On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:13 PM Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> > So what do we actually do unpatched with -funroll-loops here?
>
> Yes so it does the insane "fully unrolled trailing loop before the unrolled
> loop" thing. One always does the trailing loop last (and typically as an
>
Hi,
On 2019/11/15 18:17, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 09:12:32PM -0600, Xiong Hu Luo wrote:
>> P9LE generated instruction is not worse than P8LE.
>> mtvsrdd;xxlnot;stxv vs. not;not;std;std.
>> Update the test case to fix failures.
>
> So this no longer runs it for
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 4:47 PM Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
>
> Ping...
>
> FYI this jumping into fake inline frames happens rather often
> when debugging, and is especially annoying once you know how
> easy it is to fix it...
Alex, can you please chime in here? I've looked at the patch twice now
and
On 11/15/19 2:59 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:40 PM Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
After I removed ::add_type hashing in r278207, we don't hash
types of SSA names. Moreover, compare_gimple_assign just compares
all operands and ICF does not compare types of SSA names in order
The following adjusts the find_base_{term,value} heuristic when
looking through ANDs to the case where it is obviously not
aligning a base (when the LSB is set).
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2019-11-18 Richard Biener
PR
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:04 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 11/15/19 2:59 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:40 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> After I removed ::add_type hashing in r278207, we don't hash
> >> types of SSA names. Moreover,
On 15/11/2019 21:44, Julian Brown wrote:
@@ -2732,13 +2732,9 @@ wait_for_queue_nonfull (struct goacc_asyncqueue *aq)
{
if (aq->queue_n == ASYNC_QUEUE_SIZE)
{
- pthread_mutex_lock (>mutex);
-
/* Queue is full. Wait for it to not be full. */
while (aq->queue_n ==
On 15/11/2019 21:44, Julian Brown wrote:
This patch checks that cfun is valid in the gcn_asm_output_symbol_ref
function. This prevents a crash when that function is called with NULL
cfun, i.e. when outputting debug symbols.
OK?
OK, although that FIXME still baffles me.
Andrew
On 11/14/19 1:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Hmm. I was thinking of moving the pass instead of adding another one.
What's the reason to run switch-conversion during early optimization again?
I'm adding CC, as he's the author of cswitch pass and he probably knows
more about the pass placement.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:17:56AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 11/14/19 1:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Hmm. I was thinking of moving the pass instead of adding another one.
> > What's the reason to run switch-conversion during early optimization again?
>
> I'm adding CC, as he's the
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:44:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The following adjusts the find_base_{term,value} heuristic when
> > looking through ANDs to the case where it is obviously not
> > aligning a base (when the LSB is set).
>
> What is
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 7:52 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> For:
>
> void
> f1 (int *x, int *y)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
> x[i] += y[i];
> }
>
> we checked at runtime whether one vector at x would overlap one vector
> at y. But in cases like this, the vector code
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:28 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I will do that for GCC 11. I take
> Richard's point that the attributes' semantics need to be clearly
> and carefully specified before they're put to use for optimization.
Before they are exposed to users
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> If stmt analysis failed for an SLP node, r278246 tried building the
> node from scalars instead. By that point we've already processed child
> nodes (usually successfully) and might have made some of them the lead
> nodes for their stmt list. This
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:44:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > The following adjusts the find_base_{term,value} heuristic when
> > > looking through ANDs to the case where it
Hi.
The patch fixes missing diagnostics for situations like:
$ gcc -fdbg-cnt=match123:1 ...
and I see it beneficial to support foo:0 in order to no allow
any execution of dbg_cnt(foo). It's handy for passes that are not so
easy to disable.
Ready for trunk?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:34 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> The patch fixes missing diagnostics for situations like:
>
> $ gcc -fdbg-cnt=match123:1 ...
>
> and I see it beneficial to support foo:0 in order to no allow
> any execution of dbg_cnt(foo). It's handy for passes that are not so
>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Joel Hutton wrote:
> Forgot to CC maintainer.
> On 15/11/2019 18:03, Joel wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just looking for some feedback on the approach.
