wrote: > Commit 249424 fixed the vec_mulo and vec_mule support however, the > changes for the test case did not get included in the previous patch. > The testing worked great for me as I had the fix. Not so good for > everyone else as

[committed] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

This time with the test. Just #includes 20031023-1.c with a suitable dg directive to ensure we compile with -fstack-check. I won't be surprised if other targets fail this test. It's a really big stack frame :-) Anyways, committed to the trunk. Jeff diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On 06/22/2017 11:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:02:16AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> Sure. I'll do something with 20031023-1.c to ensure it or an equivalent >>> is compiled with -fstack-check. That

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> Sure. I'll do something with 20031023-1.c to ensure it or an equivalent >> is compiled with -fstack-check. That isn't totally unexpected. I >>

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:02:16AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > Sure. I'll do something with 20031023-1.c to ensure it or an equivalent > > is compiled with -fstack-check. That isn't totally unexpected. I > > would have also

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > Sure. I'll do something with 20031023-1.c to ensure it or an equivalent > is compiled with -fstack-check. That isn't totally unexpected. I > would have also been receptive to adding -fstack-check to the torture flags. Ouch.

Re: SSA range class and removal of VR_ANTI_RANGEs

On 06/22/2017 06:16 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Aldy Hernandez writes: On 06/20/2017 10:59 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 06/20/2017 02:41 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 05/23/2017 03:26 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 05/23/2017 04:48 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: + void Union

Re: [PATCH] Implement cond and induction cond reduction w/o REDUC_MAX_EXPR

On June 22, 2017 6:20:57 PM GMT+02:00, Alan Hayward wrote: > >> On 22 Jun 2017, at 12:54, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Alan Hayward wrote: >> >>> On 22 Jun 2017, at 09:52, Richard Biener wrote:

Re: [PR80693] drop value of parallel SETs dropped by combine

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:25:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > Would it work to just have "else" instead if this "if"? Or hrm, we'll > > need to kill the recorded reg_stat value in the last case before this > > as

Re: [PATCH] Implement cond and induction cond reduction w/o REDUC_MAX_EXPR

> On 22 Jun 2017, at 12:54, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Alan Hayward wrote: > >> >>> On 22 Jun 2017, at 09:52, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Richard Biener

Re: RFC: stack/heap collision vulnerability and mitigation with GCC

On 06/22/2017 10:07 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 22/06/17 16:30, Jeff Law wrote: >> It just happens to be the case that x86 hits *sp when it stores the >> return pointer and that ppc always stores the backchain into *sp when it >> allocates additional stack space. As a result on those targets we

Re: RFC: stack/heap collision vulnerability and mitigation with GCC

On 06/21/2017 11:47 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Jeff Law wrote: > >> I'm a little confused. I'm not defining or changing the ABI. I'm >> working within my understanding of the existing aarch64 ABI used on >> linux systems. My understanding after reading that ABI and the prologue >> code for

Re: RFC: stack/heap collision vulnerability and mitigation with GCC

On 22/06/17 16:30, Jeff Law wrote: > It just happens to be the case that x86 hits *sp when it stores the > return pointer and that ppc always stores the backchain into *sp when it > allocates additional stack space. As a result on those targets we know > the offset between the stack pointer and

Re: [PR80693] drop value of parallel SETs dropped by combine

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 03:21:01AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > [ I missed this patch the first time around; please cc: me to prevent this ] > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 07:25:57AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >

[PATCH, rs6000] Fix for vec_mulo and vec_mule test case

GCC Maintainers: Commit 249424 fixed the vec_mulo and vec_mule support however, the changes for the test case did not get included in the previous patch. The testing worked great for me as I had the fix. Not so good for everyone else as I didn't share the test case fix with mainline. Sorry for

Re: Refactor fileptr_type_node handling

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and

libgo patch committed: Make NumGoroutine wait for system goroutines to register

In libgo system goroutines register themselves after they start. That means that there is a small race between the goroutine being seen by the scheduler and the scheduler knowing that the goroutine is a system goroutine. That in turn means that runtime.NumGoroutines can overestimate the number of

