On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 4:19 PM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 6:29 AM liuhongt via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > For neg, the patch create a vec_init as [ a, -a, a, -a, ... ] and no
> > vec_step is needed to update vectorized iv since vf is always multiple
> >
On Linux/x86_64,
075683767abe15b936ad41792da6ee71e9eda449 is the first bad commit
commit 075683767abe15b936ad41792da6ee71e9eda449
Author: Ulrich Drepper
Date: Thu Aug 4 13:18:05 2022 +0200
Adjust index number of tuple pretty printer
caused
FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/48362.cc print
在 2022/8/5 上午11:45, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 11:34 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
Or maybe we should just use a PC-relative addressing with 4 instructions
instead of GOT for -fno-PIC?
Not possible, Glibc does not support R_LARCH_PCALA* relocations in
ld.so. So we still
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 11:34 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Or maybe we should just use a PC-relative addressing with 4 instructions
> instead of GOT for -fno-PIC?
Not possible, Glibc does not support R_LARCH_PCALA* relocations in
ld.so. So we still need a -mno-got (or something)
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 10:51 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > If it is accessed through the GOT table, dynamic relocation is required
> > when the module is loaded.
>
> Dynamic relocation is required when the module is loaded anyway. The
> .ko modules are actually relocatable ELF
On Aug 3, 2022, Eric Gallager wrote:
> OK, after reviewing the surrounding code, I think it makes sense; do
> you want to commit it, or should I?
Please proceed, if you have the cycles to give it a round of meaningful
testing (as in, including reconfigure with configure-generated as, and
also
Hi Segher,
Thanks so much for your explanation. Now I have a clear picture about
the usage of return value. Patch was committed as r13-1971.
Thanks
Gui Haochen
On 5/8/2022 上午 1:09, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 05:55:20PM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
>> This
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 10:38 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote:
> > > I'm working on the implementation of specifing attributes of variables
> > > for other architectures.
> > > If the address is obtained through the GOT table and 4 instructions,
> > > there is not much difference in performance.
> > In
From: Andrew Pinski
The problem here was a disconnect between splittable_const_int_operand
predicate and the function riscv_build_integer_1 for 32bits with zbs enabled.
The splittable_const_int_operand predicate had a check for TARGET_64BIT which
was not needed so this patch removed it.
在 2022/8/5 上午9:28, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 09:05 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote:
I'm working on the implementation of specifing attributes of variables for
other architectures.
If the address is obtained through the GOT table and 4 instructions, there is
not much difference in
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 09:05 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote:
> I'm working on the implementation of specifing attributes of variables for
> other architectures.
> If the address is obtained through the GOT table and 4 instructions, there is
> not much difference in performance.
In this case I still
Hi people!
First of all, a bit of context.
It is common for C BPF programs to use variables that are implicitly set
by the underlying BPF machinery and not by the program itself. It is
also necessary for these variables to be stored in read-only storage so
the BPF verifier recognizes them as
I'm working on the implementation of specifing attributes of variables
for other architectures. If the address is obtained through the GOT
table and 4 instructions, there is not much difference in performance.
Is it more reasonable for us to refer to the implementation of the model
attribute
This an old patch I had prepared a long time ago, I don't think I ever
submitted it.
libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Do not consider detached iterators as
value-initialized
An attach iterator has its _M_version set to something != 0. This
value shall be preserved
when detaching it
ChangeLog:
* MAINTAINERS: Add myself as AutoFDO maintainer.
---
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 1a37f4419b9..02ced0c43aa 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -239,6 +239,7 @@ tree-ssa
Gentle reminder.
On 13/07/22 19:26, François Dumont wrote:
libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Add backtrace generation on demand
Add _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE macro to activate backtrace generation
on _GLIBCXX_DEBUG assertions. Prerequisite is to have configure the
lib with:
Hi there,
I'm a member of the content team at ATI Restoration, a disaster recovery
firm. I have a connection that works with a number of related
organizations, and they mentioned that you might be open to publishing
submitted articles. Is this true, and if so, what are the guidelines?
Thank
In my previous patches I've been extending our std::move warnings,
but this tweak actually dials it down a little bit. As reported in
bug 89780, it's questionable to warn about expressions in templates
that were type-dependent, but aren't anymore because we're instantiating
the template. As in,
Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
The P2499R0 paper was recently approved for C++23.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/std/string_view (basic_string_view(Range&&)): Add
explicit as per P2499R0.