> >
> > Currently the loop vectorizer can't vectorize the following typical
> > loop for getting max value and index from an
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 15:46, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:13, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
> >
> > On 18/10/2019 14:18, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > + bool not_supported = arm_arch_notm || flag_pic || TARGET_NEON;
> > >
> >
> > This is a poor name in the
Hi,
I've committed this small patch as obvious (r278390).
It fixes a typo in check_effective_target_arm_vfp_ok_nocache, which
used -mpu=vfp instead of -mfpu=vfp.
I also changed the name of the sample test from arm_fp_ok to
arm_vfp_ok to match the effective target name, and make it easier to
On 11/17/19 7:34 PM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
[…]
Sorry for not yet reviewing the code, but the following caught my eye:
(gfc_alloc_allocatable_for_assignment): […]
Force reallocation of unlimited
polymorphic lhs's. […]
[…]
! /* If the lhs is deferred length or unlimited
Hi Prathamesh,
On 11/14/19 6:47 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Hi,
As suggested in PR, the attached patch falls back to distributing
rshift over plus_expr instead of fallback widening -> arithmetic ->
narrowing sequence, if target support is not available.
Bootstrap+tested on
On 15/11/2019 21:44, Julian Brown wrote:
+static void
+hsa_memory_copy_wrapper (void *dst, const void *src, size_t len)
+{
+ hsa_status_t status = hsa_fns.hsa_memory_copy_fn (dst, src, len);
+
+ if (status == HSA_STATUS_SUCCESS)
+return;
+
+ /* It appears that the copy fails if the source
On 15/11/2019 21:44, Julian Brown wrote:
This patch flips the switch to enable worker partitioning on AMD GCN.
OK?
This is OK, although I think we could just remove that flag now.
Andrew
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:44:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> The following adjusts the find_base_{term,value} heuristic when
> looking through ANDs to the case where it is obviously not
> aligning a base (when the LSB is set).
What is specific about the LSB? I mean & 2 is obviously not an
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:44:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > The following adjusts the find_base_{term,value} heuristic when
> > > looking through ANDs to the case where it is obviously not
> >
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:44:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > The following adjusts the find_base_{term,value} heuristic
Hi Richi,
Thanks for the feedback, if you wouldn't mind indulging me quickly (for the
version for next stage-1)
The original approach we had was indeed using a vec-pattern which turned
best_i_11 = _4 > best_26 ? i_27 : best_i_25;
best_13 = MAX_EXPR <_4, best_26>;
into
best_13 = MAX_EXPR <_4,
On 15/11/19 23:43 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/11/19 14:40 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/11/19 14:38 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/11/19 17:59 -0800, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
+ // TODO verify the standard requires this
+#if 0
+ // register another callback
+ bool
* include/bits/alloc_traits.h (allocator_traits::construct)
(allocator_traits::destroy, allocator_traits::max_size): Add unused
attributes to parameters that are not used in C++20.
* include/std/bit (__ceil2): Add braces around assertion to avoid
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 19:10, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-40.c was failing on some targets because the
> explicit dg-options overrode things like -maltivec. This patch
> uses dg-additional-options instead.
>
> Also, it seems safer not to require exactly 1 instance of each
OK to backport to GCC 9?
Thanks,
Tamar
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org
> On Behalf Of Kyrill Tkachov
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 14:32
> To: Stam Markianos-Wright ; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: nd ; Richard Earnshaw ;
> James Greenhalgh ; Marcus
Hi.
I've noticed we have a strange dump suboptions in 2 tests.
Let's remove it, I'm going to install the following patch.
Martin
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2019-11-18 Martin Liska
* gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-36.c: Remove 'all-all-all'.
* gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-37.c: Likewise.
---
On 11/18/19 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:17:56AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/14/19 1:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Hmm. I was thinking of moving the pass instead of adding another one.
What's the reason to run switch-conversion during early optimization again?
On 11/17/19 5:25 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
+++ b/gcc/cp/coroutines.cc
+/* FIXME: minimise headers.. */
FIXED?
