On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 02:56, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 1/30/19 7:10 AM, Bárbara de Castro Fernandes wrote:
> > This patch simplifies the function tanh (x) * cosh (x) -> sinh (x).
> > This rule is derived from the relationship between hyperbolic
> > functions.
> >
> > I ran the tests and
On Apr 29, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> OK for trunk and branch?
> 2019-04-29 Richard Biener
> PR tree-optimization/90273
> * tree-ssa-dce.c (eliminate_unnecessary_stmts): Eliminate
> useless debug stmts.
LGTM, thanks
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter
在 2019/4/30 上午5:57, Jeff Law 写道:
On 3/1/19 1:39 AM, JunMa wrote:
Hi
Since MAX_INLINE_INSNS_AUTO should be below or equal to
MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE (see params.def), there is no need
to do second inlining limit check on growth when function not
declared inline, this patch
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:01 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:13 AM bin.cheng wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the draft patch avoiding scaling cost overflow by introducing a
> > scaling bound
> > in IVOPTs. For now the bound is 20, and scaling factor will be further
>
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> Can you move the GIMPLE/RTL FE specific data in c_declspecs to
> a substructure accessed via indirection? I guess enlarging that
> isn't really what we should do. You'd move gimple_or_rtl_pass
> there and make that pointer one to a struct aux_fe_data
On 1/10/19 5:13 PM, Ben L wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First time emailing gcc-patches, so I'm sorry if I get any of this wrong or if
> there's obvious errors repeated in my patches. AFAICT I should be sending each
> change individually rather than as one bulk patch, so I'm sorry about the spam
> too.
>
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I've committed this as obvious. The TS section didn't note coroutines
> were in progress.
Thanks, Nathan. You also could have committed it wearing your C++
maintainer hat. ;-)
As a small note, our web pages are mirrored on www.gnu.org and that
site
On 3/1/19 1:39 AM, JunMa wrote:
> Hi
>Since MAX_INLINE_INSNS_AUTO should be below or equal to
>MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE (see params.def), there is no need
>to do second inlining limit check on growth when function not
>declared inline, this patch removes it.
>Bootstrapped and
On 3/26/19 8:21 AM, Yoshinori Sato wrote:
> I ported linux kernel to Renesas RX.
>
> rx-*-elf target output a binary different from the standard ELF.
> It has the same format as the Renesas compiler.
>
> But the linux kernel requires the standard ELF format.
> I want to define a rx-*-linux
Hi.
Ping :-)
(I hope I am not bothering you with it)
Giuliano.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 6:51 PM Giuliano Belinassi
wrote:
>
> Previously, the tests 'sinhatanh-2.c' and 'sinhatanh-3.c' did not count
> the number of functions found in the tree-dump. This patch address this
> issue.
>
> 2019-01-10
On 4/29/19, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 4/29/19, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 4/26/19 10:31 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>> On 26 April 2019 16:08:19 CEST, Gerald Pfeifer
>>> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
> The patch clarifies that gcc-patches mailing list allows
On 1/30/19 7:10 AM, Bárbara de Castro Fernandes wrote:
> This patch simplifies the function tanh (x) * cosh (x) -> sinh (x).
> This rule is derived from the relationship between hyperbolic
> functions.
>
> I ran the tests and gfortran.dg/pr79966.f90 failed, but this failure
> is unrelated to the
On 4/29/19, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 4/26/19 10:31 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> On 26 April 2019 16:08:19 CEST, Gerald Pfeifer
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
The patch clarifies that gcc-patches mailing list allows up to 400kB
size of an email.
>>>
>>>
On 1/22/19 12:31 PM, Rafael Tsuha wrote:
> This patch simplifies the expression sinh (x) / cosh (x) to tanh (x).
> This rule is mathematically valid.
>
> There's a slight difference in the result when applying this
> optimization with x in the interval 0 < x <= 1e-4951. With the
> optimization,
On 3/8/19 5:34 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> A small patch that deals with:
> gcc/config/i386/i386.c:39427:11:Semantic Issue: comparison of two values with
> different enumeration types in switch statement ('enum built_in_function' and
> 'ix86_builtins'): -Wenum-compare-switch
>
> Is it fine to
On 3/12/19 2:45 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The patch is about simplification and usage of enum types. ENDP integer
> does not make much sense in this usage.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed after stage1 opens?
> Thanks,
On 3/23/19 11:46 AM, 钟云德 wrote:
> hi, all
>I am a new guy work on this GCC Bugzilla, and need some help to review
> patch detailed showed on
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83855, thanks!
