Re: Patch ping

On 03/04/2016 12:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping a texinfo fix for __builtin_alloca*: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01842.html OK. jeff

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Set GOARCH to the current target when testing multiarch.

On 03/02/2016 02:05 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote: > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > * go.test/go-test.exp: S/390: Set GOARCH to the current target when > testing multiarch. Applied. Thanks! -Andreas-

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping a texinfo fix for __builtin_alloca*: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01842.html Jakub

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR70054

On 03/03/2016 05:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote: The following patch adjusts strict_aliasing_warning to use proper alias_set_subset_of instead of relying on alias_sets_conflict_p as after the PR66110 fix aggregates with a char[] member do not automatically behave like having alias-set zero. As a

Re: Patch ping

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:10:26AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 03/03/2016 07:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >Hi! > > > >I'd like to ping fix for P1 PR69947: > >https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01743.html > So essentially this is just marking more things so that we don't prune them >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #1)

On 03/03/2016 08:21 AM, David Malcolm wrote: Comment #1 of PR c/68187 identified another overzealous warning from -Wmisleading-indentation, with OpenSSL 1.0.1, on this poorly indented code: 115if (locked) 116i = CRYPTO_add(>struct_ref, -1, CRYPTO_LOCK_ENGINE); 117else 118

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #0)

On 03/03/2016 08:21 AM, David Malcolm wrote: PR c/68187 covers two cases involving poor indentation where the indentation is arguably not misleading, but for which -Wmisleading-indentation emits a warning. The two cases appear to be different in nature; one in comment #0 and the other in

Re: Patch ping

On 03/03/2016 07:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping fix for P1 PR69947: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01743.html So essentially this is just marking more things so that we don't prune them away, right? It's similar conceptually to one of Pierre-Marie's patches

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:31:08PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > >2016-03-03 Marek Polacek > > > > PR c/69798 > > * c-parser.c (c_parser_postfix_expression): Call > > c_parser_cast_expression instead of c_parser_postfix_expression. > > > > *

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On 03/03/2016 09:15 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:28:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:15:41PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: This is ICE on invalid Cilk+ code. cilk_spawn expects a function call, so e.g. _Cilk_spawn (void) is invalid. The

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:52:20PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 03/03/2016 07:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:15:41PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > >>This is ICE on invalid Cilk+ code. cilk_spawn expects a function call, so > >>e.g. > >>_Cilk_spawn (void) is invalid.

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On 03/03/2016 07:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:15:41PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: This is ICE on invalid Cilk+ code. cilk_spawn expects a function call, so e.g. _Cilk_spawn (void) is invalid. The function call after the cilk_spawn keyword is parsed using recursive

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On 03/03/2016 07:15 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: This is ICE on invalid Cilk+ code. cilk_spawn expects a function call, so e.g. _Cilk_spawn (void) is invalid. The function call after the cilk_spawn keyword is parsed using recursive call in c_parser_postfix_expression (case RID_CILK_SPAWN). Now,

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:43 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > On 03/03/2016 04:18 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote: >>> I have revised the patch and removed the limits. >> >> I looked at the patch, I can find no more

C++ PATCH for constexpr operator=

One thing I overlooked in my implementation of C++14 constexpr is that it changed operator= to be potentially constexpr. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit 445b5c0054f338e6c1904ae4ff09fa0761222fd3 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Tue Mar 1 23:06:54 2016 -0500

C++ PATCH to instantiation of generic lambda

In this testcase, instantiating the return type doesn't work before we've instantiated the declaration of the operator(). Furthermore, instantiating the operator() declaration necessarily instantiates the return type, so we can wait and look it up from there. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,

C++ PATCH for c++/67164 (error with variadic templates)

When we instantiate an element of a pack expansion, we replace the argument pack in the template argument vec with an ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT which indicates the desired element of the vec. If the args have been used to instantiate other templates as well, the args of those instances get