+/* DEBUG remove me. */
+extern void debug_tree (tree);
?
+static tree find_coro_traits_template_decl (location_t);
+static tree find_coro_handle_type (location_t, tree);
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> > If stmt analysis failed for an SLP node, r278246 tried building the
> > node from scalars instead. By that point we've already processed child
> > nodes (usually successfully) and might have made
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2019-11-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92558
* tree-vect-loop.c (vect_create_epilog_for_reduction): When
reducting the width of a reduction vector def update new_phis.
*
Hi.
The patch is obvious fix where I forgot to unset m_checker.
No doing that, we call delete m_checker for one which is allocated
on stack.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
I'm going to install the patch.
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-11-18 Martin
On 11/16/19 10:59 AM, luoxhu wrote:
Sorry that I don't quite understand your meanning here. I didn't grep the
word "cgraph_edge_summary" in source code, do you mean add new structure
Hello.
He wanted to write call_summary class and so you need something similar to
ipa-sra.c:431. It's a data
On 11/18/19 12:54 PM, Tamar Christina wrote:
OK to backport to GCC 9?
Yes.
Thanks,
Kyrill
Thanks,
Tamar
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org
On Behalf Of Kyrill Tkachov
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 14:32
To: Stam Markianos-Wright ; gcc-
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Add flags to find libatomic in build-tree testing, fixing a catastrophic
> libgomp testsuite failure with targets such as `riscv-linux-gnu' that
> imply `-latomic' with the `-pthread' GCC option, implied in turn by the
> offload options, removing
> Hello.
>
> After my param to option transformation, we lost automatic GGC
> detection. It's because init_ggc_heuristics is called before
> init_options_struct which memsets all the values to zero first.
>
> I've tested the patch with --enable-checking=release and I hope
> Honza can test it
Hi.
The patch is about yet another bootstrap -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning.
I've just tested that on risv64 cross compiler with latest trunk.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-11-18 Martin Liska
PR bootstrap/92540
* config/riscv/riscv.c
On 11/18/19 2:08 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
You should be able to measure the difference building tramp3d on
enable-checking=release compiler. I will include the patch in my next
round of Firefox benchmark (probably tonight) unless you beat me.
I verified that by printing the values in
Hello.
After my param to option transformation, we lost automatic GGC
detection. It's because init_ggc_heuristics is called before
init_options_struct which memsets all the values to zero first.
I've tested the patch with --enable-checking=release and I hope
Honza can test it more?
Patch can
Hi Richard
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 11:08, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>
> Inspired by the tests in gcc.target/i386. Testing code generation,
> diagnostics, and execution.
>
> * gcc.target/arm/asm-flag-1.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/arm/asm-flag-3.c: New test.
> *
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 11:08, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>
> Inspired by the tests in gcc.target/i386. Testing code generation,
> diagnostics, and execution.
>
> * gcc.target/aarch64/asm-flag-1.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/aarch64/asm-flag-3.c: New test.
> *
On 11/17/19 5:23 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
This patch series is an initial implementation of a coroutine feature,
expected to be standardised in C++20.
Yay!
ABI
---
There is not need to add any new mangling, since the components of this are
regular functions with manipulation of the
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi Richi,
>
> Thanks for the feedback, if you wouldn't mind indulging me quickly (for the
> version for next stage-1)
>
> The original approach we had was indeed using a vec-pattern which turned
>
> best_i_11 = _4 > best_26 ? i_27 : best_i_25;
>
On 11/18/19 1:25 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi Richard
>
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 11:08, Richard Henderson
> wrote:
>>
>> Inspired by the tests in gcc.target/i386. Testing code generation,
>> diagnostics, and execution.
>>
>> * gcc.target/arm/asm-flag-1.c: New test.
