The attached patch fixes PR/77822 on s390/s390x dor gcc-6 *only*.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390 and s390x biarch on a
zEC12.
For gcc-7, there will be a different patch.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:54:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dominik Vogt <v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:47:26AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Dominik Vogt
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02525.html
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:56:10PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch does a little change in
> combine.c:combine_simplify_rtx() to prevent a "simplification"
> where the rtl code gets more
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:47:26AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Dominik Vogt <v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Is VRP the right pass to do this optimisation or should a later
> > pass rather attempt to eliminate the new use of b_5 instead?
3 (set (reg:DI 2 %r2)
(reg:DI 64 [ l ])) y.c:10 1074 {*movdi_64}
...
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:03:22PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> I've been trying to fix some bad tree-ssa related optimisation for
> s390x and come up with the attached experimental patch. The patch
> is not really good - it breaks some situations in which the
> optimisatio
iminate the ssa
name. (I guess that won't help with the above code because l is
used also as a function argument.) How could a sensible approach
to deal with the situation look like?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
with the hardware available to me.
If the patch is good, this one can be re-applied:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg01730.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01616.html
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c
you think about this patch?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* combine.c (if_then_else_cond): Suppress replacement of
"(and (reg) (const_int bit))" with "if_then_else".
>From bfa15721c760fa4cd9003050c3137cba3165139f Mon Sep 17
THe attached patch fixes some dg-error tests that were broken
since the recent change of the error location.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.target/s390/hotpatch-compile-1.c: Fixed dg-error test.
* gcc.target/s390/hotpatch
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 04:48:36PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 03:43:11PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Great!
> >
> > But could this patch be responsible with some dg-error related
> > test errors on s390x that are present with cur
{ dg-error "arguments to .-mhotpatch=n,m. should be non-negative integers"
"" { target *-*-* } 1 } */
but no longer matches the error that really occurs?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:37:18PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The following series of patches improves usage of the risbg and
> risbgn instructions on s390/s390x. The patches have been
> regression tested on s390 and s390x and pass the Spec2006
> testsuite without any negative effec
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:37:18PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The following series of patches improves usage of the risbg and
> risbgn instructions on s390/s390x. The patches have been
> regression tested on s390 and s390x and pass the Spec2006
> testsuite without any negative effec
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:37:18PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The following series of patches improves usage of the risbg and
> risbgn instructions on s390/s390x. The patches have been
> regression tested on s390 and s390x and pass the Spec2006
> testsuite without any nega
^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01587.html
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C no longer fail with Glibc-2.18 or
> >
rl-1.c: Don't match the filename.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
>From 1475ed9918918f4181c5f1e00a905c378ffe9d7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt <v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:57:35 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] S/390: Add missing call to
Version 5 of the patch with the splitter for -O0/-O1 removed, as
discussed internally. Regression tested on s390x biarch and s390.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* config/s390/s390.md ("*andc_split"): New splitter for and with
compl
t;vgmf" instructions are used.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.target/s390/zvector/vec-genmask-1.c: Improve result verification.
>From 6750201c2b594bbbdce9abb14a3e1944806c425d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt <v...@l
The atteched patch fixes the S/390 test case insv-1.c with -m31.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.target/s390/insv-1.c: Fix test when running with -m31.
>From 4021fe9c4703e29b9446a24584ebd998c591d7ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
F
Version 4 of the patch. Activated the patterns als for -mesa, as
discussed internally. Bootstrapped and regression testes on s390
and s390x biarch.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* config/s390/s390.md ("*andc_split", "*andc_split2&q
. So the
> right fix should be to add knowledge about the target's guaranteed
> alignment of SP + SDO to the function. I'm right now testing a
> much simpler patch that uses
> REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN(VIRTUAL_STACK_DYNAMIC_REGNUM) as the
> alignment.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
did no harm.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
* trans-array.c (gfc_conv_array_ref): Fix allocation of diagnostic
message (was too small).
>From a364536c94c5b5c124c3fd6e5cb547aa941aca12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:07:05PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/23/2016 03:57 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >>and use that rather than rounding size up to an alignment boundary.
> >
> >Not exactly. Consider the unpatched code. At the beginning we
> >have some a
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:24:38AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 07:43:13PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 07/13/2016 05:29 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > >Unfortunately this patch (or whatever got actually committed) has
> > >broken th
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01587.html
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C no longer fail with Glibc-2.18 or
> >
^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.target/s390/pr67443.c: Fix test case.