*
Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
This library defect was recently approved for C++23.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/fs_dir.h (directory_iterator): Add comparison
with std::default_sentinel_t. Remove redundant operator!= for
C++20.
*
compute_ranges_in_block loops over all the imports, and checks to see if
each one is exported, then calculated an outgoing range for those that are.
The outer loop loops over the import list, whereas the export list is
usually smaller, and empty half the time. This means we were doing a
lot
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 11:17:48AM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 上午 12:54, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Hrm. But the maddld insn is useful for SImode as well, in 32-bit mode,
> > it is just its name that is a bit confusing then. Sorry for confusing
> > things :-(
> >
> > Add a
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 05:55:20PM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> This patch corrects return value of check_p9modulo_hw_available. It should
> return 0 when p9modulo is supported.
It would be harder to make such mistakes if it used exit() explicitly,
so that the reader is reminded the shell
Had an error compiling tiny-cuda-nn using gcc 12.1. With this minor
patch, I recompiled and the build succeeded.
No behavioral change.
---
libstdc++-v3/include/bits/locale_facets_nonio.tcc | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
Just a follow up trying to get some eyes on my static-pie patch
submission for arm.
Feedback welcome.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598610.html
thanks,
Lance Fredrickson
Are there any further concerns with this patch? If not, I extend my
gratitude to anyone so kind as to commit this for me as I don't have
commit access.
I just noticed that I neglected to add a ChangeLog entry for the comment
addition to gcc/cp/parser.cc. Noted inline below. I can re-send the
> On Aug 4, 2022, at 9:17 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>
> On 2022/6/28 10:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:47:59PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> with the way that chunk_size < 1 is handled for gomp_iter_dynamic_next:
>>>
>>> (1) chunk_size <= -1: wraps into large
On 2022/6/28 10:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:47:59PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
with the way that chunk_size < 1 is handled for gomp_iter_dynamic_next:
(1) chunk_size <= -1: wraps into large unsigned value, seems to work though.
(2) chunk_size == 0: infinite loop
On 22/07/2022 15:02, Sebastian Huber wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* gcc.cc (SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC): Define if not defined.
(CC1_SPEC): Define to SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC.
* config/arm/arm.h (CC1_SPEC): Remove.
* config/arc/arc.h (CC1_SPEC): Append SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC.
*
On Thu, 4 Aug 2022, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The failures on -m32 on x86 show that the checks at the top level in
> tree_ssa_phiopt_worker aren't enough for diamond_p.
>
> In minmax_replacement we perform the additional validation of the shape but by
> then it's too late to catch
(sorry repost due to the lack of cc here)
Hi!
On 2022/08/04 18:49, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Takayuki 'January June' Suwa writes:
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>> On 2022/08/03 16:52, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Takayuki 'January June' Suwa via Gcc-patches
>>> writes:
Emitting
Hello,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > .optimized dump shows:
> >_1 = ABS_EXPR ;
> >_3 = _1 & 1;
> >return _3;
> >
> > altho combine simplifies it to x & 1 on RTL, resulting in code-gen:
> > f1:
> > and w0, w0, 1
> > ret
> Doesn't the
Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
The P2549R1 paper was accepted for C++23. I already implemented it for
our , but I didn't rename the private daata members, only the
public member functions. This renames the data members for consistency
with the working draft.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
My P2467R1 proposal was accepted for C++23 so there's an official value
for this macro now.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/ios_base.h (__cpp_lib_ios_noreplace): Update
value to 202207L.
* include/std/version
Tested x86_64-linux, powerpc64le-linux and sparc-solaris2.11, pushed to trunk.
We want this on the gcc-12 and gcc-11 branches too.
-- >8 --
When using a mutex and condition variable, the notifying thread needs to
increment _M_ver while holding the mutex lock, and the waiting thread
needs to
Hi All,
The failures on -m32 on x86 show that the checks at the top level in
tree_ssa_phiopt_worker aren't enough for diamond_p.
In minmax_replacement we perform the additional validation of the shape but by
then it's too late to catch these case.
This patch changes it so we check that for a
Hi Haochen,
on 2022/8/4 17:55, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch corrects return value of check_p9modulo_hw_available. It should
> return 0 when p9modulo is supported.
Good catch! There is no case using p9modulo_hw for now, no coverage, sigh...
