On 12.04.2012 18:22, Richard Guenther wrote:
2012/4/12 Andrey Belevantseva...@ispras.ru:
On 12.04.2012 17:54, Richard Guenther wrote:
2012/4/12 Andrey Belevantseva...@ispras.ru:
On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatinizamya...@gmail.com
Hello,
On 07.03.2012 15:46, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hello,
This PR is again about insns that are recog'ed as=0 but do not change the
processor state. As explained in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52203#c8, I've tried
Hello,
For some versions and execution modes, VxWorks features facilities to let
users download object modules and link them with the kernel at run-time.
Relocation troubles (24bit reloc overflows) might show up when module
instructions contain short references to kernel symbols and the module
Hello,
Here is a patch which creates new gnu-user-common.h file and moves all
common gnu-user.h and gnu-user64.h definitions to this new file. New
file is required to avoid duplication of Android specific changes in
gnu-user.h and gnu-user64.h. This patch is actually a non Android
specific part
Richard,
this patch fixes PR52743.
The problem is as follows: blocks 3 and 5, with successor 6 are considered equal
and merged.
...
# BLOCK 3 freq:6102
# PRED: 2 [61.0%] (true,exec)
# VUSE .MEMD.1734_10
dddD.1710_3 = bbbD.1703;
goto bb 6;
# SUCC: 6 [100.0%] (fallthru,exec)
#
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
Here we have a testcase that affects both the C++ memory model and
transactional memory.
[Hans, this is caused by the same problem that is causing the speculative
register promotion issue you and Torvald pointed me at].
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
But of course I wrongly microoptimized the decision of whether an insn is
empty as shown in PR 52715, so the right fix is to check the emptiness right
before issuing the insn. Thus, the following patch is really needed (tested
on ia64 and x86
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Tom de Vries tom_devr...@mentor.com wrote:
Richard,
this patch fixes PR52743.
The problem is as follows: blocks 3 and 5, with successor 6 are considered
equal
and merged.
...
# BLOCK 3 freq:6102
# PRED: 2 [61.0%] (true,exec)
# VUSE .MEMD.1734_10
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
This fixes PR52549 - we are running into an overzealous assert
that wants to make sure we don't have PLUS_EXPR on pointers.
But that code does not really check this and falls foul of
the conversion removal code right before it that transforms
Hello!
Here is a patch which creates new gnu-user-common.h file and moves all
common gnu-user.h and gnu-user64.h definitions to this new file. New
file is required to avoid duplication of Android specific changes in
gnu-user.h and gnu-user64.h. This patch is actually a non Android
specific
Hello,
I think it is good to disable the exceptions for the division by zero. Maybe
this should be made target specific and not based on a configure option. For
example in libgcc/config.host:
arm*-*-linux*)
[...]
tmake_file=${tmake_file} arm/t-div-by-zero-exc
[...]
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Andrey Belevantsev a...@ispras.ru wrote:
On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatinizamya...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr
Hello!
Here is a patch which creates new gnu-user-common.h file and moves all
common gnu-user.h and gnu-user64.h definitions to this new file. New
file is required to avoid duplication of Android specific changes in
gnu-user.h and gnu-user64.h. This patch is actually a non Android
specific
On 12/04/12 19:29, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
off topic but i find aarch64 weird and too generic is it arm alpha amd
atom.
That's only 'cos it's new. It's no different from names like ia64.
R.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
Here is a patch which creates new gnu-user-common.h file and moves all
common gnu-user.h and gnu-user64.h definitions to this new file. New
file is required to avoid duplication of Android specific changes in
On 13/04/12 11:13, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Tom de Vries tom_devr...@mentor.com wrote:
Richard,
this patch fixes PR52743.
The problem is as follows: blocks 3 and 5, with successor 6 are considered
equal
and merged.
...
# BLOCK 3 freq:6102
# PRED: 2
Hi DJ,
The optimization pass flag TODO_dump_flag has been removed (see
patch committed 2012-04-11) which was causing the RL78 backend to fail
to build. I am applying the following patch as an obvious fix.
Cheers
Nick
gcc/ChangeLog
2012-04-13 Nick Clifton ni...@redhat.com
*
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Andrey Belevantsev a...@ispras.ru wrote:
On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatinizamya...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Tom de Vries tom_devr...@mentor.com wrote:
On 13/04/12 11:13, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Tom de Vries tom_devr...@mentor.com
wrote:
Richard,
this patch fixes PR52743.
