[pushed] c++: C++20 class NTTP trailing zero-init [PR100079]

2021-04-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
The new testcase was breaking because constexpr evaluation was simplifying Bar{Baz<42>{}} to Bar{empty}, but then we weren't treating them as equivalent. Poking at this revealed that the code for eliding trailing zero-initialization in class non-type template argument mangling was pretty broken,

Re: [PATCH] c++: ICE with bogus late return type [PR99803]

2021-04-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 4/15/21 10:02 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:31:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: On 4/14/21 9:21 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: Here we ICE when compiling this code in C++20, because we're trying to slam a 'typename' after the ->. The cp_parser_template_id call just before

Re: [PATCH] c++: ICE with bogus late return type [PR99803]

2021-04-15 Thread Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:31:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 4/14/21 9:21 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > Here we ICE when compiling this code in C++20, because we're trying to > > slam a 'typename' after the ->. The cp_parser_template_id call just > > before the spot I'm changing parsed

Re: [PATCH v10] Practical improvement to libgcc complex divide

2021-04-15 Thread Patrick McGehearty via Gcc-patches
- ping [A sincere and special thanks for the sustained perseverance of the reviewers in pointing me in the proper direction to get this patch polished. The original proposal was June 1, 2020 and only covered double precision. The current version is dramatically better, both from extending

Re: [PATCH] c++: Fix up handling of structured bindings in extract_locals_r [PR99833]

2021-04-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 4/14/21 3:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! The following testcase ICEs in tsubst_decomp_names because the assumptions that the structured binding artificial var is followed in DECL_CHAIN by the corresponding structured binding vars is violated. I've tracked it to extract_locals* which is done

[PATCH] PR fortran/63797 - Bogus ambiguous reference to 'sqrt'

2021-04-15 Thread Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
Hello everybody, we currently write the interface for intrinsic procedures to module files although that should not be necessary. (F2018:15.4.2.1 actually states that interfaces e.g. of intrinsic procedures are 'explicit'.) This lead to bogus errors due to an apparently bogus ambiguity. A simple

Committed: gcc.dg/pr84877.c: Xfail for cris-*-*

2021-04-15 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches
Unfortunately it appears that this PR is on nobody's radar. Xfailing it to get an arguably artificial zero regression state (since T0=2007-01-05) helps my autotester. Caveat: the pass/fail state of this test, as long as stack alignment isn't adjusted, is dependent on the alignment of the stack at

[pushed] c++: constexpr and volatile member function [PR80456]

2021-04-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
When calling a static member function we still need to evaluate an explicit object argument. But we don't want to force a load of the entire object if the argument is volatile, so we take its address. If as a result it no longer has any side-effects, we don't need to evaluate it after all.

Re: [PATCH] propagate attributes to local redeclaration (PR 99420)

2021-04-15 Thread Joseph Myers
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > There's another similar piece of code in pushdecl() that I didn't > touch, although I couldn't come up with a test case showing it's > necessary. Both hunks go back ages so I wonder if they might have > been obviated by other

[committed] add tests for Bug 89230

2021-04-15 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
The false positives have disappeared thanks to g:520d5ad337eaa15860a5a964daf7ca46cf31c029. I have added the two test cases in the attached diff in r11-8202 after testing on aarch64, arm, powerpc64le, and x86_64, out of an abundance of caution. Martin commit

Re: [PATCH] c++: partially initialized constexpr array [PR99699]

2021-04-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 4/15/21 3:51 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: Here, reduced_constant_expression_p is incorrectly returning true for a partially initialized array CONSTRUCTOR, because when the CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING flag is set the predicate doesn't check that every array element is initialized by the CONSTRUCTOR,

[PATCH] c++: partially initialized constexpr array [PR99699]

2021-04-15 Thread Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches
Here, reduced_constant_expression_p is incorrectly returning true for a partially initialized array CONSTRUCTOR, because when the CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING flag is set the predicate doesn't check that every array element is initialized by the CONSTRUCTOR, it just checks that every initializer within

Re: [PATCH] c++: Fix up C++23 [] <...> requires primary -> type {} parsing [PR99850]

2021-04-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 4/14/21 3:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The requires clause parsing has code to suggest users wrapping non-primary expressions in (), so if it e.g. parses a primary expression and sees it is followed by ++, --, ., ( or -> among other things it will try to reparse it as assignment expression or