Re: [AArch64] Emit square root using the Newton series

On 02/16/16 14:56, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 12/08/15 15:35, Evandro Menezes wrote: Emit square root using the Newton series 2015-12-03 Evandro Menezes gcc/ * config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h (aarch64_emit_swsqrt): Declare new

Re: [PATCH] libffi testsuite: Use split to ensure valid tcl list

On Feb 25, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:45:06 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Feb 25, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Thomas Schwinge >> wrote: >>> +set lines [libffi_target_compile $src

Re: C++ PATCH to implement C++14 aggregate NSDMI (N3653)

This was missing a use of NSDMI when considering list-initialization via aggregate initialization in overload resolution. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 5. commit c2a038bbd3c2a82cc6f6679e5a70705f48571e07 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Wed Mar 2 17:24:27

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/51406, 51161 (wrong-code with static cast to rvalue ref)

On 12/14/2011 12:14 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: The code for casting to rvalue ref was assuming that no base adjustment would be necessary. This patch delegates to the normal lvalue binding code, and then changes the result to be an rvalue reference. The test for DECL_P isn't sufficient to catch

Re: [PING] genattrab.c generate switch

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Jesper Broge Jørgensen wrote: > > On 18/02/16 13:22, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> >> On 01/19/2016 12:47 PM, Jesper Broge Jørgensen wrote: >>> >>> Here is the reformatted patch: >> >> >> This will probably have to wait until stage1. >> >>> +

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/67364 (constexpr vs. empty class)

On 02/25/2016 09:08 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: We don't bother evaluating a store to an empty class member, and we shouldn't complain about accesses either. This needs to use really_empty_class, since that's what expand_aggr_init_1 uses. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 5.

Re: [PING] genattrab.c generate switch

On 18/02/16 13:22, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 01/19/2016 12:47 PM, Jesper Broge Jørgensen wrote: Here is the reformatted patch: This will probably have to wait until stage1. + const int code = GET_CODE (op2); + if (code != IOR) +{ + if (code == EQ_ATTR) All the formatting

Re: Reinstate generic stack checking warning with LRA

> This works though, ok for trunk? > > 2016-03-03 Jakub Jelinek > > PR ada/70017 > * gcc.dg/pr70017.c (foo): Store 0 to first element of each array. Sure, thanks. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR69834 - Collision in derived type hashes

On 03/03/2016 07:59 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > Dear All, > > What started out as a provisional kludge, when first working on OOP, > has come back to bite us after 7 years. A collision in derived type > has values has been reported on clf. In principle, as pointed out in > the clf thread,

Re: [PATCH] Fix vec_set_hi* patterns (PR target/70059)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:08:41PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Fixed thusly, unfortunately I don't have access to avx512f (and not even to > avx512dq) hw, so while I will bootstrap/regtest it on Haswell-E, can't test > the tests if they now work at runtime (they link and the assembly of the foo

[PATCH] Another fix for decide_alg (PR target/70062)

Hi! Before my recent decide_alg change, *dynamic_check == -1 was indeed guaranteed, because any_alg_usable_p doesn't depend on the arguments of decide_alg that might change during recursive call, so we'd only recurse if it wouldn't set *dynamic_check. But, if we give up because we'd otherwise

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR69951

On 2 March 2016 at 10:49, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 2 March 2016 at 10:16, James Greenhalgh wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 05:56:30PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> On 1 March 2016 at 10:51, James Greenhalgh

Re: [Patch X86_64] : Fix type attribute for sseimul reservations in znver1.md

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Kumar, Venkataramanan wrote: > Hi Maintainers, > > The below patch corrects the type attribute for "sseimul" type reservations > in znver1.md. > > (snip) > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/znver1.md b/gcc/config/i386/znver1.md > index

Re: Reinstate generic stack checking warning with LRA

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Anyway, looking at pro_and_epilogue dumps, with additional > > -fstack-protector-strong we decrease sp only by 4176, while without it by > > 8224 (on x86_64; the testcase fails on all targets I've tried so far > >

