On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:10:33PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Maybe a combine splitter can be used here? Please see documentation
> from paragraph 17.16 onward:
>
> --quote--
> The insn combiner phase also splits putative insns. If three insns are
> merged into one insn with a complex
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:54 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:00 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > The following patch optimizes
> > - pxor%xmm3, %xmm3
> > - pcmpgtb %xmm0, %xmm3
> > - movdqa %xmm3, %xmm0
> > pblendvb%xmm0,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:36 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Like blend, movmsk also only cares about the most significant bit,
> so prior < 0 comparisons or (happens also on the testcase below in some
> cases) arithmetic shift right (by any value) isn't needed before the movmsk.
>
>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > * g++.target/i386/avx2-check.h: New file.
> > > * g++.target/i386/m128-check.h: New file.
> > > * g++.target/i386/m256-check.h: New file.
> > > * g++.target/i386/avx-os-support.h: New file.
> >
> >
On 29/11/18 10:18 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 11/29/18 9:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/11/18 08:47 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Fixed with 266616.
Thanks!
Index: include/std/deque
===
--- include/std/deque
On 11/29/18 4:17 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:03:42PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Two problems, it uses unconditionally unaligned stores, without
>>> checking if the target supports them at all (in this case it does).
>>> And, it doesn't check if it wouldn't be more
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:57:03PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 15:00 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:54:07PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 12:37 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > > diff --git
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:28 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > * g++.target/i386/avx2-check.h: New file.
> > > > * g++.target/i386/m128-check.h: New file.
> > > > * g++.target/i386/m256-check.h: New file.
> > >
Hi
On 13/11/18 14:47, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 02/11/18 18:38, Sudakshina Das wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> This patch is part of a series that enables ARMv8.5-A in GCC and
>> adds Branch Target Identification Mechanism.
>>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I think it's sound but also note that I think it is logically independent of
> > asm inline (). While it may work for the inlining issue for some kernel
> > examples to asm inline () is sth similar to always_inline for functions,
> > that is, even
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:37:11PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> 0x10007fff7b00: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0x10007fff7b10: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0x10007fff7b20: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0x10007fff7b30: 00 00 00 00
Hi
On 02/11/18 18:37, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> Hi
>
> This patch is part of a series that enables ARMv8.5-A in GCC and
> adds Branch Target Identification Mechanism.
> (https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/cpu-architecture/a-profile/exploration-tools)
>
> This patch changes the
On 11/26/18 6:18 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/11/18 13:54 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
I's very late but uniform container erasure is, I think, the last
little tidbit to graduate from fundamentals/v2 to std at the last
meeting. I think it would be a shame not to nudge this into
Thank you for looking into this Nick. I've been staring at a few of these
CVEs off-and-on for a few days, and the following CVEs all look like
duplicates:
CVE-2018-17985: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87335
CVE-2018-18484: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87636
101 - 114 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