Re: [PATCH] c++: ICE with bogus late return type [PR99803]

2021-04-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 4/14/21 9:21 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: Here we ICE when compiling this code in C++20, because we're trying to slam a 'typename' after the ->. The cp_parser_template_id call just before the spot I'm changing parsed A::template A as a BASELINK that contains a constructor, but make_typename_type

[pushed] c++: noexcept error recursion [PR100101]

2021-04-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
Here instantiating the noexcept-specifier for bar() means instantiating A::value, which complains about the conversion from 0 to int* in the default argument of foo. Since my patch for PR99583, printing the error context involves looking at C::type, which again wants to instantiate A::value,

Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix up 2 other combine opt regressions vs. GCC8 [PR100075]

2021-04-15 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 07:11:11PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Jakub Jelinek writes: > > --- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md.jj2021-04-15 10:45:02.798853095 > > +0200 > > +++ gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md 2021-04-15 13:28:04.734754364 +0200 > > @@ -3572,6 +3572,18 @@ (define_insn

Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100103 - Automatic reallocation fails inside select rank

2021-04-15 Thread José Rui Faustino de Sousa via Gcc-patches
Hi All! Proposed patch to: PR100103 - Automatic reallocation fails inside select rank Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Add select rank temporary associated names as possible targets of automatic reallocation. The patch depends on PR100097 and PR100098. Thank you very much. Best

Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix up 2 other combine opt regressions vs. GCC8 [PR100075]

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
Jakub Jelinek writes: > --- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md.jj 2021-04-15 10:45:02.798853095 +0200 > +++ gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md 2021-04-15 13:28:04.734754364 +0200 > @@ -3572,6 +3572,18 @@ (define_insn "*neg__si2_uxtw" >[(set_attr "autodetect_type" "alu_shift__op2")] > ) > >

Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics

2021-04-15 Thread Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:51 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:34 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:26 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:14 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:11 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > >

[PATCH] testsuite: Enable zero-scratch-regs-{8,9,10,11}.c on s390*

2021-04-15 Thread Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches
On s390* the only missing part for the mentioned testcases was a load of a double floating-point zero via a move (in particular for quite old machines) which was added in commit 46c47420a5fefd4d9d02b0db347235dd74e20fb2. Common code implementation is sufficient in order to clear volatile GPRs,

Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Avoid duplicating bti j insns for jump tables [PR99988]

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
Looks good in general, but like you say, it's GCC 12 material. Alex Coplan writes: > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-bti-insert.c > b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-bti-insert.c > index 936649769c7..943fa3c1097 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-bti-insert.c > +++

Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics

2021-04-15 Thread H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:53 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:51 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:34 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:26 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:14 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] openacc: Add support for gang local storage allocation in shared memory

2021-04-15 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On 2021-02-26T04:34:50-0800, Julian Brown wrote: > This patch Thanks, Julian, for your continued improving of these changes! This has iterated through several conceptually different designs and implementations, by several people, over the past several years. It's now been made my task to

Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics

2021-04-15 Thread Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:51 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:34 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:26 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:14 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:11 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > >

[PATCH v2] x86: Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics

2021-04-15 Thread H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:34 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:26 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:14 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:11 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > > > > > Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics to support

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Add -latomic to test flags for 32-bit sparc-linux

2021-04-15 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On 15/04/21 18:23 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: Without this I see a number of tests failing when -m32 is used. libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: * testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp (add_options_for_libatomic): Also add libatomic options for 32-bit sparc*-*-linux-gnu. Eric, are you OK with

[pushed] c++: lambda in default type template-argument [PR100091]

2021-04-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
My patch for 99478 relied on local_variables_forbidden_p for distinguishing between a template parameter and its default argument, but that flag wasn't set for a default type template-argument. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/100091 PR

Re: [PATCH] x86: Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics

2021-04-15 Thread Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:26 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:14 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:11 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > > > Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics to support CRC32 intrinsics > > > without enabling SSE vector instructions. > > >

Re: [PATCH] x86: Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics

2021-04-15 Thread H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:14 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:11 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics to support CRC32 intrinsics > > without enabling SSE vector instructions. > > There is no CRC32 ISA. crc32 is part of SSE4.2 [1] and current

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Add -latomic to test flags for 32-bit sparc-linux