>
I'd need to see the machine description you're working with. It may be
better to
On 4/7/19 7:31 AM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> architecture list from netbsd src/tests/libexec/ld.elf_so/t_ifunc.c
> (quick reference:
> https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/tests/libexec/ld.elf_so/t_ifunc.c#L38
> )
> tested on netbsd/amd64.
>
> ifuncs worked anyway, but I can't use
On 4/8/19 3:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:26 PM Vladislav Ivanishin wrote:
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 4:05 PM Vladislav Ivanishin wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 5:36 PM Vladislav Ivanishin
On 3/14/19 7:02 AM, marxin wrote:
>
> gcc/lto/ChangeLog:
>
> 2019-03-14 Martin Liska
>
> * lto-common.c: Update coding style.
> * lto.c (materialize_cgraph): Likewise.
> ---
> gcc/lto/lto-common.c | 214 ++-
> gcc/lto/lto.c| 30
On 4/29/19 4:04 AM, Michael Darling wrote:
> r270581 (git 70f448fa) changed BASE-VER to 10.0.0. But, gnat still
> uses so version 9.
>
> GCC assignment papers on file. I don't have write access.
>
>
> 2019-04-29 Michael K. Darling
>
> * gnatvsn.ads: Bump Library_Version to 10.
On 4/29/19 5:06 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Simple patch to address a missing translation of a string.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed?
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2019-04-29 Martin Liska
>
> PR
This patch to the Go frontend avoids a compiler crash on the real
declaration of a previously-declared type with an existing method.
This avoids a compiler crash on invalid code, and fixes GCC PR 90272.
Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed
to mainline.
Ian
Index:
Hi,
I have a small back queue of tweaks of various kinds and sizes, this one
seems small enough to be safe wrt last minute release branch fixes.
While working on the regression c++/88969, some duplicate errors showed
up when we started giving appropriate diagnostics instead of ICEing,
which
> On 26 Apr 2019, at 15:08, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
>> The patch clarifies that gcc-patches mailing list allows up to 400kB
>> size of an email.
> As one minor detail, note we have KB in one place and with the
> patch would have kB. Technically it's
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following fixes PR90273 where the testcase exhibits an excessive
> number of debug stmts after the recent fixes to CFG cleanup to not
> throw away debug stmts it cannot move but instead move and reset them.
> This excessiveness causes
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 07:28:12PM +0300, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> > This code was added in 1997 (r14770). In 2004 the documentation was
> > changed to clarify how things really work (r88999):
> >
> > "Note that even a volatile @code{asm} instruction can be moved relative to
> > other code,
Hi All,
This patch is to fix the ICE caused by expand pattern of copysignf
builtin. This is a back port to r267019 of trunk.
Bootstrapped on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and regression tested on
aarch64-none-elf.
Ok for gcc 7 branch? If ok, could someone please commit the patch on my
behalf, I
Hi All,
This patch is to fix the ICE caused in expand pattern of copysignf
builtin. This is a back port to r267019 of trunk.
Bootstrapped on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and regression tested on
aarch64-none-elf.
Ok for gcc 8 branch? If ok, could someone commit the patch on my behalf,
I don't have
Hi, Segher
> > > > In pr84524.c we got a loop with an extended inline asm:
> > > > asm volatile ("" : "+r" (v))
> > > > which also gives us a “surprising” situation Alexander predicts.
> > > >
> > > > For sched-deps scanner such volatile asm is a “true barrier” and we
> > > > create dependencies
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
The patch clarifies that gcc-patches mailing list allows up to 400kB
size of an email.
>> Maybe drop references to gcc-prs while at it as:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-05/msg6.html
> Good idea. I'm going to move multiple legacy mailing
This patch fixes some formatting and code clarity issues I've tripped
over in the past few months.
duplicate_decls has some function- and var- specific behaviour that was
confusingly commented, and, for the var case mixed the checking for var
with checking for the flag to copy.
On 9/10/18 1:43 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 09/04/2018 05:07 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> - in order to achieve real speed up we need to split also other generated
>> (and also dwarf2out.c, i386.c, ..) files:
>> here I'm most concerned about insn-recog.c, which can't be split the same
>> way
On 9/4/18 5:07 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 09/03/2018 04:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/03/2018 04:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 09/03/2018 02:54 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On
Hi!
As discussed in the two PRs, it is a bad idea to rely on the reload pass
keeping the IL insufficiently optimized (with noop moves), it regresses
important benchmarks on PowerPC.
The actual reason why on the PR90178 testcase we generated better code is
that we had an almost empty block
I've committed this as obvious. The TS section didn't note coroutines
were in progress.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
Index: projects/cxx-status.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/projects/cxx-status.html,v
retrieving revision
PR libstdc++/71312
* src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc (get_mutex): Align pool mutexes to 64 bytes.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 7bdfcdf0100b2e340339388e5cef610c9f6a251f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Mon Mar 11 21:18:05 2019 +
PR libstdc++/71312
Hello Ramana,
Description for bug-89057:
--
This issue is occurs specifically with vcombine* method with optimization.