The problem is as follows: blocks 3 and 5, with successor
No, just the bits; programmers would need to do
__atomic_...(..., __ATOMIC_RELEASE | HLE_RELEASE);
I believe this is what you had in one of your versions of the patch. My
suggestions was not about doing something new but instead a
suggestions/poll for a resolution of the discussion.
Oh,
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 04:42:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi everyone, especially Richi and Eric,
I'd like to know what is your attitude to changing SRA's
build_ref_for_model to
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de writes:
Anyway, the patch I posted previously would risk re-introducing PR
50386 and PR 50326, even though they are very unlikely with just
bit-fields. So my current working version is the following, but it
causes failure of libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx
The following patch fixes the missed handling of TRUTH_NOT_EXPR
predicates in predicate_mem_writes and general combined predicates
which need gimplification.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Richard.
2012-04-13 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
On 13.04.2012 14:18, Igor Zamyatin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Andrey Belevantseva...@ispras.ru wrote:
On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatinizamya...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther
Hello,
On typical VxWorks environments, WindRiver integrated tools are used as
much if not more than gdb for debugging purposes.
These evolve at an industrial pace, traditionally not as fast as GCC
regarding the support of latest dwarf standards.
As of today, in our experience, the best
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM, JonY
Hello,
For several years now, Ada has support for a Persistent_BSS pragma
that let users place data in a .persistent.bss section. This section:
- needs to be treated as a bss section by the compiler (in particular,
to set flags that will prevent use of space in executable files)
- can be
Am 10.04.2012 14:32, schrieb Thomas Koenig:
Hello world,
this patch effectively trims the spaces from the string on
list-directed reads. This avoids the large overhead on
processing these spaces when reading from long lines.
Ping ** 0.4285714?
Hi,
currently we ICE when attempting to devirtualize a call to a virtual
method introduced in a descendant but with a base which is an ancestor
which does not have it. This is because fold_ctor_reference returns
constant zero when it cannot find the particular value in the provided
constructor
On Apr 13, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
Ping.
Before advancing, has the problem that Rainer pointed out on March 19th with
your earlier patch been fixed?
Hello world,
this patch replaces a != '' with len_trim(a) != 0, to
speed up the comparison. It also introduces a bit of cleanup
in frontend-passes.c.
Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
Thomas
2012-04-13 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/52537
*
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
2012-04-13 Enkovich Ilya ilya.enkov...@intel.com
* config/i386/gnu-user-common.h: New.
* config/i386/gnu-user.h (CPP_SPEC): Moved to
gnu-user-common.h.
(CC1_SPEC): Likewise.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
currently we ICE when attempting to devirtualize a call to a virtual
method introduced in a descendant but with a base which is an ancestor
which does not have it. This is because fold_ctor_reference returns
constant zero when it cannot find
On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:16 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
The second part of implicitly doing cleanup-modules is to remove the now
superfluous dg-final directives.
Ok once the issue Rainer pointed out is addressed. As for the ChangeLog, I'd
be tempted to list them as:
*
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
no warning from trunk. Which GCC version emits this warning?
Looks like cygwin gcc 3.4.4
3.4.4 is a little old now.. We'd encourage an upgrade to a fine new
compiler... :-)
Eventually I'll succeed in making tree-optimize.c empty. At least
the pass stuff I'm interested in get's better now.
Decompozing tree-optimize was on my wishlist, too.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Richard.
2012-04-12 Richard Guenther
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com
wrote:
2012-04-13 Enkovich Ilya ilya.enkov...@intel.com
* config/i386/gnu-user-common.h: New.
* config/i386/gnu-user.h (CPP_SPEC):
On 04/13/2012 04:20 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
no warning from trunk. Which GCC version emits this warning?
Looks like cygwin gcc 3.4.4
3.4.4 is a little old now.. We'd encourage an upgrade to a fine new
compiler... :-)
The thing is, the
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:57:44AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 13, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
Ping.
Before advancing, has the problem that Rainer pointed out on March 19th with
your earlier patch been fixed?
I believe that it is fixed, yes. See r185688 and my follow
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:34 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com
wrote:
2012-04-13 Enkovich Ilya ilya.enkov...@intel.com
*
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 04:33:17PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 04/13/2012 04:20 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
no warning from trunk. Which GCC version emits this warning?
Looks like cygwin gcc 3.4.4
3.4.4 is a little old now.. We'd
On 04/13/2012 04:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 04:33:17PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 04/13/2012 04:20 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
no warning from trunk. Which GCC version emits this warning?
Looks like cygwin gcc 3.4.4
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
no warning from trunk. Which GCC version emits this warning?