2021-04-15 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Without this I see a number of tests failing when -m32 is used. > > libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: > > * testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp (add_options_for_libatomic): Also > add libatomic options for 32-bit sparc*-*-linux-gnu. > > Eric, are you OK with this? It adds -latomic and the

Re: [PATCH] Deprecate gimple-builder.h API

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Biener
On April 15, 2021 6:08:44 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote: >On 4/15/21 5:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> This adds a deprecation note to the undocumented gimple-builder.h >> API only used by asan and sancov. >> >> Pushed. >> >> 2021-04-15 Richard Biener >> >> * gimple-builder.h: Add

Re: [PATCH] x86: Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics

2021-04-15 Thread Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:11 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics to support CRC32 intrinsics > without enabling SSE vector instructions. There is no CRC32 ISA. crc32 is part of SSE4.2 [1] and current situation reflects that correctly. [1]

[committed] libstdc++: Move atomic functions to libsupc++ [PR 96657]

2021-04-15 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
The changes for PR libstdc++/64735 mean that libsupc++ function might now depend on the __exchange_and_add and __atomic_add functions defined in config/cpu/*/atomicity.h which is not compiled into libsupc++. This causes a link failure for some targets when trying to use libsupc++ without the rest

Re: [PATCH] Deprecate gimple-builder.h API

2021-04-15 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 4/15/21 5:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote: This adds a deprecation note to the undocumented gimple-builder.h API only used by asan and sancov. Pushed. 2021-04-15 Richard Biener * gimple-builder.h: Add deprecation note. --- gcc/gimple-builder.h | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2

[PATCH 2/2] Add IEEE 128-bit fp conditional move on PowerPC.

2021-04-15 Thread Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches
[PATCH 2/2] Add IEEE 128-bit fp conditional move on PowerPC. This patch adds the support for power10 IEEE 128-bit floating point conditional move and for automatically generating min/max. In this patch, I simplified things. Instead of allowing any four of the modes to be used for the

[PATCH] libstdc++: Add -latomic to test flags for 32-bit sparc-linux

2021-04-15 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
Without this I see a number of tests failing when -m32 is used. libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: * testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp (add_options_for_libatomic): Also add libatomic options for 32-bit sparc*-*-linux-gnu. Eric, are you OK with this? It adds -latomic and the appropriate -L

[PATCH 1/2] Add IEEE 128-bit min/max support on PowerPC.

2021-04-15 Thread Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches
[PATCH 1/2] Add IEEE 128-bit min/max support on PowerPC. This patch adds the support for the IEEE 128-bit floating point C minimum and maximum instructions. The next patch will add the support for using the compare and set mask instruction to implement conditional moves. I removed the

[PATCH 0/2] Add IEEE 128-bit min/max/conditional move

2021-04-15 Thread Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches
These patches add support for the XSMAXCQP, XSMINCQP, XSCMPEQQP, XSCMPGTQP, and XSCMPGEQP instructions that were added to the PowerPC ISA 3.1 (power10). These patches address the comments raised from the last version of the patches. In this iteration, I simplified the first patch, eliminating a

[PATCH] testsuite: Move gimplefe40.c and gimplefe41.c

2021-04-15 Thread Robin Dapp via Gcc-patches
Hi, the gimplefe40 and gimplefe41.c tests expect vector capabilities (vect_float etc.) yet are not in the vect subdirectory. This causes both to be called unconditionally without prior target-specific vector setup normally performed by vect/vect.exp. There is a target-specific option for

[PATCH] aarch64: Fix up 2 other combine opt regressions vs. GCC8 [PR100075]

2021-04-15 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
Hi! The testcase used to be compiled at -O2 by GCC8 and earlier to: f1: neg w1, w0, asr 16 and w1, w1, 65535 orr w0, w1, w0, lsl 16 ret f2: neg w1, w0 extrw0, w1, w0, 16 ret but since GCC9 (r9-3594 for f1 and r9-6926 for

Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100097 PR fortran/100098 - [Unlimited] polymorphic pointers and allocatables have incorrect rank

2021-04-15 Thread José Rui Faustino de Sousa via Gcc-patches
Hi All! Proposed patch to: PR100097 - Unlimited polymorphic pointers and allocatables have incorrect rank PR100098 - Polymorphic pointers and allocatables have incorrect rank Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Pointers, and allocatables, must carry TKR information even when