Assembly generated by vcombine* is less optimize. But individual
vcombine* method
can combining instruction properly and giving optimized output
I am testing the following patch for PR90278.
Bootstrap / regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Richard.
2019-04-29 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90278
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (pass_forwprop::execute): Transfer/clean
EH on comparison simplification.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 3:38 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> ...since it was only ever zero in practice. I wondered about making
> it a symbolic constant instead, but it didn't seem worth it when
> there was only one user (and that user was part of the internal
> tree-data-ref.c implementation).
...since it was only ever zero in practice. I wondered about making
it a symbolic constant instead, but it didn't seem worth it when
there was only one user (and that user was part of the internal
tree-data-ref.c implementation).
Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu. OK to install?
Richard
2019-04-29
On 29/04/19 13:13 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The standard only requires that _Size can be converted to an integral
type, not that it can be used for arithmetic. Add a new set of
__size_to_integer helper functions to do the conversion (which will be
ambiguous if there is no one
* include/bits/move.h (swap(T&, T&), swap(T (&)[N], T (&)[N])): Use
_GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT_IF to simplify declarations.
This just avoids having to repeat the name and parameter-list of the
functions.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk.
commit
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:54:31AM +0200, marxin wrote:
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2019-04-29 Martin Liska
>
> * profile-count.h (enum profile_quality): Use cappital letters
s/pp/p/
Jakub
The following fixes PR90273 where the testcase exhibits an excessive
number of debug stmts after the recent fixes to CFG cleanup to not
throw away debug stmts it cannot move but instead move and reset them.
This excessiveness causes compile-time and memory-usage to go through the
roof.
The fix
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: 29 April 2019 09:42
> To: Alejandro Martinez Vicente
> Cc: GCC Patches ; nd ; Richard
> Biener
> Subject: Re: [Aarch64][SVE] Dot product support
>
> Alejandro Martinez Vicente writes:
> > @@ -5885,6 +5885,56 @@
On 4/26/19 3:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:12 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 4/9/19 3:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi.
There's updated version that supports profile quality for both counts
and probabilities. I'm wondering whether ENTRY and EXIT BBs
We already added it to the std::vector primary template.
* include/bits/stl_bvector.h (vector::empty()): Add nodiscard
attribute.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 42dd15d09edbdafbeb068b9b2191e459b9df1b82
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Mon Apr 29 13:23:54
This class template has been unused since __gnu_debug::__base was
removed in r263786.
* include/bits/stl_iterator_base_types.h (_Iter_base): Remove unused
class template and partial specialization.
Tested x86_64-linux (normal and debug mode), committed to trunk.
commit
The standard only requires that _Size can be converted to an integral
type, not that it can be used for arithmetic. Add a new set of
__size_to_integer helper functions to do the conversion (which will be
ambiguous if there is no one conversion that is better than any others).
Also add tests for
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:13 AM bin.cheng wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the draft patch avoiding scaling cost overflow by introducing a
> scaling bound
> in IVOPTs. For now the bound is 20, and scaling factor will be further
> scaled wrto
> this bound. For example, scaling factor like 1, 1000,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:40 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 4/26/19 10:37 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > On 26 April 2019 14:07:20 CEST, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:26 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi.
> >>>
> >>> We do have vec<...>::is_empty
This turns {CLOBBER}s into resets, eliding an otherwise necessary
debug temp and the constructor copying.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Richard.
2019-04-29 Richard Biener
* tree-ssa.c (insert_debug_temp_for_var_def): For {CLOBBER}
rhs issue
noted, thanks :)
Best,
Nina
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 22:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 28/04/19 22:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >On 29/04/19 00:18 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> >>On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>>
> >>>On 24/04/19 11:21 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns
Hi.
Simple patch to address a missing translation of a string.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-29 Martin Liska
PR translation/90274
* opts.c (print_filtered_help): Wrap
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-29 Martin Liska
* profile-count.h: Do not use full qualified
names if possible.
* profile-count.c (profile_count::to_frequency): Likewise.
---
gcc/profile-count.c | 15 ++---
gcc/profile-count.h | 155
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-29 Martin Liska
* profile-count.h (enum profile_quality): Use cappital letters
for enum value names. Use the adjusted names.
* profile-count.c: Use the adjusted names.