>> *
Hi Jan,
> Also I wonder for testsuite bits, I think I need to implement
> dl-require-symver and then use it to gate the individual tests? Or do we
> have some common way to check for ELF?
there's a misunderstanding throughout here: symbol versioning is *not* a
(generic) ELF feature, i.e. it is
Hi,
functions like c_common_truthvalue_conversion are shared with the C
front-end thus don't get a tsubst_flags_t argument. It seems clear that
long term we have to do something about those but in the meanwhile we
have been using warning sentinels which, along the paths which certainly
must
On 11/15/19 4:20 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 08 2019, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
this patch is an attempt to implement my idea from a previous thread
about moving -Wmaybe-uninitialized to -Wextra:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00220.html
Specifically, it attempts
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 02:39:12PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 11/18/19 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:17:56AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > On 11/14/19 1:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > Hmm. I was thinking of moving the pass instead of adding another
Hi Jan,
> thanks for feedback. Here is updated patch that incorporates Martin's
> changes, formatting corrections and makes symvers of aliases work.
just a few nits.
> Index: doc/extend.texi
> ===
> --- doc/extend.texi (revision
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Rainer Orth:
>
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>>> Also I wonder for testsuite bits, I think I need to implement
>>> dl-require-symver and then use it to gate the individual tests? Or do we
>>> have some common way to check for ELF?
>>
>> there's a misunderstanding throughout here:
* Rainer Orth:
> Florian Weimer writes:
>
>> * Rainer Orth:
>>
>>> Hi Jan,
>>>
Also I wonder for testsuite bits, I think I need to implement
dl-require-symver and then use it to gate the individual tests? Or do we
have some common way to check for ELF?
>>>
>>> there's a
This applies on top of the patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg01034.html
Wrap satisfaction with push/pop_tinst_level to force termination on recursion.
Andrew Sutton
0001-Prevent-recursive-satisfaction-PR-c-88395.patch
Description: Binary data
I forgot to mention a somewhat odd test included in the patch:
concepts-recursive-sat3.C does not recurse. Code follows:
template
concept Fooable = requires(T t) { foo(t); };
template
void foo(T t) { }
void test()
{
foo(0); // { dg-error "unsatisfied constraints" }
}
It doesn't crash, but it
On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 01:07:24AM +, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> --- gcc.orig/libgomp/testsuite/lib/libgomp.exp
> +++ gcc/libgomp/testsuite/lib/libgomp.exp
> @@ -174,6 +174,16 @@ proc libgomp_init { args } {
> # For build-tree testing, also consider the library paths used for
> builing.
* Rainer Orth:
> Hi Jan,
>
>> Also I wonder for testsuite bits, I think I need to implement
>> dl-require-symver and then use it to gate the individual tests? Or do we
>> have some common way to check for ELF?
>
> there's a misunderstanding throughout here: symbol versioning is *not* a
>
On 11/18/19 3:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 02:39:12PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/18/19 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:17:56AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/14/19 1:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Hmm. I was thinking of moving the pass
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > This patch adds support for the C2x [[]] attribute syntax to the C
> > front end.
>
> > gcc.dg/gnu2x-attrs-1.c: New tests.
>
> This test fails on targets without symbol alias support, but it would
> be most unfortunate
Hi!
I'd like to ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00581.html
PR92414, Fix error-recovery with constexpr dtor
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00808.html
PR92458, Fix concepts vs. PCH
Thanks.
Jakub
By default Armv7-A tunes for Cortex-A8. This is an ancient core
today and the settings are no longer useful for newer cores. So
switch to Cortex-A53 tuning since it works well across a wide range
of modern cores.
On SPECINT2006 the performance gain is 0.7% compared to Cortex-A8 tuning,
and
Hi,
I have committed the patch below to add the testcase for the already
fixed PR ipa/92528 to the testsuite.
Thanks,
Martin
2019-11-18 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/92528
* g++.dg/ipa/pr92528.C: New test.
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr92528.C
On 11/17/19 12:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/12/19 12:55 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/12/19 10:54 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/12/19 1:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:10 AM Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/6/19 3:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/6/19 2:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/18/19 1:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:28 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I will do that for GCC 11. I take
Richard's point that the attributes' semantics need to be clearly
and carefully specified before they're put to use for optimization.