[committed] Make SVE ACLE tests work with --with-cpu

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
This patch follows on from a previous one and adds -mtune=generic to the SVE ACLE assembler tests. These tests are pure assembly tests (execution tests are elsewhere) and they already require dg-additional-options to be used to add new options. We therefore don't need

[committed] Make SVE tests work with --with-cpu

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
A lot of the SVE assembly tests are for generic-tuned SVE codegen and so can fail when run on a toolchain configured with --with-cpu. This could easily be solved by forcing -mtune=generic, like we already do for -moverride=tune=none. However, the testsuite also has some useful execution tests

[PATCH] x86: Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics

2021-04-15 Thread H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
Use crc32 target option for CRC32 intrinsics to support CRC32 intrinsics without enabling SSE vector instructions. * config/i386/gnu-property.c (file_end_indicate_exec_stack_and_gnu_property): Also check TARGET_CRC32 for GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_V2. *

[PATCH] arm: Fix ICEs with compare-and-swap and -march=armv8-m.base [PR99977]

2021-04-15 Thread Alex Coplan via Gcc-patches
Hi all, The PR shows two ICEs with __sync_bool_compare_and_swap and -mcpu=cortex-m23 (equivalently, -march=armv8-m.base): one in LRA and one later on, after the CAS insn is split. The LRA ICE occurs because the @atomic_compare_and_swap_1 pattern attempts to tie two output operands together

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Fix unroll-and-jam.c on IBM Z

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:51 PM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches wrote: > > For z10 and newer inner loops are completely unrolled which leaves no > inner loops to jam which renders this testcase to fail. Reverting > max-completely-peel-times to the default value fixes this testcase. >

Re: [pushed] c++: debug location of variable cleanups [PR88742]

2021-04-15 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
Hi, On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 02:20, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote: > > PR49951 complained about the debugger jumping back to the declaration of a > local variable when we run its destructor. That was fixed in 4.7, but broke > again in 4.8. PR58123 fixed an inconsistency in the behavior,

[PATCH][pushed] docs: remove itemx for a param

2021-04-15 Thread Martin Liška
gcc/ChangeLog: * doc/invoke.texi: Other params don't use it, remove it. --- gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi index 17551246477..096cebc8562 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi @@

Re: [PATCH] [libstdc++] Refactor/cleanup of atomic wait implementation

2021-04-15 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On 23/03/21 12:00 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote: From: Thomas Rodgers * This patch addresses jwakely's previous feedback. * This patch also subsumes thiago.macie...@intel.com 's 'Uncontroversial If this part is intended as part of the commit msg let's put Thiago's name rather than email

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100094 - Undefined pointers have incorrect rank when using optimization

2021-04-15 Thread Tobias Burnus
On 15.04.21 13:56, José Rui Faustino de Sousa via Gcc-patches wrote: Proposed patch to: PR100094 - Undefined pointers have incorrect rank when using optimization Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. LGTM - thanks! Tobias Pointers, and allocatables, must carry TKR information even when

Re: [committed] gimple UIDs, LTO and -fanalyzer [PR98599]

2021-04-15 Thread David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 11:45 +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > this is patch fixing the underlying issue of function missing > lto_prepare_function_for_streaming because gimple_has_body_p is not > the > same thing as node.has_gimple_body (which needs to be clarified next > stage1 by finding better

P1 patch ping

2021-04-15 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
Hi! I'd like to ping this patch, it is one of the last 4 P1s we have for GCC11. Thanks. On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:15:42PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > PR c/99420 - bogus -Warray-parameter on a function redeclaration in function > scope > PR c/99972 - missing -Wunused-result on

[committed] testsuite: enable pr86058.c also on i?86-*-* [PR100073]

2021-04-15 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 07:50:37PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:49:42AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Apparently the IL GCC emits on some targets (arm and aarach64 with > > mabi=ilp32, and powerpc64 to name the three where the failures have > > been

[PATCH] testsuite: Fix unroll-and-jam.c on IBM Z

2021-04-15 Thread Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches
For z10 and newer inner loops are completely unrolled which leaves no inner loops to jam which renders this testcase to fail. Reverting max-completely-peel-times to the default value fixes this testcase. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c: Revert

Re: [Patch, fortran] 99307 - FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_assign_4.f90 execution test

