[PATCH] Fix another ubsan_encode_value related ICE (PR sanitizer/81209)

Hi! Apparently the pr81125.C testcase ICEs on Darwin, but not on Linux, the difference is that on Darwin ctors/dtors aren't deduplicated due to lack of flexibility of the object format. I've managed to reproduce also on Linux with a virtual base and -fno-declone-ctor-dtor. The problem was that

[PATCH] Fix some narrowing conversion issues

Hi! We build gcc with -Wno-narrowing, for some reason I ended up with old Makefile without that and discovered a couple of -Wnarrowing errors. This patch fixes them. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux (i686-linux fails to bootstrap with/without this patch), ok for trunk? 2017-06-27 Jakub

[PATCH] Fix ICE during strstr gimple folding (PR middle-end/81207)

Hi! replace_call_with_call_and_fold has code to copy over vdef/vuse from the old call to the new one, so that we don't have to update virtual ssa, but it is conditioned on gimple_vdef being non-NULL and SSA_NAME. If we have a pure function, gimple_vdef is NULL, yet we still want to copy over the

libgo patch commited: Add misc/cgo files

This patch adds the misc/cgo files from the Go 1.8.3 release to libgo. These will be used for tests of the go tool in various modes. Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian patch.txt.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data

Re: [PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

Hi Jeff, Thanks for the review and your approval for final patch. Sorry, It was a long weekend and hence could not revert to your comments earlier. >> You need a ChangeLog entry, but I think that's it. Can you >> please repost with a ChangeLog entry for final approval? Please find the final

[PATCH, rs6000] Add support to __builtin_cpu_supports() for two new HWCAP2 bits

Tulio added support for two new AT_HWCAP2 bits to GLIBC which have been recently added to the kernel: https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-06/msg00069.html This patch adds support for them to the __builtin_cpu_supports() builtin function so we can test for them. Tested on

[AARCH64] Disable pc relative literal load irrespective of TARGET_FIX_ERR_A53_84341

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00614.html added this workaround to get kernel building with when TARGET_FIX_ERR_A53_843419 is enabled. This was added to support building kernel loadable modules. In kernel, when CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_843419 is selected, the relocation needed for

Re: [PATCH, alpha, go]: Introduce applyRelocationsALPHA

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > However, there is one another issue with zdefaultcc.go generation. On > my system, the default gccgo, gcc and g++ are installed in: > > $ which gccgo > /usr/bin/gccgo > $ which gcc > /usr/bin/gcc > > but gotools Makefile

Re: [gomp4] OpenACC async re-work

I still need more time to review this, but ... On 06/24/2017 12:54 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote: > Hi Cesar, Thomas, > This patch is the re-implementation of OpenACC async we talked about. > The changes are rather large, so I am putting it here for a few days before > actually committing them to

Backports to 6 (and 7, and 5)

Hi! I'd like to backport the following patches to 7, 6, and where applicable 5 (some are in 7 already). https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg02107.html Fix expand_builtin_atomic_fetch_op for pre-op (PR80902) https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg01404.html Fix comparison of

Re: [PATCH] PR68972: g++.dg/cpp1y/vla-initlist1.C test case fails on power (backport)

Is this ok for backport to GCC 6? On 02/06/2017 03:20 PM, Kelvin Nilsen wrote: > > The test g++.dg/cpp1y/vla-initlist1.C makes assumptions that the memory > used to represent the private temporary variables of neighboring control > blocks at the same control nesting level is: > > 1. found at

Re: [PATCH] PR66669: Fix failure of gcc.dg/loop-8.c on Power (Backport)

Is it ok to backport this patch to GCC-6? On 01/23/2017 09:59 AM, Kelvin Nilsen wrote: > > The test gcc.dg/loop-8.c makes assumptions that are not valid on Power > architecture (and on certain other architectures for which this issue > has already been addressed). The test case assumes that a

Re: [Patch testsuite]

On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:56 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > >> Le 26 juin 2017 à 20:35, Mike Stump a écrit : >> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >>> >>> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)?