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Fix gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2b.c execution failure on cortex-m0

On Thursday 03 March 2016 15:32:27 Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > On Thursday 03 March 2016 09:44:31 Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Thomas Preudhomme > > > > wrote: > > > On Friday 15 January 2016 12:45:04 Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >

[Patch X86_64] : Fix type attribute for sseimul reservations in znver1.md

Hi Maintainers, The below patch corrects the type attribute for "sseimul" type reservations in znver1.md. (snip) diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/znver1.md b/gcc/config/i386/znver1.md index 3db3bed..feeccd7 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/znver1.md +++ b/gcc/config/i386/znver1.md @@ -913,28 +913,28

Re: [PATCH]Replace -shared with -r -nostdlib in gcc.dg/lto/pr61526 pr54709 pr64415 test cases.

Hi Richard, On 03/03/16 12:47, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Renlin Li wrote: Hi Richard, On 03/03/16 10:13, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Renlin Li wrote: Hi Richard, On 02/03/16 13:35,

Re: IRA costs tweaks, PR 56069

On 03/02/2016 10:53 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: 2. update_costs_from_allocno records a cost update not just for the initial allocno, but for each of the visited ones. I can sort of see an argument for doing that (let's say if you assign an allocno in the middle of a copy chain you'd want the

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

On 03/03/2016 04:18 PM, Mike Stump wrote: On Mar 3, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote: I have revised the patch and removed the limits. I looked at the patch, I can find no more unreasonable limits! Wonderful. Hope someone will finish off the review and

Re: [PATCH 2/2] PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #1)

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:21 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > Comment #1 of PR c/68187 identified another overzealous warning > from -Wmisleading-indentation, with OpenSSL 1.0.1, on this poorly > indented code: > > 115if (locked) > 116i = CRYPTO_add(>struct_ref, -1,

Re: [committed] Fix libffi/70024

On 03/03/2016 01:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Thanks for doing this. I suppose this is also upstream now? I'm re-syncing with upstream now. I did just find that upstream's soname is already 6.4.0, so I may come back and bump both sonames to 7 instead of 5. r~

Re: [committed] Fix libffi/70024

On 03/03/2016 05:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Richard, Unfortunately, even with this fixed, all Solaris/x86 tests now fail to link: FAIL: libffi.call/closure_fn0.c -W -Wall -Wno-psabi -O0 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: Undefined first referenced symbol

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #0)

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:56 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 10:24 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:21 AM, David Malcolm >> wrote: >> > PR c/68187 covers two cases involving poor indentation where >> > the

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 09:24:36AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > >2016-03-03 Marek Polacek > > > > PR c/69798 > > * c-parser.c (c_parser_postfix_expression): Call > > c_parser_cast_expression instead of c_parser_postfix_expression. > > > > *

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 09:24:36AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > I'd wait for gcc-7. There's actually further Cilk+ fixes queued up from > Ryan. I wanted to get those into gcc-6, but just flat ran out of time. > Perhaps ask for an exception to address the queued up Cilk+ stuff in a minor > release?

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On 03/03/2016 09:15 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:28:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:15:41PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: This is ICE on invalid Cilk+ code. cilk_spawn expects a function call, so e.g. _Cilk_spawn (void) is invalid. The

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:28:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:15:41PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > This is ICE on invalid Cilk+ code. cilk_spawn expects a function call, so > > e.g. > > _Cilk_spawn (void) is invalid. The function call after the cilk_spawn > >

Re: [PATCH] Reuse the saved_scope structures allocated by push_to_top_level

On 3 March 2016 at 15:39, Patrick Palka wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez > wrote: >> It would be an overall improvement if it was neither a TREE_LIST, nor a >> TREE_VECTOR: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Speedup_areas#Trees >>