>From fe5dd36da6cea172a5cebdbc33a8a60cb5e0e9ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt <v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:50:52 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] S/390: Fi
Version 3 of the patch. See below for changes. Regression tested
on s390x and s390.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 01:05:52PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 07/19/2016 11:37 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > +(define_insn_and_split "*andc_split"
>
> Please append here to
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 08:58:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch provides some improved patterns for "and with
> complement" to the s390 machine description. Bootstrapped and
> regression tested on s390 and s390x.
Version 2 of the patch, reduced t
The attached patch XFAILs some of the "insv" testcases as
discussed internally. Tested on s390x biarch and s390.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.target/s390/insv-1.c: Xfail some tests.
* gcc.target/s390/insv-2.c
Final version 6 with the stray comment removed (was a harmless
oversight).
Initial description of the patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg03052.html
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* cfgexpand.c (expand_stack_vars): Implement synamic
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 01:51:51PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 11:10 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> >- if (flag_stack_usage_info)
> >-stack_usage_size += extra;
> >+ /*!!!*/
> >+ if (flag_stack_usage_info && pstack_usage_size)
> >
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 07:43:13PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 07/13/2016 05:29 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately this patch (or whatever got actually committed) has
> >broken the gcc.target/s390/pr679443.c test case, which is a bit
> >fishy (see code snippe
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 04:12:36PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 05:44 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:57:16PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:01:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>>There's one thing I do
ddress in r4 during the second
assignment, it eliminates the first assignment and the f1 field is not
written (bug). */
}
-- snip --
If a fourth register is available, the ICE goes away, but the
pointer remains in r2, rendering the test case useless.
So, what should be done about this?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:57:16PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:01:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > There's one thing I don't quite understand and which seems to have
> > changed since v1:
> >
> > On 07/04/2016 02:19 PM, Dominik Vogt wrot
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:01:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> There's one thing I don't quite understand and which seems to have
> changed since v1:
>
> On 07/04/2016 02:19 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >@@ -1099,8 +1101,10 @@ expand_stack_vars (bool (*pred) (size_t), struct
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 02:56:06PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 04:31 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Could you try merging the two testcases into one by putting the lp64 and !
> lp64 as condition on the
> scan assembler expressions?
Done.
> Also I don't think it is r
his
message.
Ran the testsuite on s390x biarch, s390 and x86_64.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 01:30:44PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The only open question I'm aware of is the
> > stack-usage-2.c test. I guess foo3() will not generate
> >
> > stack usage might be ... bytes
>
The attached patch adds patterns to make use of the z13 LOCHI and
LOCGHI instructions.
Tested on s390x biarch and s390, regression tested on s390x.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* config/s390/s390.md: Add "z13" cpu_facility.
(&quo
> >memory.
> >
> I think the change itself is fine, but the comment could use some
> work. Actually I think you just need to remove the first sentence
> (the one referring to BZ70751 and r235184) and keep everything from
> "Suppose a target" onward.
>
> OK with that fix.
>
> jeff
>
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 04:48:14PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Third version of the patch. Changes:
>
> * Corrected a typo in a test case comment.
> * Verify that stack variable alignment does not force the frame
>pointer into existence (with -fomit-frame-pointer)
>
ed_2[1024];
> >>+ bar (, _aligned_1, _aligned_2);
> >>+}
> >>+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "cfi_def_cfa_offset" 2 { target {
> >>s390*-*-* } } } } */
> >
> >I've no idea how to test this on other targets, or how to express
> >the test i
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:02PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/25/2016 07:32 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:30:54PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >>>> > Version
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 04:26:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 03:35 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >What do we do now with the two patches? At the moment, the
> >functional patch depends on the changes in the cleanup patch, so
> >it cannot be applied
ng another function
> or using alloca. */
> if (!crtl->is_leaf || cfun->calls_alloca
> || ix86_current_function_calls_tls_descriptor)
> offset = ROUND_UP (offset, preferred_alignment);
>
> or here in rs6000:
> info->parm_size= RS6000_ALIGN (crtl->outgoing_args_size,
> TARGET_ALTIVEC ? 16 : 8);
>
> which could probably use the default definition of
> STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET instead of this, if the outgoing_args_size was
> rounded appropriately:
> #define STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET(FUNDECL) \
> (RS6000_ALIGN (crtl->outgoing_args_size, \
> (TARGET_ALTIVEC || TARGET_VSX) ? 16 : 8) \
>+ (STACK_POINTER_OFFSET))
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
Patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01587.html
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C no longer fail with Glibc-2.18 or
> newer since this commit:
>
> 2014-08-01 Zifei Tong <zifeit...@gmail.com>
&g
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:21:09PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/25/2016 03:32 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > * explow.c (round_push): Use know adjustment.