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR71815 (SLSR misses PHI opportunities)

> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:22 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > This may have caused: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81216 > > -- > H.J. > Nope. Reverting my patch does not solve the problem, which appears to begin with r249643. Bill

Re: [Patch testsuite]

> Le 26 juin 2017 à 20:35, Mike Stump a écrit : > > On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> >> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? > > Ok. As for [0-9a-f]*ing the numbers, at least 1 of test cases should retain

Default std::list default and move constructors

Hi Here is the patch to default implementation of std::list default and move constructors. I introduce _List_node_header to take care of the move implementation and also isolate management of the optional list size storage. I prefer it to usage of _List_node as move constructor

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR71815 (SLSR misses PHI opportunities)

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi, > > Here's version 2 of the patch to fix the missed SLSR PHI opportunities, > addressing Richard's comments. I've repeated regstrap and SPEC testing > on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, again showing the patch

Re: common grounds for VxWorks 7 support

> On Jun 26, 2017, at 18:44 , Jeff Law wrote: > >> If OK on principle, I'm not sure who is to approve the tiny config.gcc part. > I'd think the tiny config.gcc bits would fall under the VxWorks umbrella > and you can self-approve. Wonderful :-) Thanks for confirming Jeff!

Re: [Patch testsuite]

On Jun 26, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Mike Stump writes: > >> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Rainer Orth >> wrote: >>> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? >>> >>> this

Re: [AArch64] Improve HFA code generation

James Greenhalgh writes: > Hi, > > For this code: > > struct y { > float x[4]; > }; > > float > bar3 (struct y x) > { > return x.x[3]; > } > > GCC generates: > > bar3: > fmovx1, d2 > mov x0, 0 > bfi x0, x1, 0, 32 >

C++ PATCH for c++/81215, deduction failure with variadic TTP

For the C++17 changes to handling of template template parameter matching, I replaced a lot of the old code. But it seems that this piece is still necessary when we aren't in C++17 mode, to handle the case where we are comparing C to set, with different numbers of arguments. This is

Re: [Patch testsuite]

Mike Stump writes: > On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Rainer Orth > wrote: >> >>> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? >> >> this patch needs a ChangeLog entry (and preferably a description of the >> problem you're fixing ;-)

Re: [Patch testsuite]

On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > > Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? Ok. As for [0-9a-f]*ing the numbers, at least 1 of test cases should retain the actual number check. I'm fine with the resting being an RE, if someone wants

Re: [Patch testsuite]

On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? > > this patch needs a ChangeLog entry (and preferably a description of the > problem you're fixing ;-) Actually, the CL isn't required, testsuite is

Re: [PATCH v2 9/13] D: D2 Testsuite Dejagnu files.

On Jun 24, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > On 28 May 2017 at 23:16, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> This patch adds D language support to the GCC testsuite. >> >> As well as generating the DejaGNU options for compile and link tests, >> handles

Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)

Joseph Myers writes: > On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> > Non-generic builtins like copysign are such a pain... We also end up >> > missing the 128-bit case that way (pre-existing problem, not your patch). >> > We seem to have a corresponding internal

Re: [PATCH, alpha, go]: Remove PtraceRegs definition to restore bootstrap

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > libgo is now able to automatically determine PtraceRegs. Attached > patch removes duplicate manual definition from system dependent > source. > > Bootstrapped and regression tested on alphaev68-linux-gnu. Thanks.