[Patch, fortran] PR69834 - Collision in derived type hashes

Dear All, What started out as a provisional kludge, when first working on OOP, has come back to bite us after 7 years. A collision in derived type has values has been reported on clf. In principle, as pointed out in the clf thread, this could mean that existing code might be quietly confusing

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #0)

On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 10:24 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:21 AM, David Malcolm > wrote: > > PR c/68187 covers two cases involving poor indentation where > > the indentation is arguably not misleading, but for which > > -Wmisleading-indentation emits

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

On 03/03/16 14:21, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 03/02/2016 06:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote: So, check for overflow, or better use unsigned values that are large enough to never overflow. With no possibility for overflow, you can then retest the bug and see if there are any other failure modes and fix

Re: [PATCH] Reuse the saved_scope structures allocated by push_to_top_level

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 03/03/16 14:49, Patrick Palka wrote: >> >> I think the slowness of this function is mostly due to the pointer >> chasing performed in the function store_bindings, where we iterate >> over all the names in each

Re: [patch] libstdc++/69945 Add __gnu_cxx::__freeres hook

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 18:35 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > This adds a new function to libsupc++ which will free the memory still > in use by the pool used for allocating exceptions when malloc fails. > > This is similar to glibc's __libc_freeres, which valgrind (and other > tools?) use to tell

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Fix gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2b.c execution failure on cortex-m0

On Thursday 03 March 2016 09:44:31 Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Thomas Preudhomme > > wrote: > > On Friday 15 January 2016 12:45:04 Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Thomas Preud'homme > >> > >>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #0)

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:21 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > PR c/68187 covers two cases involving poor indentation where > the indentation is arguably not misleading, but for which > -Wmisleading-indentation emits a warning. > > The two cases appear to be different in nature; one

Re: [PATCH] Reuse the saved_scope structures allocated by push_to_top_level

On 03/03/16 14:49, Patrick Palka wrote: I think the slowness of this function is mostly due to the pointer chasing performed in the function store_bindings, where we iterate over all the names in each non-global scope to figure out whether to preserve them. It would probably improve performance

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

On Mar 3, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote: > I have revised the patch and removed the limits. I looked at the patch, I can find no more unreasonable limits! Wonderful. Hope someone will finish off the review and approve.

Re: [PATCH] Fix vec_set_hi* patterns (PR target/70059)

Hi Jakub, On 03 Mar 13:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > routine has changed and looks good to me). Can somebody test this please > on real hw or emulator? I'll run testing on the simulator. -- Thanks, K

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

On Mar 3, 2016, at 6:21 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > What C standard can we assume for libiberty? I was looking at patching this > and discovered that SIZE_MAX is defined only for C99, so I'm leaning towards > retaining the ints and using INT_MAX. As long as you don’t need a

[PATCH 1/2] PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #0)

PR c/68187 covers two cases involving poor indentation where the indentation is arguably not misleading, but for which -Wmisleading-indentation emits a warning. The two cases appear to be different in nature; one in comment #0 and the other in comment #1. Richi marked the bug as a whole as a P1

[PATCH 2/2] PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #1)

Comment #1 of PR c/68187 identified another overzealous warning from -Wmisleading-indentation, with OpenSSL 1.0.1, on this poorly indented code: 115if (locked) 116i = CRYPTO_add(>struct_ref, -1, CRYPTO_LOCK_ENGINE); 117else 118i = --e->struct_ref; 119

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

Thanks Mike. I have revised the patch and removed the limits. While perhaps less security critical, without the limits on the loop count (r) the test cases will still consume all your memory and effectively freeze GDB. * Before any realloc, check for overflow. * string_need now returns 1 if the

Re: [PATCH] Reuse the saved_scope structures allocated by push_to_top_level

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.03.03 at 09:16 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote: >> push_to_top_level gets called fairly frequently in template-heavy code >> that performs a lot of instantiations, and we currently "leak" a lot of >> GC memory

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping fix for P1 PR69947: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01743.html Jakub