> > (allocate_dynamic_stack_space): Pass known adjustment to round_push.
> >gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> >
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 10:44:15AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
> > index 21f21c9..4d48afd 100644
> > --- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
> > +++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
> ...
> > @@ -1099,8 +1101,10 @@ expand_stack_va
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:32:41PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:30:54PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Version two of the patch including a test case.
> > >
> > >
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:30:54PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Version two of the patch including a test case.
> >
> > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:10:25AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On 04/29/201
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Version two of the patch including a test case.
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:10:25AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 04/29/2016 04:12 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >The attached patch removes exces
gt; because of the reindentation that needs to happen. So I've included
> a -b diff variant which shows how little actually changed here.
>
> This should have no impact on any target.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64 linux. Ok for the trunk?
I've rebased my patch on yours and also removed EXTRA_ALIGN which
is also constant. I'll send new versions of both patches later.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
change (removing the dead code) is fine.
However, I suggest to leave "must_align" in the code for now
because I have another patch in the queue that assigns a
calculated value to must_align. For that I'd have to revert this
part of your patch, so I think it's not worth the effort to remove
it in the first place. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00445.html
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:14:37AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/19/2016 05:18 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:09:36PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>> On 05/11/2016 02:52 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >>>> >On Wed, May 11, 2016 a
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:09:36PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/11/2016 02:52 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >That's what I mentioned somewhere during the discussion. The s390
> >backend just uses COSTS_N_INS
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/11/2016 09:42 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:05:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>Earlier in the discussion you mentioned the intention to remove
> >>these costs. Nothing els
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:05:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/10/2016 03:06 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >+ int cost_of_and;
> >+ int cost_of_zero_ext;
> >+
> >+ cost_of_and = rtx_cost (x, mode, in_code, 1, speed_p);
> &g
New version of the patch including the changes Jeff requested.
* Reformatted code.
* Including test cases (unfortunately requires lp64 although the
feature does not).
* Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390, s390x, x86_64.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:20:05AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:14:35AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 May 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> >> This turns out to be quite difficult. A small test function
> >>
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:24:21PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/27/2016 02:20 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >The attached patch is a result of discussing an S/390 issue with
> >"and with complement" in some cases.
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-03/msg0
__attribute__ ((aligned(32768))) char runtime_aligned_2[1024];
> + bar (, _aligned_1, _aligned_2);
> +}
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "cfi_def_cfa_offset" 2 { target {
> s390*-*-* } } } } */
I've no idea how to test this on other targets, or how to express
the test in a target independent way. The scan-assembler-times
does not work on x86_64.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
and regression tested on s390,
s390x and x86_64, but please check the questions/comments in the
follow up message.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 01:56:10PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch fixes a warning during Linux kernel compilation
> on S/390 due to -mwarn-dynamicstack and runtime ali
Version two of the patch including a test case.
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:10:25AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/29/2016 04:12 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >The attached patch removes excess stack space allocation with
> >alloca in some situations. Plese check the commit message
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:29:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/29/2016 05:56 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > ...
> >Maybe a comment should be added to the test case
> >
> > /* If this test is *run* (not just compiled) and therefore fails
> > on non sh*-target
ack_boundary) / BITS_PER_UNIT;
Unfortunately the testsuite didn't detect this bug; it showed up
while testing anothe patch related to stack layout. I'm testing
the modified patch right now.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
e testcase and makes it run always,
> so that it does no longer triggers the dejagnu bug.
Looks like a viable solution. I'd add a comment about the bug
though.
> -/* { dg-do compile } */
> -/* { dg-do run { target sh*-*-* } } */
> +/* { dg-do run } */
> +/* { dg-shouldfail ""
tainly looks like what I was trying to fix. Now, if
anyone could think of a target independent test case for the patch
...
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:03:40PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Dominik Vogt <v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > The attached patch cleans up some (mostly unnecessary) dg-do
> > directives in the gcc.dg and gcc.target test cases.
>
> This part
>
> *
ead. This will be
substituted by the right value in vregs pass and optimized
during combine. */
align_rtx = virtual_preferred_stack_boundary_rtx;
add_rtx = force_operand (plus_constant (Pmode, align_rtx, -1), NULL_RTX);
}
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Domi
The attached patch removes excess stack space allocation with
alloca in some situations. Plese check the commit message in the
patch for details.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* explow.c (round_push): Use know adjustment
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:24:21PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/27/2016 02:20 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > * combine.c (make_compound_operation): Take known zero bits into
> > account when checking for possible zero_extend.
> I'd strongly recommend writing some test
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 08:58:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch provides some improved patterns for "and with
> complement" to the s390 machine description. Bootstrapped and
> regression tested on s390 and s390x.
