On 01/06/15 13:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
So for my two cents, or perhaps three:
Any progress on this PR?
A P1 bug that affects several packages stalled for a month isn't a very good
thing... (not to mention broken
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 01/06/15 13:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
So for my two cents, or perhaps three:
Any progress on this PR?
A P1 bug that affects several packages stalled for a month isn't a very good
thing... (not to mention
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
So for my two cents, or perhaps three:
Any progress on this PR?
A P1 bug that affects several packages stalled for a month isn't a very good
thing... (not to mention broken profiledbootstrap on ARM due to the same
issue).
I've
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
So for my two cents, or perhaps three:
(1) It'd be great to have something in the documentation for
TARGET_FUNCTION_ARG that explains what the contract for the type information
provided is. Even/especially if some of this is
Richard Biener wrote:
On May 5, 2015 4:33:58 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub
On 05/05/15 19:07, Richard Biener wrote:
On May 5, 2015 4:33:58 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On
On 05/05/15 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So at least
On 05/05/15 13:46, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:49:55PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The real question here is why is TYPE the type of the value, rather than
the type of the formal as expressed by the prototype (or implicit
prototype in the case of variadics or KR)? Surely this is the mid-end
passing the wrong
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
In a literal sense, yes. However, even KR stdarg have standard
promotion and conversion rules (size int = int, floats promoted to
double, etc). What are those rules for GCC's overaligned types (ie
where in the docs does it
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:01:59PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Either way, this would need careful cross-testing against an existing
compiler.
It looks as though either patch would cause ABI incompatibility for
typedef int alignedint __attribute__((aligned((8;
int
On 05/05/15 13:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:49:55PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The real question here is why is TYPE the type of the value, rather than
the type of the formal as expressed by the prototype (or implicit
prototype in the case of variadics or KR)?
On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
In a literal sense, yes. However, even KR stdarg have standard
promotion and conversion rules (size int = int, floats promoted to
double, etc). What are those rules for GCC's
On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So at least changing arm_needs_doubleword_align for
On 05/05/15 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So at least
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:32:28AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
2015-05-05 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
PR target/65956
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_needs_doubleword_align): For non-aggregate
types check TYPE_ALIGN of TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT rather than type itself.
*
On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
In a literal sense, yes. However, even KR stdarg have standard
promotion and
On 05/05/15 15:06, Richard Biener wrote:
On May 5, 2015 2:49:55 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 13:46, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 13:37, Richard Biener wrote:
On May 5, 2015 1:01:59 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
On 05/05/15 15:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
In a literal sense, yes. However,
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
In a literal sense, yes. However, even KR stdarg have standard
promotion and conversion rules (size int = int,
On May 5, 2015 4:33:58 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 14:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So at least changing arm_needs_doubleword_align for non-aggregates would
likely not break anything that hasn't been broken already and would unbreak
the majority of cases.
Attached (untested so far). It indeed changes code
On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So at least changing arm_needs_doubleword_align for non-aggregates would
likely not break anything that hasn't been broken already and would unbreak
the majority of cases.
Attached
On 05/05/15 11:54, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/05/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So at least changing arm_needs_doubleword_align for non-aggregates would
likely not break anything that hasn't been broken already and would unbreak
On Sat, 2 May 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This is an attempt to fix the following testcase (reduced from gsoap)
similarly how you've fixed another issue with r221795 other AAPCS
regressions introduced with r221348 change.
This patch passed bootstrap/regtest on
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 10:11:13AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Not sure how this helps when SRA tears apart the parameter. That is,
isn't the important thing that both the IPA modified function argument
types/decls have the same type as the types of the parameters SRA ends
up passing? (as
Hi!
This is an attempt to fix the following testcase (reduced from gsoap)
similarly how you've fixed another issue with r221795 other AAPCS
regressions introduced with r221348 change.
This patch passed bootstrap/regtest on
{x86_64,i686,armv7hl,aarch64,powerpc64{,le},s390{,x}}-linux.
Though, it
27 matches
Mail list logo
