Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 10:42:01PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: > > attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler > flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran. What about -fdefault-real-10? If you're going to add bloat to the compiler, then you might as well to it right. --

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] Add separate parms for rtl unroller

Hi Richard, On 15 September 2017 at 19:31, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah > wrote: >> This patch adds separate params for rtl unroller so that they can be >> tunned accordingly.

Re: [PING][patch] PR81794: have "would be stringified in traditional C" warning in libcpp/macro.c be controlled by -Wtraditional

Attached is a version of https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00481.html that contains a combination of both the fix and the testcase update, as requested in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81794#c2 I had to use a different computer than I usually use to send this email, as

Re: [RFC][AARCH64][PATCH 5/5] add aarch64_loop_unroll_adjust to limit partial unrolling in rtl based on strided-loads in loop

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 15 September 2017 at 13:36, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah >> wrote: >>>

Re: [RFC][AARCH64][PATCH 5/5] add aarch64_loop_unroll_adjust to limit partial unrolling in rtl based on strided-loads in loop

Hi Andrew, On 15 September 2017 at 13:36, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah > wrote: >> This patch adds aarch64_loop_unroll_adjust to limit partial unrolling >> in rtl based on strided-loads in

[patch, fortran] Warn about out-of-bounds-errors in DO loops

Hello world, the attached patch implements the out-of-bounds errors for DO loops. Seeing that we only warn for things like REAL :: A(2) A(3) = 42. I think it is best to have an unconditional warning for simple cases, and something enabled with -Wextra for stuff like REAL A(3) DO

Re: [PATCH] [i386, libgcc] PR 82196 -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues emits wrong AVX/SSE MOV

On 09/17/2017 10:53 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > OK. > > Thanks, > Uros. Thanks. I should have posted this Friday when my tests finished, but I'll be committing with one minor change so tests don't run on m32 or mx32: --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82196-1.c +++

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82018: -Wextra should imply -Wconversion-extra

Hi Janus, here is a small patch that enables -Wconversion-extra with -Wextra and updates the documentation. I grepped for warn_conversion_extra and found 14 occurrences in the gfortran source tree. Are we sure we want to enable each of these warnings with -Wextra? Regards Thomas

[Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

Hi all, attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran. I know that there is some opposition against this, but I am proposing it anyway, because I do think it is useful after all. My reasoning is as follows: 1) Despite tons of

Re: [PATCH] Better fix for the x86_64 -mcmodel=large ICEs (PR target/82145)

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 05:47:11PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > The postreload change is ok. > > The revert is OK even without approval. Well, it isn't a pure reversion, it is reversion plus addition of const char *name = LABEL_NAME (label); PUT_CODE (label, NOTE); NOTE_KIND (label) =

Re: [RS6000] PR81996, __builtin_return_address(0) fails

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 10:21:23PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > When -fstack-protector-all or -fsanitize=address, rs6000.h sets > FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD. This breaks the assumption in > rs6000_return_addr that the stack link is at frame_pointer+0. Well, builtin_return_address(N) already works

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 04/08 - V3

> This patch adds stack clash protection to the x86 port and provides the > first set of tests that will be used by the other ports in the future. > > Changes since V2: > > This uses the new PARAMs to determine if probing is needed and how often > to probe once probing is needed. New tests were

Re: [PATCH][x86] Knights Mill -march/-mtune options

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Peryt, Sebastian wrote: > Hi, > > This patch adds options -march=/-mtune=knm for Knights Mill. > > 2017-09-14 Sebastian Peryt > gcc/ > > * config.gcc: Support "knm". > *

Re: [PATCH] [i386, libgcc] PR 82196 -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues emits wrong AVX/SSE MOV

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Daniel Santos wrote: > I made a silly mistake in libgcc by testing the cpp macro __AVX__ to > determine rather to use movaps or vmovaps in the stubs. This resulted > in the stubs choice of instruction being decided by the machine flags >

