.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (power 8 and
power 9) and powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu (power 7 and power 8) with
no regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
2019-02-04 Bill Seurer
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6.p7.c: Update
instruction
h will also match OPCODE.). I meant to ask if
that was actually useful as they always matched the same thing either way.
I will do the updates you recommended. Should I post the updated diffs
or is this enough to submit the patch?
--
-Bill Seurer
.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (power 8 and
power 9) and powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu (power 7 and power 8) with
no regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
2019-02-04 Bill Seurer
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6.p7.c: Update
instruction
. Is this ok for trunk?
2018-11-08 Bill Seurer
* libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc (CheckASLR):
Disable ASLR for powerpc64 when using sanitizers.
Index: libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc
On 10/29/18 10:26, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Bill Seurer wrote:
Just for the record: am I right that any system using 44 bit of VMA will
fail because
anything + (1 << 44) will be out of process address space?
Yes.
And I noticed that documentation in sanitizer_li
ed. Finally we just went with a value
that worked on the newer kernels as the 44 bit one was not a target of
concern.
--
-Bill Seurer
s
well.
CCing Bill as he made this change.
Jakub
At the time for llvm the concern was to get it to work on newer kernels
and not worry (much) about the older ones. I did spend some time trying
to get it to work for both.
--
-Bill Seurer
2018-10-03 Bill Seurer
PR target/87486
* gcc.target/powerpc/undef-bool-2.c: Fix expected error output.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/undef-bool-2.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/undef-bool-2.c
.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu and
powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
2018-04-17 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
PR sanitizer/85389
* asan/asan_allocator.h: Switch to use dynamic base for the all
On 01/12/2018 11:23 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:36:53PM -0600, Bill Seurer wrote:
[PATCH, rs6000] pr58684, pr83759 Disable test cases that fail on powerpc64.
This patch disables a few test cases on powerpc64 that fail after r256380
due to a longstanding issue
On 01/11/2018 02:20 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Bill Seurer wrote:
PR sanitizer/65479
Wrong bug number.
+/* { dg-skip-if "remove this when pr58684 is fixed" { powerpc64*-*-* } } */
As previously noted, testing powerpc64 like that in tests is always wron
.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu and
powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
2018-01-11 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
PR sanitizer/65479
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-1.c: Add dg-skip.
* gcc/tes
ting with 248472.
--
-Bill Seurer
(const, volatile, etc.) types.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482 for more information.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu and
powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2017-04-24 Bill Seurer <
On 01/06/2017 01:48 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 01:21:40PM -0600, Bill Seurer wrote:
(backport from trunk to gcc 6)
This patch adds the -fasynchronous-unwind-tables option to compilations when
the -fsanitize=address option is seen but not if any
-fasynchronous-unwind
and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu,
powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu, and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2017-01-05 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
PR sanitizer/65479
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_option_override_in
?id=65479 for more information.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu,
powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu, and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2016-12-21 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
PR sanitizer/65479
* config/
with no regressions.
Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2016-12-06 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
PR sanitizer/65479
* gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: Add -fasynchronous-unwind-tables option
when
-fsanitize=address is specified.
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs
On 10/14/2016 04:59 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:37:42PM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
[PATCH, rs6000] pr65479 Add option to fix failing asan test cases.
This patch adds the -fasynchronous-unwind-tables option to several of the asan
test cases. The option causes a full
.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479 for more information.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu,
powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu, and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc/testsuite]
2016-10-14 Bill Seurer <
ound, but please can you wrap references to
SHF_ARM_PURECODE in the documentation with @code{...}.
OK with that change.
R.
Done. Committed as revision r240379.
--
-Bill Seurer
macros were used so that the same
test case could be used for all the various supported types.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu and
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2016-06-07 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.
On 05/25/16 14:50, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
This patch adds support for the vec_cmpne altivec builtins from the Power
Architecture 64-Bit ELF V2 ABI OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement (16 July
2015 Version 1.1). There are many
on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (power8) and
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu (both power7 and power8) with no regressions. Is
this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2016-05-25 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* config/rs6000/altivec.h (vec_cmpne): Add #define for vec_cmpne.
* config/
the test cases
and in rs6000-c.c.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (on both
power7 and power8) and powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu (power8) with no
regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2016-05-20 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* config/rs6000/rs60
.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu and
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2016-05-19 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (vec_addec): Change vec_addec to a
special case b
and
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2016-05-06 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (vec_addec): Change vec_addec to a
special case builtin.
* config/rs6000/rs60
Segher pointed out a few formatting issues via IRC which I have fixed.
On 04/13/16 09:47, Bill Seurer wrote:
Here is an updated patch:
This patch adds support for the signed and unsigned int versions of the
vec_adde altivec builtins from the Power Architecture 64-Bit ELF V2 ABI
OpenPOWER ABI
for both int and __int128 because of some
differences in loading and storing the vectors.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with no
regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
[gcc]
2016-04-06 Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (ve
On 04/08/16 09:50, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Bill,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:04:30PM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
On 04/05/16 21:27, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_overloaded_bu
On 04/05/16 21:27, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Bill Seurer <seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
This patch adds support for the signed and unsigned int versions of the
vec_adde altivec builtins from the Power Architecture 64-Bit ELF V2 ABI
OpenPOWER ABI for
I've added myself to the "Write After Approval" maintainers (Committed revision
234724):
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 234723)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2016-04-04 Bill Se
32 matches
Mail list logo
