On 06/25/2017 05:50 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> As mentioned in bug 81195, I see openmp related failures due to a lack
> of locking of the newunit_stack and newunit_tos variables. The code
> locks when pushing onto the stack, but does not lock when popping from
> the stack. This can cause multiple
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Tamar Christina
> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> this patch implements a optimization rewriting
>>
>> x * copysign (1.0, y) and
>> x * copysign (-1.0, y)
>
>
> This
As mentioned in bug 81195, I see openmp related failures due to a lack
of locking of the newunit_stack and newunit_tos variables. The code
locks when pushing onto the stack, but does not lock when popping from
the stack. This can cause multiple threads to pop the same structure,
which then
... in fact, simply moving the checks forward, past the
splice_late_return_type call, appears to work fine. I'm finishing
testing the below.
Thanks!
Paolo.
/
/cp
2017-06-25 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/65775
* decl.c (grokdeclarator):
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In this patch, a new integer register operand modifier 'r' is added. This
> will use the
> proper register name according to the mode of corresponding operand.
>
> 'w' register for scalar integer mode smaller
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
>> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
>> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
>> + /* Transform (X > 0.0
I merged GCC trunk revision 249632 to the gccgo branch.
Ian
Hi,
in grokdeclarator the checks on the return type do nothing useful in
case of late-specified return type because they happen too early, before
splice_late_return_type is called. A straightforward way to solve the
problem involves separating the checks themselves to a new
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Libgcc unwinder currently does not do any verification of pointers
> which it chases on stack. In practice this not so rarely causes
> segfaults when unwinding on corrupted stacks (e.g. when when trying to
>
Hi all,
Libgcc unwinder currently does not do any verification of pointers
which it chases on stack. In practice this not so rarely causes
segfaults when unwinding on corrupted stacks (e.g. when when trying to
print diagnostic on
fatal error) [1]. Ironically this usually happens in error
Hello everyone,
this is a ping for patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01209.html
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0)
Dear All,
Dominique pointed out that the changes to libgfortran.h were missing
from the patch. This came about because I wrongly named
kernels-alias-4.f95 in the diff so it was missing too. Please find
attached the complete patch.
Thomas, thanks for the early feedback.
Paul
On 24 June 2017 at
Hi Paul,
I want to sound out if this is acceptable as the way to fix these
problems before going to the trouble of doing the final clean up;
especially of trans.c (gfc_build_array_ref) and
trans-array.c(build_array_ref).
The method you use looks OK to me, and the time till
completion of the
Hi Graham,
On Mon, 2017-06-12 11:40:39 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-12 20:14:23 +0100, Graham Markall
> wrote:
> > Since the combine pass canonicalises shift-add insns using plus and
> > ashift (as opposed to plus and mult
+(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
+ outp (convert convert negate negate)
+ outn (negate negate convert convert)
+ /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
+ /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
+ /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
16 matches
Mail list logo