On 11/14/19 5:23 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/13/19 9:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> OK. I'd actually recommend this go ahead and get installed. My tester
>> will bootstrap it overnight.
>
> Alright, let me know how that turns out. What kind of machine do you
> have for that?
So patch#1 had a
(Apologies to Jeff who's getting this twice because I didn't hit
reply-all the first time.)
On 11/17/19 6:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> While scanning this patch I did notice the introduction of
> CC_STATUS_INIT in output_{and,ior,xor}si. You might want to check that.
That is intentional.
This patch adds more tests of C2x attributes, where I found cases that
were handled correctly by my patches but missing from the original
tests. Tests are added for -std=c11 -pedantic handling of C2x
attribute syntax and corresponding -Wc11-c2x-compat handling; for
struct [[deprecated]]; and for
Hello
This patch backports to the OG9 branch the following patches that have
already been committed to the GCC mainline:
Support using multiple registers to hold the frame pointer
[LRA] Do not use eliminable registers for spilling
[amdgcn] Use first lane of v1 for zero offset
[amdgcn]
Now that we require a minimum of MPFR 3.1.0+ to build GCC, we can do
some modernization of the MPFR usage in the GFortran frontend.
This patch replaces
1) GMP_RND* with MPFR_RND*
2) mp_exp_t with mpfr_exp_t
3) mp_prec_t with mpfr_prec_t
4) mp_rnd_t with mpfr_rnd_t
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
Commit r269139 fixed an accidental dependency on MPFR 3.0. As we now
require at least MPFR 3.1.0+ we can revert it and instead use the
simpler MPFR 3.0+ code.
ChangeLog entry of the original commit was:
2019-02-23 David Malcolm
Jakub Jelinek
PR middle-end/88074
On 11/18/19 9:51 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> (Apologies to Jeff who's getting this twice because I didn't hit
> reply-all the first time.)
>
> On 11/17/19 6:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> While scanning this patch I did notice the introduction of
>> CC_STATUS_INIT in output_{and,ior,xor}si. You
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00652.html
On 11/8/19 3:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Unless it's used with _FORTIFY_SOURCE, -Wstringop-overflow
doesn't consider out-of-bounds accesses to objects allocated
by alloca, malloc, other functions declared with attribute
alloc_size,
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00812.html
On 11/11/19 6:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch extends the strlen pass to detect out-of-bounds
accesses to memory allocated by calls to other allocation functions
besides calloc and malloc, as well as VLAs, and
The newly added diagnostic causes an ICE because the new grokdeclarator call
returned error_mark_node and DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION crashes on that. So don't
attempt to print the new diagnostic if we've encountered something not
resembling a bit-field.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for
Hi Mikael,
> This fixed the problem, thanks.
Could you also run the testsuite to see if you can reproduce the
g++.old-deja failures Andreas reported?
Bernd
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 8:31 PM Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
> Hi Mikael,
>
> > This fixed the problem, thanks.
>
> Could you also run the testsuite to see if you can reproduce the
> g++.old-deja failures Andreas reported?
Yes, but it will probably take another week before the native
bootstrap (on
On 11/18/19 6:17 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The patch is about yet another bootstrap -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning.
> I've just tested that on risv64 cross compiler with latest trunk.
>
> Ready to be installed?
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2019-11-18 Martin Liska
>
>
Hi Tobias,
I notice that your scalar allocation does not use reallocation at all.
There is something not quite right there.
However, this just demonstrates one of the gotchas associated with
pointers, especially where the target is allocatable, and has nothing
to do with reallocation on
On 11/8/19 9:14 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
We ICE on the following testcase, because DECL_INITIAL (decl) is
error_mark_node due to previously reported error and
cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr is unhappy if ctx.ctor is not
a CONSTRUCTOR, but error_mark_node.
If the initializer is invalid,
On 11/18/19 1:30 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> I'm sorry to notice that the last test (asm-flag-6.c) fails to execute
> when compiling with -mabi=ilp32. I have less details than for Arm,
> because here I'm using the Foundation Model as simulator instead of
> Qemu. In addition, I'm using an old
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 23:41, François Dumont wrote:
> > Also, is
> > this ABI-compatible
> > for our unordered containers?