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

And, darn it, I forgot to save cpp.texi, leaving out a couple of tweaks there. Here's v3. Sorry about the noise. Tom diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index e213db6..362f50e 100644 --- a/gcc/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2017-09-16 Tom Tromey + +

Re: [PATCH] Better fix for the x86_64 -mcmodel=large ICEs (PR target/82145)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> The testcase below (and others) still ICEs with my PR81766 fix. >> If there is a cfg cleanup in between ix86_init_pic_reg (during RA) >> and postreload, the label

Re: [testsuite, i386] Fix gcc.target/i386/pr81736-[34].c on 32-bit Solaris/x86 (PR target/81736)

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > The new gcc.target/i386/pr81736-[34].c tests currently FAIL on 32-bit > Solaris x86. Fixed as suggested by HJ in the PR. Tested with the > appropriate runtest invocation on i386-pc-solaris2.11, >

Re: [PATCH] PR target/82166: Update preferred stack boundary for leaf functions

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > preferred_stack_boundary may not be the minimum stack alignment. For > leaf functions without TLS access, max_used_stack_slot_alignment may be > smaller. We should update preferred_stack_boundary for leaf functions. > >

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

Tom> I don't really understand the rationale for why the errors are phrased Tom> the way they are, but I notice the C errors generally mention C99 and Tom> the C++ errors generally mention C++11. So, since I didn't have a Tom> rationale, I copied what is already there. I thought maybe GCC is

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

> "Alexander" == Alexander Monakov writes: Alexander> This hunk reverts CXX17 back to CXX1Z. Thanks for noticing, I'd written this before Jakub's patch and so the error came in during the rebase. Alexander> These two hunks add more duplication in already-duplicated 'if'

[RS6000] PR81996, __builtin_return_address(0) fails

When -fstack-protector-all or -fsanitize=address, rs6000.h sets FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD. This breaks the assumption in rs6000_return_addr that the stack link is at frame_pointer+0. Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64le-linux and powerpc64-linux -m32/-m64. OK? PR target/81996

[PATCH, nds32] Add OPT_fsched_pressure and OPT_fomit_frame_pointer in optimization table.

Hi, all, In the nds32 port, most of time we prefer reducing code size. So we modify the nds32_option_optimization_table[] to apply -fsched-pressure and -fomit-frame-pointer for specific optimization level. Committed as Rev.252876: https://gcc.gnu.org/r252876 gcc/ *

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

Hi! On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:30:34 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 13:52 +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > > [...] I have just > > committed the BRIG FE as revision 244867. In a build with that enabled, I just happened to "make html" in "gcc/", and ran into:

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Tom Tromey wrote: > --- a/gcc/doc/cpp.texi > +++ b/gcc/doc/cpp.texi > @@ -1675,20 +1675,27 @@ macro. We could define @code{eprintf} like this, > instead: [snip] > +This formulation looks more descriptive, but historically it was less > +flexible: you had to supply at least

[PATCH, nds32] Refine formatting and comments.

Hi, all, I noticed that some 8-spaces should be replaced with tab character. Here is a patch to refine formatting and comments in nds32 port. No functionality changes. Committed as Rev.252874: http://gcc.gnu.org/r252874 gcc/ * config/nds32/nds32.c: Refine formatting and comments.

[PING] [PATCH, ARM] correctly encode the CC reg data flow

Hi, ping... for the documentation part. Thanks, Bernd. On 09/06/17 17:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 06/09/17 14:17, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> On 09/06/17 14:51, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >>> On 06/09/17 13:44, Bernd Edlinger wrote: On 09/04/17 21:54, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi

Re: Vxworks Maintainership

> On Sep 15, 2017, at 19:37 , Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > As I mentioned a few months back, I intended to step down as a vxworks > maintainer. Olivier is more than capable of looking after the target, plus > he has hardware. > > I've committed this patch. Thanks for your kind