(This patch needs some careful proof reading.
y likely have
unforeseeable consequences on other targets.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390 and s390x only at the
moment.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* combine.c (make_compound_operation): Take known zero bits into
account when checking
>
> git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@213504 138bc75d-0d04-0410-96
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg02091.html
>
> So, is it time to remove the xfail from the test case?
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
The attached patch provides some improved patterns for "and with
complement" to the s390 machine description. Bootstrapped and
regression tested on s390 and s390x.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* config/s390/s390.h (REG_OR_SUBREG_P):
The attached patch adds some patterns using the r*sbg instructions
to the s390 machine description. Bootstrapped and regression
tested on s390 and s390x.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* config/s390/s390.md ("*rsbg__sll")
("*r
The attached patch improves some S/390 function documentation.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog
* config/s390/s390.c (s390_rtx_costs): Update documentation.
>From ba5a56e03402a75bb0cc807eb27c57d93ce736e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
The attached patch cleans up some (mostly unnecessary) dg-do
directives in the gcc.dg and gcc.target test cases.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/mac-dir-2.c: Remove pointless duplicate
dg-do.
* gcc
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 05:53:08PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 12/31/2015 04:50 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >The attached patch fixes C++-11 handling of "alignas(0)" which
> > >should be ign
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 05:53:08PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 12/31/2015 04:50 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >The attached patch fixes C++-11 handling of "alignas(0)" which
> > >should be ign
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 05:53:08PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 12/31/2015 04:50 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >The attached patch fixes C++-11 handling of "alignas(0)" which
> > >should be ign
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 05:53:08PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 12/31/2015 04:50 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >The attached patch fixes C++-11 handling of "alignas(0)" which
> > >should be ign
The attached patch fixes a test failure of go.test/test/env.go on
s390x biarch. Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390x biarch
and s390.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69766
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* go.test/go
-O (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
f951: Warning: -fprefetch-loop-arrays not supported for this target (try -march
switches)
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:18:48PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch adds the a target specific attribute via the
> new target macro TARGET_BEGIN_TRANSACTION_ATTRIBUTE to the
> function begin_transaction(). S/390 uses this to set the
> soft-float target attribute whi
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:40:56PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Another patch reducing the accuracy required in the bessel_6 test.
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> * gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90: Reduce accuracy for S/390.
> >From 70a35dd6f6bf906d8e5907667ad0f04f981a61ac Mon Se
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 05:53:08PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 12/31/2015 04:50 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >The attached patch fixes C++-11 handling of "alignas(0)" which
> > >should be ign
The attached patch enables Stack_Check_Probes for Ada on S/390[x]
and thereby fixes the acats test cases c52103x, c52104x and
cb1010a.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390x (-m31, -m64) and s390.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ada/ChangeLog
* system
itionally executed ops to well-defined overflow behavior.
>
> * gcc.dg/torture/pr69760.c: New testcase.
This causes a regression on s390x w/ reassoc_6.f. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69760 for details.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 05:53:08PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 12/31/2015 04:50 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >The attached patch fixes C++-11 handling of "alignas(0)" which
> > >should be ign
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:40:56PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Another patch reducing the accuracy required in the bessel_6 test.
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> * gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90: Reduce accuracy for S/390.
> >From 70a35dd6f6bf906d8e5907667ad0f04f981a61ac Mon Se
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:18:48PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch adds the a target specific attribute via the
> new target macro TARGET_BEGIN_TRANSACTION_ATTRIBUTE to the
> function begin_transaction(). S/390 uses this to set the
> soft-float target attribute whi
thout Ada),
> and Dominik has kindly tested this on s390x-linux
> (presumably with Ada, but don't know for sure).
Yes, all languages with the whole testsuite.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:07:57PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch adds a testcase for PR 69625.
Version 2 also runs with -m31.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
ChangeLog
* gcc.target/s390/pr69625.c: Add test case.
&g
The attached patch adds a testcase for PR 69625.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
ChangeLog
* gcc.target/s390/pr69625.c: Add test case.
>From 08df803a901078cabca938d0a7d0d6120b7c6132 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt <v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Dat
Can this be approved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69089
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 05:53:08PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 12/31/2015 04:50 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >The attached patch fix
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:41:02AM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 26/01/16 12:23, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >>...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed.
> >>
> >>Verified
A previous patch required -march=z13 in ssa-dom-cse-2.c for s390
and s390x, but actually only s390x really needs it. The attached
patch removes the extra option on s390 (and fixes comment
formatting).
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.dg
101 - 200 of 372 matches
Mail list logo