Go patch committed: Fix stale comments in lexer

This patch from Than McIntosh removes a stale comment in code that accepts "go:nowritebarrier" pragma and updates the comment for "go:nowritebarrierrec". Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On 06/22/2017 09:29 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 22/06/17 16:01, Jeff Law wrote: >> This fixes a bug discovered when we were evaluating the current state of >> -fstack-check. It ought to be able to go forward independent of the >> rest of the -fstack-check work. >> >> The aarch64

Re: RFC: stack/heap collision vulnerability and mitigation with GCC

On 06/22/2017 03:53 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 21/06/17 18:25, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 06/21/2017 02:41 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> But the stack pointer might have already been advanced into the guard page by the caller. For the sake of argument assume the guard

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On 22/06/17 16:01, Jeff Law wrote: > This fixes a bug discovered when we were evaluating the current state of > -fstack-check. It ought to be able to go forward independent of the > rest of the -fstack-check work. > > The aarch64 specific code does not correctly handle large frames and > will

[PATCH] Fix pr80044, -static and -pie insanity, and pr81170

PR80044 notes that -static and -pie together behave differently when gcc is configured with --enable-default-pie as compared to configuring without (or --disable-default-pie). This patch removes that difference. In both cases you now will have -static completely overriding -pie. Fixing this

Re: [PATCH v2, rs6000] Add vec_reve support

Hi Carl, On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 02:23:06PM -0700, Carl Love wrote: > +;; Vector reverse elements > +(define_expand "altivec_vreve2" > + [(set (match_operand:VEC_A 0 "register_operand" "=v") > + (unspec:VEC_A [(match_operand:VEC_A 1 "register_operand" "v")] > +

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Mark symbols as constant

On Jun 20 2017, Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijks...@arm.com> wrote: > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_legitimate_constant_p): > Return true for non-tls symbols. This breaks gcc.target/aarch64/reload-valid-spoff.c with -mabi=ilp32: /opt/gcc/gcc-20170622/gcc/testsuit

[PATCH] RFC: enable pretty printers for --enable-libstdcxx-debug libs

The --enable-libstdcxx-debug option builds extra versions of libstdc++ without optimisation and installs them in $libdir/debug, which can be used via RPATH or LD_LIBRARY_PATH. However, there's no gdb.py installed alongside those debug versions of the libs, so while you can step into unoptimised

Re: [PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:01:03AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > This fixes a bug discovered when we were evaluating the current state of > -fstack-check. It ought to be able to go forward independent of the > rest of the -fstack-check work. > > The aarch64 specific code does not correctly handle

[PATCH][RFA] Fix -fstack-check with really big frames on aarch64

This fixes a bug discovered when we were evaluating the current state of -fstack-check. It ought to be able to go forward independent of the rest of the -fstack-check work. The aarch64 specific code does not correctly handle large frames and will generate RTL with unrecognizable insns for such

Re: Add quality tracking for profile counter

Hi, I proofread the code and noticed that in some cases I may trigger division by 0 that may get different outputs depending on optimization setting on Itanium. This is what I comitted after profiledbootstrap and regtesting at x86_64. * profile-count.h (apply_probability,

libgo patch committed: Don't assume that _ = *s will panic if s is nil

With the gc toolchain apparently var s *string _ = *s is enough to panic with a nil pointer dereference. The gccgo compiler will simply discard the dereference, which I think is a reasonable and acceptable optimization. Change the tests to use an exported variable instead. The tests are

libgo patch committed: Change some stack fields to uintptr

Because of how gccgo implements cgo calls, the code in dropm may not have any write barriers. As a step toward implementing that, change the gcstack, gcnextsegment, and gcnextsp fields of the g struct to uintptr, so that assignments to them do not require write barriers. The gcinitialsp field

libgo patch committed: Avoid write barriers when calling deferred function

Calling a deferred function in libgo currently requires changing from a uintptr to the function code to a Go function value. That is done by setting the value of a func local variable using unsafe.Pointer. The local variable will always be on the stack. Adjust the code that sets the local variable

libgo patch committed: Rename _defer struct _panic field to panicStack

In the gc version of the Go library the _defer struct has a _panic field with a completely different meaning, that we are going to want to adopt into libgo. This trivial patch renames libgo's _panic field to panicStack to clear the way. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

libgo patch committed: Adjust runtime tests for gccgo

This patch to libgo adjusts some runtime tests for gccgo: - don't run tests that depend on SetCgoTraceback - don't expect a '(' after the function name in a traceback - change the expected name of nested functions in a traceback These tests are not currently run, but they will be soon.