Re: libgo patch committed: Fix ptrace implementation on MIPS

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Jun 23 2017, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> Andreas, can we avoid the problem for earlier glibc versions with a >> patch like the appended? >> >> Ian >> >> diff --git a/libgo/sysinfo.c b/libgo/sysinfo.c

Re: common grounds for VxWorks 7 support

On 06/26/2017 09:38 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote: > Hello, > > This patch introduces common grounds for VxWorks 7 support. > > The main device is the introduction of a TARGET_VXWORKS7 macro which we > leverage throughout the various vxworks.h / vxworks.c files, common or cpu > specific. > > We

[C++ PATCH] identifier flags

This patch continues my changes to the identifier node flags. It makes use of the new enumeration to reimplement some of the accessors and checks. We don't have to go checking for the various special identifiers explicitly, just test various bits in the identifier node. One bit in the

Re: C/C++ PATCH to add __typeof_noqual (PR c/65455, c/39985)

On 06/23/2017 08:46 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: This patch adds a variant of __typeof, called __typeof_noqual. As the name suggests, this variant always drops all qualifiers, not just when the type is atomic. This was discussed several times in the past, see e.g.

Re: common grounds for VxWorks 7 support

> On Jun 26, 2017, at 17:56 , Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > On 06/26/2017 11:38 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote: > >> Nathan does this work for you ? > > certainly, Great! >> If OK on principle, I'm not sure who is to approve the tiny config.gcc part. > > You :) (it's in a

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Implement __ARM_FEATURE_COPROC coprocessor intrinsic feature macro

On 26/06/17 15:16, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 26 June 2017 at 16:09, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: Hi Christophe, On 21/06/17 17:57, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, On 19 June 2017 at 11:32, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 16/06/17

Re: common grounds for VxWorks 7 support

On 06/26/2017 11:38 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote: Nathan does this work for you ? certainly, If OK on principle, I'm not sure who is to approve the tiny config.gcc part. You :) (it's in a vxworks-specific fragment, I think the Changelog format for that kind of thing is: * config.gcc

common grounds for VxWorks 7 support

Hello, This patch introduces common grounds for VxWorks 7 support. The main device is the introduction of a TARGET_VXWORKS7 macro which we leverage throughout the various vxworks.h / vxworks.c files, common or cpu specific. We have done several CPU specific ports already, and this scheme works

Re: [PATCH, 2/4] Handle GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_{DISASM,SAVE_TEMPS} in libgomp nvptx plugin

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:26:57PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > 2. Handle GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_{DISASM,SAVE_TEMPS} in libgomp nvptx plugin > > > > This patch adds handling of: > > - GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_SAVE_TEMPS=[01], and > > -

Re: [PATCH, 2/4] Handle GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_{DISASM,SAVE_TEMPS} in libgomp nvptx plugin

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Tom de Vries wrote: > > 2. Handle GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_{DISASM,SAVE_TEMPS} in libgomp nvptx plugin > > This patch adds handling of: > - GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_SAVE_TEMPS=[01], and > - GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_DISASM=[01] > > The filename used for dumping the module is

Re: [PATCH] lto-wrapper.c (copy_file): Fix resource leaks

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:22:31AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > >>> From d255827a64012fb81937d6baa8534eabecf9b735 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >>> From: Sylvestre Ledru > >>> Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:37:37 +0200 > >>> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] 2017-05-14 Sylvestre

Re: [PATCH] lto-wrapper.c (copy_file): Fix resource leaks

On 06/26/2017 07:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:58:29PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 05/14/2017 04:00 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >>> Add missing fclose >>> CID 1407987, 1407986 >>> >>> S >>> >>> >>> >>> 0005-2017-05-14-Sylvestre-Ledru-sylvestre-debian.org.patch >>> >>>

Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Non-generic builtins like copysign are such a pain... We also end up > > missing the 128-bit case that way (pre-existing problem, not your patch). > > We seem to have a corresponding internal function, but apparently it is > > not used until

builtin_define _VX_TOOL and _VX_TOOL_FAMILY for VxWorks

Hello, Defining at least one of the two is needed on VxWorks 7 and helpful in some cases on VxWorks 6. We have been using this in house for all our ports for a while, and I verified that it allows a toolchain + libgcc build for x86_64-vxworks7 to finish with mainline, in association with further