2021-04-15 Thread Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches
Pushed to master in commit 9a0e09f3dd5339bb18cc47317f2298d9157ced29 Thanks Paul On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 14:51, Tobias Burnus wrote: > On 11.04.21 09:05, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > > Tobias noticed a major technical fault with the resubmission below: I > > forgot to attach the patch :-( > >

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100094 - Undefined pointers have incorrect rank when using optimization

2021-04-15 Thread José Rui Faustino de Sousa via Gcc-patches
Hi All! Proposed patch to: PR100094 - Undefined pointers have incorrect rank when using optimization Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Pointers, and allocatables, must carry TKR information even when undefined. The patch adds code to initialize both pointers and allocatables element

Re: [RFC] Run pass_sink_code once more after ivopts/fre

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote: > Thanks, > > On 2021/4/14 14:41, Richard Biener wrote: > >> "#538,#235,#234,#233" will all be sunk from bb 35 to bb 37 by rtl-sink, > >> but it moves #538 first, then #235, there is strong dependency here. It > >> seemsdoesn't like the LCM framework that

[PATCH] Remove gimplify_buildN API use from complex lowering

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Biener
This removes the legacy gimplify_buildN API use from complex lowering. Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress, queued for stage1 2021-04-15 Richard Biener * tree-complex.c: Include gimple-fold.h. (expand_complex_addition): Use gimple_build.

[PATCH] Remove gimplify_buildN API use from phiopt

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Biener
This removes use of the legacy gimplify_buildN API from phiopt. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, queued for stage1 2021-04-15 Richard Biener * tree-ssa-phiopt.c (two_value_replacement): Remove use of legacy gimplify_buildN API. --- gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.c |

[PATCH] Deprecate gimple-builder.h API

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Biener
This adds a deprecation note to the undocumented gimple-builder.h API only used by asan and sancov. Pushed. 2021-04-15 Richard Biener * gimple-builder.h: Add deprecation note. --- gcc/gimple-builder.h | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/gimple-builder.h

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/84006, PR fortran/100027 - ICE on storage_size with polymorphic argument

2021-04-15 Thread Tobias Burnus
Hi José, first, I think you did not yet commit the approved patch for PR100018, did you? On 11.04.21 02:34, José Rui Faustino de Sousa via Fortran wrote: Proposed patch to: PR84006 - [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in storage_size() with CLASS entity PR100027 - ICE on storage_size with polymorphic

Re: [committed] gimple UIDs, LTO and -fanalyzer [PR98599]

2021-04-15 Thread Jan Hubicka
Hi, this is patch fixing the underlying issue of function missing lto_prepare_function_for_streaming because gimple_has_body_p is not the same thing as node.has_gimple_body (which needs to be clarified next stage1 by finding better names for this I suppose). I commited it to gcc 11 even though we

Re: [WIP] Re: [PATCH] openmp: Fix intermittent hanging of task-detach-6 libgomp tests [PR98738]

2021-04-15 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On 2021-04-09T13:00:39+0200, I wrote: > On 2021-03-25T12:02:15+0100, I wrote: >> On 2021-03-11T17:52:55+0100, I wrote: >>> On 2021-02-23T22:52:38+0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches >>> wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:43:51PM +, Kwok Cheung Yeung wrote: > On 19/02/2021 7:12

Re: [PATCH] [GCC-9] backport -march=tigerlake to GCC9 [PR target/100009]

2021-04-15 Thread Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:30 AM Hongtao Liu wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 6:38 PM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 12:18 PM Hongtao Liu wrote: > > > > > > Hi: > > > As described in PR, we introduced tigerlake string in driver-i386.c > > > by r9-8652 w/o support

Re: [PATCH V6 2/7] dwarf: new dwarf_debuginfo_p predicate

2021-04-15 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:07 PM Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This patch introduces a dwarf_debuginfo_p predicate that abstracts and > replaces complex checks on write_symbols. OK once stage1 opens (can be pushed independently of the rest). Richard. > 2021-04-14 Indu Bhagat >

Re: [RFC] Run pass_sink_code once more after ivopts/fre

2021-04-15 Thread Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches
Thanks, On 2021/4/14 14:41, Richard Biener wrote: >> "#538,#235,#234,#233" will all be sunk from bb 35 to bb 37 by rtl-sink, >> but it moves #538 first, then #235, there is strong dependency here. It >> seemsdoesn't like the LCM framework that could solve all and do the >> delete-insert in one