libgo patch committed: Don't build test files that call SetCgoTraceback

The libgo library doesn't provide runtime.SetCgoTraceback, which is used by the gc toolchain to collect combined C/Go tracebacks. Since gccgo uses the normal C ABI, the function is not necessary for gccgo, and it is difficult to implement. This patch changes the runtime tests so that the ones

libgo patch committed: Build testprogcgo with -pthread

This libgo patch builds the runtime test testprogcgo with -pthread, as is required by gccgo. This test is not currently run, but it will be soon. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE

Re: Unreviewed^2 build, cpp patches

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Support $SYSROOT for = in -I etc. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg00011.html > > > > This needs a cpp or C maintainer. > > It still does... OK, though I'd expect that in most cases = is more convenient to use than

[PATCH] PR libstdc++/81173 fix undefined memset with null pointer

This fixes recently introduced undefined behaviour caused by passing a null pointer to memset. The patch also removes some trailing whitespace. PR libstdc++/81173 * include/bits/stl_bvector.h (vector::_M_initialize_value): Do not pass null pointer to memset. Tested

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Make early return predictor more precise.

Hi, On 21 June 2017 at 14:50, Martin Liška wrote: > On 06/21/2017 10:26 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> >>> Ok, so I fixed that in the described way. There's one remaining fallout of: >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ipa-split-5.c >>> >>> Where a fnsplit is properly done, but then

Re: [PATCH] [SPARC] Add a workaround for the LEON3FT store-store errata

From: Daniel Cederman Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:27:51 +0200 > I have modified the patch so that the workaround is enabled by using > either mfix-ut699, -mfix-ut700, or -mfix-gr712rc. Eric, does Daniel's patch meet your requirements now?

Re: i386/sse.md:round2 skips operands[2] -> -O0 warning

On Jun 22, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:00:59AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> [adding the list] >> Thanks, I'm checking this in. Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. > I bet it won't apply, I didn't know you were looking at this; > Martin Liska

Re: [PR80693] drop value of parallel SETs dropped by combine

On Jun 22, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > The patch below (is this what you meant?) fixes the PR testcase, and the > new else block doesn't get exercised in an x86_64-linux-gnu bootstrap. Err, I misdescribed the situation. It's not that it doesn't get exercised, it's that

Re: [PATCH] Port Doxygen support script from Perl to Python; add unittests

PING^1 On 05/31/2017 04:10 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > ..adding missing patch >

[PATCH][DOC] Enhance target_clones documentation (PR other/78366).

Hi. As mentioned in the PR, we only generate a resolver function when there's a usage of a function with target_clones attribute. Let's document the behavior. Ready to be installed? Martin gcc/ChangeLog: 2017-06-22 Martin Liska PR other/78366 *

Re: [PR80693] drop value of parallel SETs dropped by combine

On Jun 8, 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Would it work to just have "else" instead if this "if"? Or hrm, we'll > need to kill the recorded reg_stat value in the last case before this > as well? The patch below (is this what you meant?) fixes the PR testcase, and

Re: SSA range class and removal of VR_ANTI_RANGEs

Aldy Hernandez writes: > On 06/20/2017 10:59 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> On 06/20/2017 02:41 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>> On 05/23/2017 03:26 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 05/23/2017 04:48 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>> + void Union (wide_int x, wide_int y); + bool

Re: fix libcc1 dependencies in toplevel Makefile

On Jun 13, 2017, Olivier Hainque wrote: > 2017-06-13 Olivier Hainque > * Makefile.def (host_modules): Set depgcc to true for libcc1, > meaning need of a dep on stage_current if gcc-bootstrap and on > maybe-all-gcc otherwise. >

[PATCH] Condition reduction w/o REDUC_MAX_EXPR support

The following patch implements $subject which means condition reduction support for x86_64 which lacks a horizontal max vector operation. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk. Richard. 2016-06-22 Richard Biener * tree-vect-loop.c

Re: [PATCH] Implement cond and induction cond reduction w/o REDUC_MAX_EXPR

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Alan Hayward wrote: > > > On 22 Jun 2017, at 09:52, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> During my attempt to refactor reduction vectorization I

Re: Refactor fileptr_type_node handling

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and fexcept_t the same way as

Re: [PATCH 4/N] Recover GOTO predictor.