Looks like cygwin gcc 3.4.4
3.4.4 is a little old now.. We'd encourage an upgrade to a fine new
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 04/13/2012 04:20 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
no warning from trunk. Which GCC version emits this warning?
Looks like cygwin gcc 3.4.4
3.4.4 is a little old now..
On Apr 9, 2012, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
Could you add a comment for each value?
Done
Missing extern for all declarations.
Thanks, added.
I don't understand the or _WITH_VALUE otherwise part of the comment.
Sorry, my bad. It didn't make sense. Fixed.
Please add a
On Apr 9, 2012, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote, in response to
my posting to the wrong thread (now fixed):
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:29:05AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
+ (!df_ignore_stack_reg (uregno)))
Please remove the extra () around this line,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:34 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com
wrote:
2012-04-13 Enkovich Ilya ilya.enkov...@intel.com
*
Il 13/04/2012 17:58, Alexandre Oliva ha scritto:
I've just installed the patch, but if you find the need for any further
improvement, let me know and I'll do it right away.
I wonder if it makes any sense to move the dead_debug_* stuff to its own
file...
Paolo
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 01:57:33PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de writes:
Anyway, the patch I posted previously would risk re-introducing PR
50386 and PR 50326, even though they are very unlikely with just
bit-fields. So my current working version is the
Hi,
This patch defines _ILP32 and __ILP32__ for x32 as specified by x32 psABI.
OK for trunk and 4.7 branch?
Thanks.
H.J.
---
2012-04-13 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
* config/i386/i386-c.c (ix86_target_macros): Define _ILP32
and __ILP32__ for x32.
diff --git
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:51, Thomas Koenig tkoe...@netcologne.de wrote:
Hi,
this patch uses division by known sizes (which can usually be replaced
by a simple shift because intrinsics have sizes of power of two) instead
of division by the size extracted from the array descriptor itself.
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 04:13:13PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
currently we ICE when attempting to devirtualize a call to a virtual
method introduced in a descendant but with a base which is an ancestor
which does not have it.
The optimization pass flag TODO_dump_flag has been removed (see
patch committed 2012-04-11) which was causing the RL78 backend to fail
to build. I am applying the following patch as an obvious fix.
Ok, thanks!
C++11 extends unions so that a member can have a non-trivial default
constructor, but the union then has a deleted constructor unless the
user defines one. As a result, we can't assume that an anonymous union
has a trivial default constructor anymore.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to
When a list-initialization doesn't quite match either a list constructor
or a non-list constructor, we end up trying to compare them in joust and
get confused because they have different numbers of parameters. So
let's just treat them as unordered; we're going to talk about what's
wrong with
One case that I missed in my patch for PR 35722.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.7.
commit 9fa7eea3608b19b53cc2f3c9a8195cf811b02d84
Author: Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Apr 13 13:37:26 2012 -0400
PR c++/52824
* pt.c (any_pack_expanson_args_p): New.
One case that I missed in my patch for PR 35722.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.7.
commit 9fa7eea3608b19b53cc2f3c9a8195cf811b02d84
Author: Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Apr 13 13:37:26 2012 -0400
PR c++/52824
* pt.c (any_pack_expanson_args_p): New.
Tom Here is a new patch for gcc.
Tom I still haven't updated the src side, but there's little to do there
Tom that isn't already done in this patch.
Tom Ok?
Tom Ping.
Ping.
Tom
On Apr 13, 2012, at 7:39 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:57:44AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 13, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
Ping.
Before advancing, has the problem that Rainer pointed out on March 19th with
your earlier patch been
On Apr 13, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
The problem is that a human might be
confused, for example due to bad indentation. Whether there's a for in
between doesn't matter for this purpose, the following is most likely a bug:
if ()
for (..)
if ()
x
else
y
I like the
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:21, Tobias Burnus
tobias.bur...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
Regarding ABI breakage:
[snip]
In general I agree that ABI compatibility is something we should take
seriously, but OTOH we should take care that the anointed ABI makes
sense. Which IMHO would imply that known
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:12 PM
To: Richard Guenther
Cc: Andrew MacLeod; Boehm, Hans; gcc-patches; Torvald Riegel
Subject: [PR tree-optimization/52558]: RFC: questions on store data
race
Here we have a
On 06/03/12 15:21, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Tom de Vries tom_devr...@mentor.com wrote:
On 13/02/12 12:54, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Tom de Vries tom_devr...@mentor.com
wrote:
Richard,
this patch fixes PR52801.
Consider
63 matches
Mail list logo