Re: C/C++ PATCH to add __typeof_noqual (PR c/65455, c/39985)

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 04:27:47PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > You'll also see that I dropped all qualifiers for __auto_type. But I > > actually > > couldn't trigger the > > init_type = c_build_qualified_type (init_type, TYPE_UNQUALIFIED); > >

Re: [PATCH] fold a * (a > 0 ? 1 : -1) to abs(a) and related optimizations

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017, Marc Glisse wrote: > * if X is NaN, we may get a qNaN with the wrong sign bit. We probably don't > care much though... The sign bit from a multiplication involving a NaN is not specified. *But* making any of these transformations with a qNaN loses the "invalid" exception

[wwwdocs] Add -Wmultistatement-macros

I've committed the following to reflect the recent addition. Index: changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-8/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -u -r1.5 changes.html --- changes.html20 Jun 2017

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Implement __ARM_FEATURE_COPROC coprocessor intrinsic feature macro

On 26 June 2017 at 16:09, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > > On 21/06/17 17:57, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> On 19 June 2017 at 11:32, Richard Earnshaw (lists) >> wrote: >>> >>> On 16/06/17 15:56, Prakhar

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Implement __ARM_FEATURE_COPROC coprocessor intrinsic feature macro

Hi Christophe, On 21/06/17 17:57, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, On 19 June 2017 at 11:32, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 16/06/17 15:56, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote: On 16/06/2017 15:37:18, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 16/06/17 08:48, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:

Re: [PATCH] lto-wrapper.c (copy_file): Fix resource leaks

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:58:29PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/14/2017 04:00 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > Add missing fclose > > CID 1407987, 1407986 > > > > S > > > > > > > > 0005-2017-05-14-Sylvestre-Ledru-sylvestre-debian.org.patch > > > > > > From

Re: [PATCH] lto-wrapper.c (copy_file): Fix resource leaks

Le 16/05/2017 à 09:59, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit : > Le 15/05/2017 à 23:58, Jeff Law a écrit : >> On 05/14/2017 04:00 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >>> Add missing fclose >>> CID 1407987, 1407986 >>> >>> S >>> >>> >>> >>> 0005-2017-05-14-Sylvestre-Ledru-sylvestre-debian.org.patch >>> >>> >>> From

Re: libdecnumber/bid/bid2dpd_dpd2bid.c: Simplify code

Le 26/05/2017 à 15:34, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit : > Hello, > > The attach patch (dup.diff) performs the following changes: > > * bid/bid2dpd_dpd2bid.c: Remove identical code for different > branches (CID 1286836, 1286837, 1286838) > Remove some useless } else { declaration as we

Re: C/C++ PATCH to implement -Wmultistatement-macros (PR c/80116)

On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 11:40 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:01:06PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:29:32PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > > > > > * c-parser.c (c_parser_if_body): Set the

[PATCH v2][ASAN] Implement dynamic allocas/VLAs sanitization.​

Hi, I'm sorry for a long delay. Here an updated patch. Following Jakub's suggestion from previous review, I've added a get_nonzero_bits stuff into handle_builtin_alloca in order to avoid redundant redzone size calculations in case we know that alloca has alignment >= ASAN_RED_ZONE_SIZE. Thus,

Re: PR81136: ICE from inconsistent DR_MISALIGNMENTs

Richard Biener writes: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Richard Biener writes: >>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford >>> wrote:

[PATCH, 3/4] Handle GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_JIT=-O[0-4] in libgomp nvptx plugin

[ reposting with proper subject ] On 06/26/2017 01:42 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: On 06/26/2017 01:24 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: Hi, I've written a patch series to facilitate debugging libgomp openacc testcase failures on the nvptx accelerator. When running an openacc test-case on an nvptx

[PATCH, 4/4] Handle GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_JIT=-ori in libgomp nvptx plugin