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 06/22/2017 12:27 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> Hello. >>> >>> There's one additional predictor enhancement that is GOTO predict that >>> used to

[PING*2, Ada] Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Ping*2 Richard Sandiford writes: > Ping for this Ada patch/question. > > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Richard Biener writes: > How does this look? Changes since v1: > > - Added

Re: Reorganise machmode.h headers

Ping*2 Richard Sandiford writes: > Ping > > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Jeff Law writes: >>> On 11/16/2016 09:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Later patches will make machmode.h rely on wide-int.h and the

Re: [2/2] PR 80769: Incorrect strlen optimisation

Ping*3 Richard Sandiford writes: > Ping*2 > > Richard Sandiford writes: >> In this testcase, we (correctly) record after: >> >> strcpy (p1, "abcde"); >> char *p2 = strchr (p1, '\0'); >> strcpy (p2, q); >> >> that the length of p1

Backports to gcc 7.x

And there are backports for GCC 7 branch that I'm going to install. Martin >From 818c118793ae5e95948dd95471561c261247924c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:27:48 + Subject: [PATCH 12/12] Backport r249368

PR81136: ICE from inconsistent DR_MISALIGNMENTs

The test case triggered this assert in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel: gcc_assert (DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr) / dr_size == DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr_peel) / dr_peel_size); We knew that the two DRs had the same misalignment at runtime, but when considered in isolation, one

Backports to GCC 5.x

Hello. I'm going to install the very same set of patches as for GCC 6.x except first 4 patches to ipa-visibility.c. These will be more complicated to backport. Martin >From 4d28482901c9569abd91cbff64a2362d39be50a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin

Re: [PATCH] Implement cond and induction cond reduction w/o REDUC_MAX_EXPR

> On 22 Jun 2017, at 09:52, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: >> >>> >>> During my attempt to refactor reduction vectorization I ran across >>> the special casing of inital values for

Re: Refactor fileptr_type_node handling

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and fexcept_t the same way as FILE and const tm. Since these have special handling in quite a few places, it seems necessary to

Re: [PATCH 4/N] Recover GOTO predictor.

On 06/22/2017 12:27 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hello. >> >> There's one additional predictor enhancement that is GOTO predict that >> used to working. Following patch adds expect statement for C and C++ family >> languages.

[PATCH] Fix ipa-split-5.c test-case.

Hi. There's a small fallout where I blow up a function in order to suppress function inlining. Honza pre-approved the change, I'm going to install the patch. Martin >From dc4f022b91913e25eaff2ddcaf4dfef0e44217a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017

Re: Refactor fileptr_type_node handling

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and fexcept_t the same way as FILE and > const tm. Since these have special handling in quite a few places, it seems > necessary to make their support a bit more generic

[PATCH] Avoid UB in the Ada FE

Hi! I'm seeing almost 750 of runtime errors like: ../../gcc/ada/gcc-interface/trans.c:6992:20: runtime error: load of value 240, which is not a valid value for type 'bool' (with random values in place of the 240 above) during bootstrap-ubsan. The problem is that atomic_access_required_p only

Re: [PATCH 4/N] Recover GOTO predictor.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > There's one additional predictor enhancement that is GOTO predict that > used to working. Following patch adds expect statement for C and C++ family > languages. > > There's one fallout which is vrp24.c test-case,

Re: [PATCH 2/6] New warnings -Wstring-plus-{char, int} (PR c++/62181)

On 2017-06-19 12:44 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 06/19/2017 11:28 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > On 2017-06-19 10:51 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > On 06/11/2017 07:32 PM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > > > This patch adds warning option -Wstring-plus-int for C/C++. > > > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > >

  1   2   >