Re: [C++ coroutines 7/7] libiberty demangler update.

Iain Sandoe writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> Iain Sandoe writes: > >>> 2020-01-09 Iain Sandoe >>> >>> * cp-demangle.c (cplus_demangle_operators): Add the co_await >>> operator. >> >> Please add something to libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected. Thanks. > > done***, > OK

[PATCH] Decrease cortexa57_extra_costs's alu.shift_reg

From: Andrew Pinski Like I mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2020-01/msg00157.html, The shift by a register should be just COSTS_N_INSNS (1) rather than COSTS_N_INSNS (2). This allows lshift_cheap_p to return true now and converting switches to be using shift and other like structures. I

[PATCHv2] Add initial octeontx2 support.

From: Andrew Pinski This adds octeontx2 naming. It currently uses the cortexa57 cost model and schedule model until I submit this. This is more a place holder to get the naming of the cores in GCC 10. I will submit the cost model in the next couple of days. OK? Bootstrapped and tested on

Re: [PATCH] PR90838: Support ctz idioms

Hi! On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:35:04PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 02:26:10PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > >> + tree lhs = gimple_assign_lhs (stmt); > > > >> + bool zero_ok = CTZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO (TYPE_MODE (type), > > > >> val); > > > > > > > >

Re: [committed] Unbreak bootstrap on most targets (was Re: [PATCH] PR90838: Support ctz idioms)

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 05:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c: In function 'bool > simplify_count_trailing_zeroes(gimple_stmt_iterator*)': > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c:1925:23: error: variable 'mode' set but not > used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable] >

Re: [committed] Unbreak bootstrap on most targets (was Re: [PATCH] PR90838: Support ctz idioms)

../../gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c: In function 'bool simplify_count_trailing_zeroes(gimple_stmt_iterator*)': ../../gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c:1925:23: error: variable 'mode' set but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable] 1925 | scalar_int_mode mode = SCALAR_INT_TYPE_MODE (type); |

Re: [wwwdocs] Git transition - how to access private user and vendor branches

On 11/01/2020 15:41, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi Richard, > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 04:50:03PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> Given the proposed intention to use non-standard refspecs for private >> and vendor branches I've written some notes on how to use these. >> >> It would

Re: [wwwdocs] Git transition - how to access private user and vendor branches

Hi Richard, On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 04:50:03PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > Given the proposed intention to use non-standard refspecs for private > and vendor branches I've written some notes on how to use these. > > It would be helpful if someone could do some experiments to ensure

[C++ coroutines 7/7] libiberty demangler update.

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Iain Sandoe writes: >> 2020-01-09 Iain Sandoe >> >> * cp-demangle.c (cplus_demangle_operators): Add the co_await >> operator. > > Please add something to libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected. Thanks. done***, OK now? thanks Iain *** it seems that

[wwwdocs] lists.html - Avoid two references to a concrete version control system (SVN here).

Already when we converted from CVS to SVN aeons ago did I work to reduce references to a concrete system. These are two further instances, now that we are moving to GIT. Committed. Gerald - Log - commit

RE: [PATCH] Add Optimization for various IPA parameters.

Hi Martin, This change (r280099) is causing a major performance regression on exchange2 in SPEC2017 dropping the benchmark by more than 30%. It seems the parameters no longer do anything. i.e. -flto --param ipa-cp-eval-threshold=1 --param ipa-cp-unit-growth=80 doesn't have any effect anymore.

Re: [PATCH] Add initial octeontx2 support.

writes: > From: Andrew Pinski > > This adds octeontx2 naming. It currently uses the cortexa57 > cost model and schedule model until I submit this. This is > more a place holder to get the naming of the cores in GCC 10. > I will submit the cost model in the next couple of days. > > OK?