Re: [PATCH] Specify that new ports should use LRA

On 2 March 2016 at 21:47, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez > wrote: >> Pre-approved by Jeff here: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2016-03/msg6.html >> >> Committed as revision 233914. > > I checked in this

Re: [C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:15:41PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > This is ICE on invalid Cilk+ code. cilk_spawn expects a function call, so > e.g. > _Cilk_spawn (void) is invalid. The function call after the cilk_spawn keyword > is parsed using recursive call in c_parser_postfix_expression (case

Re: [PATCH] Reuse the saved_scope structures allocated by push_to_top_level

On 2016.03.03 at 09:16 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote: > push_to_top_level gets called fairly frequently in template-heavy code > that performs a lot of instantiations, and we currently "leak" a lot of > GC memory when compiling such code since [push|pop]_to_top_level() do > not bother reusing or even

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

On 03/02/2016 06:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote: So, check for overflow, or better use unsigned values that are large enough to never overflow. With no possibility for overflow, you can then retest the bug and see if there are any other failure modes and fix those. What C standard can we assume for

[PATCH] Reuse the saved_scope structures allocated by push_to_top_level

push_to_top_level gets called fairly frequently in template-heavy code that performs a lot of instantiations, and we currently "leak" a lot of GC memory when compiling such code since [push|pop]_to_top_level() do not bother reusing or even freeing each saved_scope structure it allocates. This

[C PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid Cilk+ code (PR c/69798)

This is ICE on invalid Cilk+ code. cilk_spawn expects a function call, so e.g. _Cilk_spawn (void) is invalid. The function call after the cilk_spawn keyword is parsed using recursive call in c_parser_postfix_expression (case RID_CILK_SPAWN). Now, c_parser_postfix_expression sees '(' followed by

Re: [Ping^2][PATCH][GCC-5] Fix "#pragma GCC pop_options" warning.

On 03/03/16 12:11, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 03/03/2016 11:45 AM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 29/02/16 10:47, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 15/02/16 10:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: On 18/01/16 11:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi there, > > Can we have the

Re: [PATCH][ARM] PR target/70008

On 03/03/16 07:23, Michael Collison wrote: > I have attached a new patch which hopefully address Richard's concerns. > I modified the predicate on operand 1 to to "arm_rhs_operand" to be > consistent with the constraints. I retained the split into two patterns; > one for arm and another for

Re: [committed] Fix libffi/70024

Hi Richard, > Unfortunately, even with this fixed, all Solaris/x86 tests now fail to > link: > > FAIL: libffi.call/closure_fn0.c -W -Wall -Wno-psabi -O0 (test for excess > errors) > Excess errors: > Undefined first referenced > symbol in file >

Re: [PATCH] Fix up vect pattern handling (PR target/70021)

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > This patch fixes two issues: > 1) reverts part of https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg02183.html >changes, my understanding is that we don't emit or support what has been >mentioned as rationale for that, now that we can stick

Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE with vector types in X % -Y pattern (PR middle-end/70050)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:56:05PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > > >We crashed on the attached testcase because we were trying to apply the > >X % -Y -> X % Y transformation even on vectors. That doesn't go well with > >the > >check for !TYPE_UNSIGNED.

Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE with vector types in X % -Y pattern (PR middle-end/70050)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:56:05PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > > >We crashed on the attached testcase because we were trying to apply the > >X % -Y -> X % Y transformation even on vectors. That doesn't go well with > >the > >check for !TYPE_UNSIGNED.

Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE with vector types in X % -Y pattern (PR middle-end/70050)

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: We crashed on the attached testcase because we were trying to apply the X % -Y -> X % Y transformation even on vectors. That doesn't go well with the check for !TYPE_UNSIGNED. So I think let's limit the pattern to only work on integral types. I

Re: [PATCH]Replace -shared with -r -nostdlib in gcc.dg/lto/pr61526 pr54709 pr64415 test cases.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Renlin Li wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > On 03/03/16 10:13, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Renlin Li wrote: >>> >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> >>> On 02/03/16 13:35, Richard Biener wrote:

[PATCH] Fix PR70054

The following patch adjusts strict_aliasing_warning to use proper alias_set_subset_of instead of relying on alias_sets_conflict_p as after the PR66110 fix aggregates with a char[] member do not automatically behave like having alias-set zero. As a side-effect the test will be somewhat stricter

Re: [Ping^2][PATCH][GCC-5] Fix "#pragma GCC pop_options" warning.

On 03/03/2016 11:45 AM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: On 29/02/16 10:47, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: On 15/02/16 10:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: On 18/01/16 11:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: Hi there, Can we have the "#pragma GCC pop_options" fix backported to GCC-5? Patch found in

[PATCH] Fix vec_set_hi* patterns (PR target/70059)

Hi! Unlike the older vec_set_hi 256-bit patterns, which are correctly using the VEC_SELECT as the first operand of VEC_CONCAT and match_operand as second, because that is what the instruction does, picks up low part from operand 1 and puts the operand 2 as the high part of the result, the 512-bit

Re: [PATCH]Replace -shared with -r -nostdlib in gcc.dg/lto/pr61526 pr54709 pr64415 test cases.

Hi Richard, On 03/03/16 10:13, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Renlin Li wrote: Hi Richard, On 02/03/16 13:35, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Renlin Li wrote: Hi Richard, On 01/03/16 09:16,

Re: [PTX] port some cleanups from gomp4

Hello Nathan, On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > I've applied this patch to port some cleanups, mainly formatting and loop > idioms from the gomp4 branch. This patch that you committed to trunk in September 2015 forcefully disables generation of line number information, undoing a part

[PATCH][AArch64] PR target/70002: Make aarch64_set_current_function play nice with pragma resetting

Hi all, This patch fixes the ICE that was introduced by my earlier patch to aarch64_set_current_function: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52429.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (internal compiler error) And it also fixes a bug that I was working on separately relating to popping

Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE with vector types in X % -Y pattern (PR middle-end/70050)

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:04:31PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > We crashed on the attached testcase because we were trying to apply the > X % -Y -> X % Y transformation even on vectors. That doesn't go well with the > check for !TYPE_UNSIGNED. So I think let's limit the pattern to only work on

Re: [PATCH 1/2][GCC][ARM] Add support for Cortex-R8

On 03/03/16 11:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 03/03/16 11:28, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi Andre, On 02/03/16 12:20, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-03-02 Andre Vieira * config/arm/arm-cores.def (cortex-r8): New. *

Re: Reinstate generic stack checking warning with LRA

> Anyway, looking at pro_and_epilogue dumps, with additional > -fstack-protector-strong we decrease sp only by 4176, while without it by > 8224 (on x86_64; the testcase fails on all targets I've tried so far > ({x86_64,i686,powerpc64{,le},s390{,x},aarch64,armv7hl}-linux). Yeah, the threshold is

Re: [PATCH 1/2][GCC][ARM] Add support for Cortex-R8

On 03/03/16 11:28, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi Andre, On 02/03/16 12:20, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-03-02 Andre Vieira * config/arm/arm-cores.def (cortex-r8): New. * config/arm/arm-tables.opt (cortex-r8): New. *

Re: [PATCH 2/2][GCC][ARM] Fix testcases after introduction of Cortex-R8

Hi Andre, On 02/03/16 12:21, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: Hi, Tests used to check for "r8" which will not work because cortex-r8 string is now included in the assembly. Fixed by checking for "[^\-]r8". Is this Ok? Cheers, Andre gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-03-02 Andre Vieira

Re: [PATCH 1/2][GCC][ARM] Add support for Cortex-R8

Hi Andre, On 02/03/16 12:20, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-03-02 Andre Vieira * config/arm/arm-cores.def (cortex-r8): New. * config/arm/arm-tables.opt (cortex-r8): New. * config/arm/arm-tune.md: Regenerate. *

