Hi,
this is simplified patch that only adds the equal_address_to predicate (and
thus fixes issues
with inccorect folding of speculative calls). Hopefully it will mek it easier
to handle
the rest of fold-const incrementally.
Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, comitted
* symtab.c (symtab
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 06:09:11PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:36:01PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Zhenqiang, can you look at what happens if you provide a pattern for
> > 6+7+8 (probably via a define_and_split)?
>
> I tried this out yesterday. There are a few op
On 12/04/2014 09:06 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
2014-11-19 Sandra Loosemore
gcc/
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_relational_operation_1): Handle
simplification identities for BICS patterns.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/aarch64/bics_4.c: New.
OK for mainline,
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Marcus Shawcroft
> wrote:
>> On 18 November 2014 at 08:34, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>>> 2014-11-18 Bin Cheng
>>>
>>> * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (load_pair): Split to
>>> load_pairsi, load_pairdi
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Marcus Shawcroft
wrote:
> On 18 November 2014 at 08:34, Bin Cheng wrote:
>
>> 2014-11-18 Bin Cheng
>>
>> * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (load_pair): Split to
>> load_pairsi, load_pairdi, load_pairsf and load_pairdf.
>> (load_pairsi, load_pai
Committed as obvious.
commit 0d0ff00247c2af51f40ca2ee3bc08d4641c02dc3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Sun Dec 7 00:44:44 2014 +
* doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Fix spelling and grammar.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 70d1336..d2f3c79 100644
--- a/gcc
The items on these new warnings are listed under libstdc++, but should
be under C++.
Committed to CVS.
? gcc-5/.changes.html.swp
Index: gcc-5/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html,v
retrieving revisio
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Regarding the patch: For gfc_error_check, I think you need to set "rc"
(now: "error_raised") also when the new code is used. Otherwise, it
looks good to me.
Ignore that comment, I missed the existing "rc = true;" – however, you
still need to the change to the new variable
This patch fixes a Fortran diagnostic "regression".
With the current common diagnostic, the width shown with caret
diagnostic is determined by:
case OPT_fmessage_length_:
pp_set_line_maximum_length (dc->printer, value);
diagnostic_set_caret_max_width (dc, value);
plus
diagno
On 1 October 2014 at 13:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12/09/14 14:34 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> Swapping an object with itself is pointless, and asserts in debug mode
>> (but we should probably remove that check from debug mode, since it
>> can happen in reasonable code).
>>
>> Tested x
This patch supercedes the patch I sent earlier this week to add
dependencies to the linker command line. The implementation is
different.
First, based on Dave's comment that he wants to keep the interface
simple, to enable the linker optimizations no new interface is added.
Instead optimizations
This patch broken out of one I sent earlier with some extensions. It
contains only little cleanups to the libgccjit code.
When creating the linker command line the code now uses an auto_vec
instead of the fixed size array.
The second change adds the missing context::set_str_option member
functio
Le 06/12/2014 14:38, Manuel López-Ibáñez a écrit :
> * Tobias or other Fortran maintainers. The only test failing is
> gfortran.dg/do_iterator.f90 line 7. The old code gives an Error there,
> which the new one does not.
>
> /home/manuel/test1/pristine/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/do_iterator.f90:7.9:
Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
> > OK to commit. Thanks for your patience.
> >
> > Can you follow-up with a change which throttles this optimization
> > when -Os is in effect. You can check optimize_function_for_size_p
> > (cfun) and simply avoid the backward traversal or you could allow
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Tobias Burnus wrote:
This patch does a cleanup in error.c; it changes come "int" values to
"bool" – based on Manuel's RFC patch – and it consolidates two
buffers flags.
Committed as Rev. 218449 as obvious.
And some more; committed as Rev. 218450.
I forgot to attach the
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I separated the diagnostics and fortran parts in two patches. This is a RFC to:
* Dodji: I needed to make diagnostic_action_after_output external. [...]
* Tobias or other Fortran maintainers. The only test failing is
gfortran.dg/do_iterator.f90 line 7. The old code gi
Tobias Burnus wrote:
This patch does a cleanup in error.c; it changes come "int" values to
"bool" – based on Manuel's RFC patch – and it consolidates two buffers
flags.
Committed as Rev. 218449 as obvious.
And some more; committed as Rev. 218450.
Tobias
This adds recent libstdc++ updates to gcc-5/changes.html
I'm also noting one old change in the GCC 4.5 page, and
removing/changing some links to the C++0x status table. The list of
features supported on trunk is fairly irrelevant to someone looking at
the 4.4 release notes, so I've linked to the
This patch does a cleanup in error.c; it changes come "int" values to
"bool" – based on Manuel's RFC patch – and it consolidates two buffers
flags.
Committed as Rev. 218449 as obvious.
Tobias
Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
===
--- g
Now that we have std::is_trivially_constructible etc. we should
deprecate and then remove the non-standard std::has_trivial_destructor
traits.
Any objections to adding that to the release notes and adding the
_GLIBCXX_DEPRECATED attribute to the traits?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> After my upper regs patches went in, I noticed that the gcc.dg/c11-atomic-2.c
> test would fail on a power8 host that was running in little endian mode. This
> particular test only fails if you are compiling this code with no
> optimizati
On 12/05/14 12:32, Jeff Law wrote:1
fixincludes/ChangeLog:
PR other/63613
* inclhack.def (dejagnu_h_make_inline_functions_static): New fix.
* fixincl.x: Regenerate.
* tests/base/dejagnu.h: New.
OK.
No, actually not.
+fix = {
+hackname = dejagnu_h_make_inline_functions_stat
Jeff Law wrote:
> OK to commit. Thanks for your patience.
>
> Can you follow-up with a change which throttles this optimization
> when -Os is in effect. You can check optimize_function_for_size_p
> (cfun) and simply avoid the backward traversal or you could allow it
> in that case if the amount
Ping?
dw
On 11/15/2014 7:59 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
On 9/15/2014 2:51 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Let's go with your original inputs + outputs + labels change and punt
the clobbers stuff for now.
jeff
I have also added the test code you requested.
I have a release on file with the FSF, but don'
Hi Jeff,
On 5 Dec 2014, at 22:40, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/05/14 15:34, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>> As I've tried to explain, that is IMHO wrong though.
>>> If what you are after is the -B stuff too, then perhaps:
>>> ...
>>
>> Sorry but it does not work:
> BTW, thanks for working with Jakub o
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> On 04 Dec 15:16, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> >> Can you add a few testcases?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I d
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 09:38:43AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 09:28:57AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > That's already what it does though, did you mean the opposite? Or did you
> > > mean to write "combine" instead of "compare"?
> >
> > The above should read "... that
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 09:28:57AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > That's already what it does though, did you mean the opposite? Or did you
> > mean to write "combine" instead of "compare"?
>
> The above should read "... that existing RTX *combine* pass be updated
> ...", thanks for pointing out!
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> GCC manual says:
>
> '-minline-stringops-dynamically'
> For string operations of unknown size, use run-time checks with
> inline code for small blocks and a library call for large blocks.
>
> we get
>
> Breakpoint 5, decide_alg (count=0, e
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> --quote--
>> If we want to use this pass for x86, then for 4.8 we should also fix the
>> discrepancy between the compare-elim canonical
>>
>> [(operate)
>>(set-cc)]
>>
>> and the combine canonical
>>
>> [(set-cc)
>>(operate)]
>>
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