On 06/26/2017 01:24 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: Hi, I've written a patch series to facilitate debugging libgomp openacc testcase failures on the nvptx accelerator. When running an openacc test-case on an nvptx accelerator, the following happens: - the plugin obtains the ptx assembly for the

Re: [PATCH, 0/4] Handle GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_{DISASM,SAVE_TEMPS,JIT} in libgomp nvptx plugin

On 06/26/2017 01:24 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: Hi, I've written a patch series to facilitate debugging libgomp openacc testcase failures on the nvptx accelerator. When running an openacc test-case on an nvptx accelerator, the following happens: - the plugin obtains the ptx assembly for the

[PATCH, 2/4] Handle GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_{DISASM,SAVE_TEMPS} in libgomp nvptx plugin

On 06/26/2017 01:24 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: Hi, I've written a patch series to facilitate debugging libgomp openacc testcase failures on the nvptx accelerator. When running an openacc test-case on an nvptx accelerator, the following happens: - the plugin obtains the ptx assembly for the

Re: PR81136: ICE from inconsistent DR_MISALIGNMENTs

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: >> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> Richard Biener writes:

[PATCH, GCC/ARM, gcc-5-branch] Fix gcc.target/arm/fpscr.c

Hi, As raised by Christophe Lyon, fpscr.c FAILs because arm_fp_ok and arm_fp are not defined in GCC 5. This commit changes the test to use the same recipe as gcc.target/arm/cmp-2.c ChangeLog entry is as follows: *** gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog *** 2017-06-26 Thomas Preud'homme

[PATCH, 1/4] Show value of GOMP_OPENACC_DIM in libgomp nvptx plugin

On 06/26/2017 01:24 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: Hi, I've written a patch series to facilitate debugging libgomp openacc testcase failures on the nvptx accelerator. When running an openacc test-case on an nvptx accelerator, the following happens: - the plugin obtains the ptx assembly for the

[PATCH, 0/4] Handle GOMP_OPENACC_NVPTX_{DISASM,SAVE_TEMPS,JIT} in libgomp nvptx plugin

Hi, I've written a patch series to facilitate debugging libgomp openacc testcase failures on the nvptx accelerator. When running an openacc test-case on an nvptx accelerator, the following happens: - the plugin obtains the ptx assembly for the acceleration kernels - it calls the cuda jit

Re: [PATCH, GCC/ARM, Stage 1] Rename FPSCR builtins to correct names

Hi Christophe, On 23/06/17 20:10, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi Thomas, On 23 June 2017 at 17:48, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: Hi Kyrill, On 10/04/17 15:01, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi Prakhar, Sorry for the delay, On 22/03/17 10:46, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote: The

Re: PR81136: ICE from inconsistent DR_MISALIGNMENTs

Richard Biener writes: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Richard Biener writes: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford >>> wrote:

Re: [PATCH][GCC][AArch64] optimize float immediate moves (2 /4) - HF/DF/SF mode.

Hi all, Here's the re-spun patch. Aside from the grouping of the split patterns it now also uses h register for the fmov for HF when available, otherwise it forces a literal load. Regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no regressions. OK for trunk? Thanks, Tamar gcc/ 2017-06-26

Re: [PATCH][GCC][AArch64] optimize float immediate moves (3 /4) - testsuite.

Hi, With the changes in the patches the testsuite had a minor update in the assembler scan. I've posted the patch but will assume it's OK based on the previous OK for trunk and the fact that this can fall in the obvious rule. Thanks, Tamar From: James

Re: [PATCH][GCC][AArch64] optimize float immediate moves (1 /4) - infrastructure.