> >
> IMHO, yes it is.
>
> In hashtable_policy.h _H1 was the user hash which I renamed in _Hash,
> the same template name that for unordered containers.
>
> _H2 was always
On 11/13/19 10:37 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/7/19 3:50 PM, Egeyar Bagcioglu wrote:
On 11/7/19 10:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/6/19 6:21 PM, Egeyar Bagcioglu wrote:
Hello,
Hello.
Thanks for your detailed reply Martin. You'll find my reply inline.
Since you added Nick Clifton to
On 11/12/19 12:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
PCH remaps object addresses, so hash tables that use pointer hashing
don't work well across PCH, because the hash values can change and without
rehashing the hash table's values might not be found.
The following patch fixes it by using DECL_UID as
Hi,
On 11/15, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:35 PM Giuliano Belinassi
> wrote:
> >
> > Previously, the suggested patch removed all tree-loop-distributions.c global
> > variables moving them into a struct and passing it aroung across the
> > functions.
> > This patch address
I checked in the attached change in r278423 to avoid the ICE
reported in the PR and introduced in a recent commit of mine.
The change was bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-linux.
Martin
PR middle-end/92493 - ICE in get_origin_and_offset at gimple-ssa-sprintf.c
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR
On 11/14/19 8:23 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi again,
On 14/11/19 12:09, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
tested x86_64-linux.
Instead of sending a separate patch, the below has two additional uses.
Tested as usual.
Thanks, Paolo.
///
OK.
Hi,
this patch fixes two problems triggered by lto boostrap lean. First
inline_small_functions starts adding new edges before reseting old data
in cache. Second is about disabling the test for functions with IPA
count (since updating it triggers small roundoff errors) which
incorrectly ask count
On 11/13/19 2:42 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
Suppress diagnostics when substituting into requires-expressions
outside of concept definitions.
This change broke one existing test, which I've updated to match the
behavior of the current patch. Specifically, it changed the case
below:
template
On Nov 18 2019, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Except that I made that change and the failure didn't go away. I'm having
> trouble building a version of gdb that can debug this...
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/devel:ARM:Factory:Contrib:ILP32/gdb
has a gdb package that has support for
On 11/17/19 11:21 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 23:15, François Dumont wrote:
H1 used to be a reference to the user Hash, now _Hashtable and unordered
types agree on the same Hash type which is more intuitive.
I also chose to not support anymore a stateful ranged hash
On 11/14/19 3:51 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Egeyar Bagcioglu wrote:
On 11/7/19 8:47 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 06:21:33PM +0100, Egeyar Bagcioglu wrote:
+proc dg-require-target-object-format { args } {
+if { [gcc_target_object_format]
The following patch factors out some common code to its own function and also
moves the Power6 specific code to a new function.
Bootstrap/regtest on powerpc64le with no regressions. Ok for trunk?
-Pat
2019-11-18 Pat Haugen
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (move_to_end_of_ready): New,
Richard Sandiford writes:
> (It's 23:35 local time, so it's still just about stage 1. :-))
Or actually, just under 1 day after end of stage 1. Oops.
Could have sworn stage 1 ended on the 17th :-( Only realised
I'd got it wrong when catching up on Saturday's email traffic.
And inevitably, I
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 09:52:43PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> C++98 does not have long long int, and does not use (unsigned) long
> long int for hexadecimal literals. So let's use an ULL suffix here,
> which is still not strict C++98, but which works with more compilers.
>
> Tested etc.;
On 11/8/19 5:01 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
this fixes an unexprected fallout from my previous patch on the
-Wshadow=complatible-local.
By using can_convert_arg here, it avoids the issue, that can_convert tries to
cast
int() to char*, which is a a possible NULL-pointer value in C++98 (but
The followng fixes yet another case where conversions confuse epilogue
generation, this times for condition vectorization.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
Richard.
2019-11-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92554
*
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