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] Remove (Pending) tag from 5.3 notes, add 5.4 entry

On 03/03/16 11:14, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Ok to commit? Richi already approved, so this is only for future cases: Please do consider changes like this either as trivial (and go ahead, just posting the patch) or pre-approved by me (and go ahead, just

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] Remove (Pending) tag from 5.3 notes, add 5.4 entry

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Ok to commit? Richi already approved, so this is only for future cases: Please do consider changes like this either as trivial (and go ahead, just posting the patch) or pre-approved by me (and go ahead, just posting the patch). As you prefer. ;-)

[PATCH] Fix ICE with vector types in X % -Y pattern (PR middle-end/70050)

We crashed on the attached testcase because we were trying to apply the X % -Y -> X % Y transformation even on vectors. That doesn't go well with the check for !TYPE_UNSIGNED. So I think let's limit the pattern to only work on integral types. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for

Re: [Ping^2][PATCH][GCC-5] Fix "#pragma GCC pop_options" warning.

On 29/02/16 10:47, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 15/02/16 10:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 18/01/16 11:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> Hi there, >>> >>> Can we have the "#pragma GCC pop_options" fix backported to GCC-5? >>> >>> Patch found in

Re: [committed] Fix libffi/70024

Hi Richard, > As discussed in the PR, let's take the opportunity while bumping the soname > to add symbol versioning. great idea: I'd already suggested this back in 2010 when doing the bulk of the Solaris symbol versioning work http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-02/msg00339.html

Re: [PATCH] Add -funknown-commons to work around PR/69368 (and others) in SPEC2006

On 25/02/16 18:00, Alan Lawrence wrote: On 22/02/16 12:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote: (f) A global command-line option, which we check alongside DECL_COMMON and further tests (basically, we want only DECL_COMMON decls that either have ARRAY_TYPE, or some other aggregate type with flexible array

Re: Fix/work around PR57676, LRA terminates prematurely

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 02/24/2016 11:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> As Vlad noted, the test is definitely a pathological case. I think >> Bernd's patch is a very reasonable approach to address the current >> problem. Namely that LRA can be

Re: [PATCH]Replace -shared with -r -nostdlib in gcc.dg/lto/pr61526 pr54709 pr64415 test cases.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Renlin Li wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > On 02/03/16 13:35, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Renlin Li wrote: >>> >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> >>> On 01/03/16 09:16, Richard Biener wrote:

Re: [PATCH][wwwdocs] Remove (Pending) tag from 5.3 notes, add 5.4 entry

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > I noticed that changes.html for GCC 5 has an entry for GCC 5.3 saying > (Pending) and linking to the fixed PRs. > 5.3 has already been released, so this patch removes it from there, and > instead

Re: [testsuite] Invoke gdb with -batch to avoid prompts

Mike Stump writes: > On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:20 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: >> When switching from gdb 7.10 to the newly released gdb 7.11 on Solaris, >> all simulate-thread tests started to timeout > > Ok. If a domain expert prefers a different

Re: [Patch testsuite] Change xfail conditions for bb-slp-34.c

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > Hi, > > ARM and AArch64 will still vectorize bb-slp-34.c - we're not operating > with a cost model so we vectorize to a 64-bit vector of two ints, and the > permutes are just element swaps. > > So, don't mark this test xfail for arm/aarch64. > >

Re: [wwwdocs] Note for pr70024 for gcc-5

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > Is there anything else we should say? > > I thought about recommending that distributions not install the libffi > shared library from gcc and instead use upstream source. But that doesn't > really help one way or the

Re: [committed] Fix libffi/70024

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > [ Ho hum. Re-send due to spam rejection. > Trying again with compressed patch. ] > > > As discussed in the PR, let's take the opportunity while bumping the soname > to add symbol versioning. > > Versioning is

  1   2   >