Hi All, I've updated patch accordingly. This mostly involves removing the loop to create the ival and removing the *2 code and instead defaulting to 64bit and switching to 128 when needed. Regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no regressions. OK for trunk? Thanks, Tamar gcc/

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix static analysis warnings in arm backend

Hi Michael, On 23/06/17 21:44, Michael Collison wrote: This patch cleans up warning messages due to unused variables and overly complicated loop structures. Okay for trunk? Ok. Thanks, Kyrill 2017-03-30 Michael Collison PR target/68535 *

[PATCH][AArch64] Fix ldp/stp patterns for ILP32

The ldp/stp patterns call plus_constant which forces the mode to Pmode. However in ILP32 addresses are SImode. This may result in an assert if an ldp/stp pattern is tested with a SImode pointer. Fix this by using the mode of the pointer rather than Pmode. This fixes a failure in

[PATCH] Fix PR81203

Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2017-06-26 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/81203 * tree-tailcall.c (find_tail_calls): Do not move stmts into non-dominating BBs. * gcc.dg/torture/pr81203.c: New

Re: PR81136: ICE from inconsistent DR_MISALIGNMENTs

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Richard Biener writes: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford >>>

Re: PR81136: ICE from inconsistent DR_MISALIGNMENTs

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> The test case triggered this assert in

Re: [PATCH GCC][01/13]Introduce internal function IFN_LOOP_DIST_ALIAS

Just a couple of cosmetic things: "Bin.Cheng" writes: > @@ -225,6 +225,15 @@ struct GTY ((chain_next ("%h.next"))) loop { > builtins. */ >tree simduid; > > + /* For loops generated by distribution with runtime alias checks, this > + is a unique identifier

Re: Simple reassoc transforms in match.pd

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > here are a few simple transformations, mostly useful for types with > undefined overflow where we do not have reassoc. > > I did not name the testcase reassoc-* to leave that namespace to the realloc > pass,

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR71815 (SLSR misses PHI opportunities)

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi, > > Here's version 2 of the patch to fix the missed SLSR PHI opportunities, > addressing Richard's comments. I've repeated regstrap and SPEC testing > on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, again showing the patch

Re: fenv.h builtins

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > this is now the complete list of C99 fenv.h functions. I tried to be rather > conservative, only fegetround is pure, and functions that "raise an > exception" (in the fenv sense, not the C++ one) do not get

Re: Simplify 3*x == 3*y for wrapping types

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: I think the mults don't need :c as we should canonicalize the constant to 2nd operand. Oups, I copied the transformation above (which does need :c) and didn't notice it was there. Good catch, thanks. -- Marc Glisse

Re: [PATCH GCC][5/6]Record initialization statements and only insert it for valid chains

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This patch caches initialization statements and only inserts it for valid >> chains. >> Looks like current code even inserts such stmts for

Re: Simplify 3*x == 3*y for wrapping types

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > I remember wanting to add this when the undefined-overflow case was > introduced a while ago. > > It turns out the tree where I wrote this wasn't clean. Since the rest is > details, I am including it in this

[testsuite] Compile c-c++-common/ubsan/sanitize-recover-7.c with -w

In order to kill "warning: -fsanitize=address not supported for this target". Tested on SPARC64/Linux, applied on the mainline and 7 branch as obvious. 2017-06-26 Eric Botcazou * c-c++-common/ubsan/sanitize-recover-7.c (dg-options): Add -w. -- Eric

Re: [PATCH GCC][5/6]Record initialization statements and only insert it for valid chains

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi, > This patch caches initialization statements and only inserts it for valid > chains. > Looks like current code even inserts such stmts for invalid chains which will > be > deleted as dead code afterwards. > > Bootstrap

Re: C/C++ PATCH to implement -Wmultistatement-macros (PR c/80116)

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:01:06PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:29:32PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > > > * c-parser.c (c_parser_if_body): Set the location of the > > > body of the conditional after parsing all the

[PATCH, Committed] Add myself to MAINTAINERS file

Hi, when requesting cfarm account, Segher noticed that I didn't add myself in MAINTAINERS file when obtained write access to SVN repo. Fixing this now. -Maxim diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index c76c181..04fcb8a 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -523,6 +523,7 @@ Braden