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on
CC gcc-patches
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 17:40, Ulrich Drepper via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> The current tuple pretty printer shows for this variable
>
> std::tuple a{1,2,3};
>
> the following output:
>
> (gdb) p a
> $1 = std::tuple containing = {[1] = 1, [2] = 2, [3] = 3}
>
> I find this quite
The LC SSA rewrite performs SSA verification at start but the VN
run performed on the unrolled-and-jammed body can leave us with
invalid SSA form until CFG cleanup is run. So make sure we do that
before rewriting into LC SSA.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Richard Biener writes:
>> +/* Create vector init for vectorized iv. */
>> +static tree
>> +vect_create_nonlinear_iv_init (gimple_seq* stmts, tree init_expr,
>> + tree step_expr, poly_uint64 nunits,
>> + tree vectype,
>> +
Hi,
This patch corrects return value of check_p9modulo_hw_available. It should
return 0 when p9modulo is supported.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-linux BE and LE with no regressions.
Is this okay for trunk? Any recommendations? Thanks a lot.
ChangeLog
2022-08-04 Haochen Gui
Takayuki 'January June' Suwa writes:
> Thanks for your response.
>
> On 2022/08/03 16:52, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Takayuki 'January June' Suwa via Gcc-patches
>> writes:
>>> Emitting "(clobber (reg X))" before "(set (subreg (reg X)) (...))" keeps
>>> data flow consistent, but it also
Jeff Law via Gcc-patches writes:
> On 8/3/2022 1:52 AM, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Takayuki 'January June' Suwa via Gcc-patches
>> writes:
>>> Emitting "(clobber (reg X))" before "(set (subreg (reg X)) (...))" keeps
>>> data flow consistent, but it also increases register
On Thu, 4 Aug 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:15 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:53 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've tried to understand how the greedy search works seeing the
> >
On 04/08/2022 09:43, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 02/08/2022 09:58, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
>> Based on this established terminology I can think of a few good candidates:
>>
>> condition outcomes covered n/m
>> outcomes covered n/m
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Both are fine, but I would prefer
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Currently SLP tries to force permute operations "down" the graph
>> from loads in the hope of reducing the total number of permutes
>> needed or (in the best case) removing the need for the permutes
>> entirely. This
After a long time, GNU make has finally implemented named pipes when
it comes to --jobserver-auth. The traditional approach are
provided opened file descriptors that causes troubles:
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?57242
GNU make commit:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 6:29 AM liuhongt via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> For neg, the patch create a vec_init as [ a, -a, a, -a, ... ] and no
> vec_step is needed to update vectorized iv since vf is always multiple
> of 2(negative * negative is positive).
>
> For shift, the patch create a vec_init as
On Wed, 2022-08-03 at 11:10 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > I'd like to wait for the kernel team to test the performance data of
> > the two implementations before deciding whether to support this
> > attribute.
> >
> > What do you think？
>
> Perhaps, I can't access my dev system
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:15 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:53 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > I've tried to understand how the greedy search works seeing the
> > > bitmap dances and the split into resolve_phi. I've
On 02/08/2022 09:58, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
Based on this established terminology I can think of a few good candidates:
condition outcomes covered n/m
outcomes covered n/m
What do you think?
Both are fine, but I would prefer "condition outcomes covered n/m".
--
embedded brains GmbH
Herr
Rather obvious fix and similar to PR106449.
OK for mainline and backporting (how far?). I would like to backport it
at least to GCC 12.
Tobias
-
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung;
On Thu, 4 Aug 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:53 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > I've tried to understand how the greedy search works seeing the
> > bitmap dances and the split into resolve_phi. I've summarized
> > the intent of the algorithm as
> >
> > // For
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 12:40 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/3/2022 2:44 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 at 00:41, Sam Feifer via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >> This patch adds a new optimization to match.pd. The pattern, -x & 1,
> >> now gets
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:53 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I've tried to understand how the greedy search works seeing the
> bitmap dances and the split into resolve_phi. I've summarized
> the intent of the algorithm as
>
> // For further greedy searching we want to remove interesting
>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:11 PM Sam Feifer via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This patch adds a new optimization to match.pd. The pattern, -x & 1,
> now gets simplified to x & 1, reducing the number of instructions
> produced.
>
> This patch also adds tests for the optimization rule.
>
>
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 8:43 AM
> > To: Tamar Christina
> > Cc: Richard Sandiford ; Richard Biener via Gcc-
> > patches ; Richard Guenther
> > ; nd
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH
57 matches
Mail list logo