---
gcc/profile-count.c | 38 +++
gcc/profile-count.h | 114
The patch makes couple of adjustements:
1) I changed enum values to use capital letters. It's aligned with
our coding style and it makes the code more readable. E.g.
profile_quality::profile_guessed_local
vs. static profile_probability guessed_always ()
2) I removed usage of fully
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-29 Martin Liska
* profile-count.c: Add vertical spacing in order
to separate functions.
* profile-count.h: Likewise.
---
gcc/profile-count.c | 25 +++---
gcc/profile-count.h | 51 +++--
2
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:18:15PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> I know it's very late in the GCC 9 release process, but I'm still
> catching up with OpenACC patch review, and just at the end of last week
> I'd noticed that this commit (trunk r261813):
I'd like to see full patch before
>>Before getting started with reviewing the patch , the first question
is whether you have a copyright assignment on file or does your
employer have one on record with the FSF ?
Ramana, We asked for copyright assignment form ,with details asked by
copyright-cl...@fsf.org(craig)
@ ass...@gnu.org.
On 4/26/19 11:05 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Then I'm very open to adjust that even for -Os to 'call strlen'.
That said, I'm suggesting following updated patch.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Thanks,
Martin
>From 435de2e8b88b2d9898901f2343e03102da367982 Mon
Hi Jakub!
I know it's very late in the GCC 9 release process, but I'm still
catching up with OpenACC patch review, and just at the end of last week
I'd noticed that this commit (trunk r261813):
On Fri, 25 May 2018 13:01:58 -0700, Cesar Philippidis
wrote:
> This patch updates GCC's to support
r270581 (git 70f448fa) changed BASE-VER to 10.0.0. But, gnat still
uses so version 9.
GCC assignment papers on file. I don't have write access.
2019-04-29 Michael K. Darling
* gnatvsn.ads: Bump Library_Version to 10.
Index: gcc/ada/gnatvsn.ads
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 06:11, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> On 27.04.19 14:08, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 12:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:26:15AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>> On 15.03.19 16:49, Robin Dapp wrote:
> during the last few
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:44 AM Jaydeep Chauhan
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> The attached patch (89057.patch) fixes the subjected issue.
> Please let me know your thoughts on the patch.
Thanks for your patch.
Before getting started with reviewing the patch , the first question
is whether you have a
> Robin, have you been testing with --disable-multilib or something
> similar?
yes, I believe so... stupid mistake :(
Thanks for fixing it so quickly.
Alejandro Martinez Vicente writes:
> @@ -5885,6 +5885,56 @@ is_nonwrapping_integer_induction (stmt_vec_info
> stmt_vinfo, struct loop *loop)
> <= TYPE_PRECISION (lhs_type));
> }
>
> +/* Check if masking can be supported by inserting a condional expression.
conditional
> + CODE is
On 4/26/19 10:37 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 26 April 2019 14:07:20 CEST, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:26 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> We do have vec<...>::is_empty function, but not for
>> hash_{table,map,set}.
>>> Would you mind adding the
Hi Richard,
This is the updated patch with your comments. In addition to that, I removed
vectype_in from the build_vect_cond_expr call, since it wasn't really necessary.
Alejandro
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: 26 April 2019 14:29
> To: Alejandro Martinez
On April 29, 2019 9:51:11 AM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>It's not obvious from the PR whether this is a regression, so I'm not
>sure whether it deserves to be backported or not. Just in case...
>
>Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, aarch64_be-elf and x86_64-linux-gnu.
>OK for gcc-8-branch
On 4/26/19 10:31 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 26 April 2019 16:08:19 CEST, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> The patch clarifies that gcc-patches mailing list allows up to 400kB
>>> size of an email.
>>
>> Thanks, yes.
>
> Maybe drop references to
Patches to fix two typos introduced between GCC 7 and GCC 8.
Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, aarch64_be-elf and x86_64-linux-gnu.
Committed as obvious for the first and preapproved (but also obvious)
for the second.
Richard
Fix POLY_INT_CST/CONST_POLY_INT typo (PR 89631)
2019-04-29 Richard
It's not obvious from the PR whether this is a regression, so I'm not
sure whether it deserves to be backported or not. Just in case...
Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, aarch64_be-elf and x86_64-linux-gnu.
OK for gcc-8-branch and gcc-7-branch? If not, should I close the PR?
Thanks,
Richard
The
On 4/27/19 6:12 AM, bin.cheng wrote:
> HI Martin, I remember you introduced comp_cost/cost_scaling to improve one
> case
> in spec2017. Unfortunately I don't have access to the benchmark now, could
> you help
> verify that if this patch has performance issue on it please? Thanks
Yes, it's
Hi All,
The attached patch (89057.patch) fixes the subjected issue.
Please let me know your thoughts on the patch.
Thanks,
Jaydeep.
89057.patch
Description: Binary data
76 matches
Mail list logo