Re: [Patch testsuite]

Hi Dominique, > Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? this patch needs a ChangeLog entry (and preferably a description of the problem you're fixing ;-) > --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c 2017-06-17 > 17:55:51.0 +0200 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c

[Patch testsuite]

Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c 2017-06-17 17:55:51.0 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c 2017-06-25 18:01:52.0 +0200 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* { dg-options "-O0 -gdwarf-2 -dA" } */ /* { dg-skip-if

Re: [Patch, ARM, testsuite] Add -mfloat-abi=hard to arm_neon_ok

Hi Christophe, On 07/06/17 10:13, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, On 2 June 2017 at 16:19, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, I have recently updated the dejagnu version I use for cross-testing arm and aarch64 toolchains to 1.6+. One of the side effects was mentioned by

Re: [GCC][PATCH][mid-end] Optimize x * copysign (1.0, y) [Patch (1/2)]

Hi Andrew, Thanks! I'll put together the rest today or tomorrow. Sorry for the slow response on this one. Tamar From: Andrew Pinski Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 3:09:54 AM To: Tamar Christina Cc: GCC Patches; nd; l...@redhat.com;

Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)

Marc Glisse writes: > +(for cmp (gt ge lt le) > + outp (convert convert negate negate) > + outn (negate negate convert convert) > + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */ > + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */ > + /*

Re: [RFC][PR 67336][PING^2] Verify pointers during stack unwind

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Libgcc unwinder currently does not do any verification of pointers >> which it chases on stack. In practice this not so rarely

Re: fix libcc1 dependencies in toplevel Makefile

Hello Alex, Thanks for the review and for the extensive comments on this, much appreciated :) > On Jun 22, 2017, at 14:12 , Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2017, Olivier Hainque wrote: > >> 2017-06-13 Olivier Hainque > >>

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Implement __ARM_FEATURE_COPROC coprocessor intrinsic feature macro

ping? On 21 June 2017 at 18:57, Christophe Lyon wrote: > Hi, > > > On 19 June 2017 at 11:32, Richard Earnshaw (lists) > wrote: >> On 16/06/17 15:56, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote: >>> On 16/06/2017 15:37:18, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On

Re: [Patch, ARM, testsuite] Add -mfloat-abi=hard to arm_neon_ok

ping? On 16 June 2017 at 17:39, Christophe Lyon wrote: > ping? > > On 7 June 2017 at 11:13, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> On 2 June 2017 at 16:19, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have recently

Re: [GCC][PATCH][mid-end] Optimize x * copysign (1.0, y) [Patch (1/2)]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Tamar Christina > wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > this patch implements a optimization rewriting > > > > x * copysign (1.0, y) and > > x * copysign (-1.0, y) > > > This reminds me: >

Re: [PATCH] Fix more PR80928 fallout

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/23/2017 05:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > SLP induction vectorization runs into the issue that it remembers > > pointers to PHI nodes in the SLP tree during analysis. But those > > may get invalidated by loop copying (for prologue/epilogue

[PATCH, alpha, go]: Remove PtraceRegs definition to restore bootstrap

Hello! libgo is now able to automatically determine PtraceRegs. Attached patch removes duplicate manual definition from system dependent source. Bootstrapped and regression tested on alphaev68-linux-gnu. Uros. Index: go/syscall/syscall_linux_alpha.go

Re: [PATCH] [SPARC] Add a workaround for the LEON3FT store-store errata

> Eric, does Daniel's patch meet your requirements now? Yes, modulo the config/sparc/sparc-c.c hunk, what is it used for? But the implementation looks a bit strange, can't we merge the essentially identical blocks of code into a single block, as for the other fixes? -- Eric Botcazo

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR81175, make gather builtins pure

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Marc Glisse wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> > The vectorizer is confused about the spurious VDEFs that are caused >> > by gather vectorization so the following avoids them