RE: [PATCH v3] doc: change 'make check-g++' to 'make check-c++' in install.texi

Hi, Jason > On 9/9/20 6:25 AM, Hu Jiangping wrote: > > This patch check the command 'make check-g++' to 'make check-c++' in > > install.texi since there is no 'make check-g++' target in the object > > directory. > > make check-g++ works fine for me in the object di

[PATCH v3] doc: change 'make check-g++' to 'make check-c++' in install.texi

This patch check the command 'make check-g++' to 'make check-c++' in install.texi since there is no 'make check-g++' target in the object directory. It also adds some description in the above text, to clarity and emphasis the difference of the 'make check-' targets in between object directory and

RE: [PATCH] Makefile.tpl: Add check-g++

Hi, Richard > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:35 AM Hu Jiangping > wrote: > > > > This patch add a new check-g++ target to the Makefile under toplevel, > > as synonym of the check-c++ target. > > > > It is to be consistent with the check-g++ target under the gcc

RE: [PATCH v2] doc: add 'cd' command before 'make check-gcc' command in install.texi

Hi, H-P > > > On Sat, 29 Aug 2020, Hu Jiangping wrote: > > > > > > > This patch add 'cd' command before 'make check-gcc' command > > > > when run the testsuite on selected tests. > > > > > > No, don't do that; those targets work fine fro

[PATCH] Makefile.tpl: Add check-g++

under toplevel, but now it gives 'No rule to make target.' error. ChangeLog: 2020-09-08 Hu Jiangping Makefile.tpl (check-g++): New target. As synonym of check-c++. Makefile.in: Regenerated. Bootstraped on aarch64. Ok for master? Regards! Hujp --- Makefile.in | 3

RE: [PATCH v2] doc: add 'cd' command before 'make check-gcc' command in install.texi

Hi, H-P Thanks for comment. > On Sat, 29 Aug 2020, Hu Jiangping wrote: > > > This patch add 'cd' command before 'make check-gcc' command > > when run the testsuite on selected tests. > > No, don't do that; those targets work fine from the toplevel > too, and then inc

RE: [wwwdocs PATCH] projects/tree-ssa: add note for deprecated flag -ftree-vectorizer-verbose in vectorization.html

> I think the pages under gcc.gnu.org/projects/ are all hopelessly > out-of-date and more recent (but still usually out-of-date) info > is found on the wiki. > > So I'm not sure these kind of changes make sense. > > Eventually we should remove those pages? Or do we want > to keep them for

[wwwdocs PATCH] projects/tree-ssa: add note for deprecated flag -ftree-vectorizer-verbose in vectorization.html

Although vectorization.html is not up-to-date, it is still easy to be searched, and the deprecated flag in it may confuse users. This patch simply adds a note to the head of the page, hoping to help users who read it. OK for master? Regards! Hujp ---

RE: [PATCH] testsuite: add -fno-tree-fre in gcc.dg/guality

Hi, Jakub Thank you for your detailed explanation. I will try to compare the results of rtl expand as Richard have suggested, to see if I can find anything. May be I can make another patch. Thanks again. Regards! Hujp > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:13:50AM +0000, Hu, Jiangping wrote: >

[PATCH v2] doc: add 'cd' command before 'make check-gcc' command in install.texi

This patch add 'cd' command before 'make check-gcc' command when run the testsuite on selected tests. Richard and I agree it would be good for clarity and emphasis to have the cd in the example as well, although the text above the example was trying to restrict that to objdir/gcc. Tested on

RE: [PATCH] testsuite: add -fno-tree-fre in gcc.dg/guality

Hi, Richard, Jakub Thanks for reply. I'm not sure about if the case should fail. So, I add Jakub who committed this testcase. I thought the case should success, but for changes of gcc of years, now it failed. So I think that may be some optimization are unnecessary for this testcase, and I

[PATCH] doc: add 'cd' command before 'make check-gcc' command in install.texi

Hi, This patch add 'cd' command before 'make check-gcc' command when run the testsuite on selected tests. I think the implicit meaning of the original text is to execute the cd command to move to the gcc subdirectory of the object directory before executing the make command. However, due to the

[PATCH] testsuite: add -fno-tree-fre in gcc.dg/guality

This patch add -fno-tree-fre to dg-options in gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c, to make the following testcases passed. FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -Og -DPREVENT_OPTIMIZATION line 43 a.i == 4 FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -Og -DPREVENT_OPTIMIZATION line 43 a.j == 14 FAIL:

[PATCH] doc: add return type for functions in gimple.texi

This patch add the return type for some functions in gimple.texi, to make the context unified. OK for trunk? Tested on x86_64. Regards! Hujp --- gcc/doc/gimple.texi | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/doc/gimple.texi b/gcc/doc/gimple.texi index

[PATCH] target: delete unnecessary codes in aarch64.c

Hi, This patch deletes 2 unnecessary codes in function aarch64_if_then_else_costs, which were duplicated where the function starts. Tested on aarch64. OK for trunk? Regards! Hujp --- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c

[PATCH v4] driver: fix a problem with implementation of -falign-foo=0 [PR96247]

Hi! This patch makes the -falign-foo=0 work as described in the documentation. Thanks for all the suggestions. v4: do changes for coding conventions v3: make change more readable and self-consistent Changelog: 2020-07-27 Hu Jiangping PR driver/96247 * opts.c

RE: [PATCH v3] driver: fix a problem with implementation of -falign-foo=0 [PR96247]

> > This patch makes the -falign-foo=0 work as described in the > > documentation. Thanks for all the suggestions, Richard and Segher! > > Hello. > > I'm the author of the original code. > > > > > v3: make change more readable and self-consistent > > v2: at a high level handles -falign-foo=0

RE: [PATCH v3] driver: fix a problem with implementation of -falign-foo=0 [PR96247]

Tested on x86_64. > -Original Message- > From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Hu > Jiangping > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:46 PM > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; richard.sandif...@arm.com; > seg...@kernel.crashing.org > Subject: [PATCH v3] driver: fix a problem with impl

[PATCH v3] driver: fix a problem with implementation of -falign-foo=0 [PR96247]

Hi! This patch makes the -falign-foo=0 work as described in the documentation. Thanks for all the suggestions, Richard and Segher! v3: make change more readable and self-consistent v2: at a high level handles -falign-foo=0 like -falign-foo Regards! Hujp --- gcc/opts.c | 24

RE: [PATCH v2] driver: fix a problem with implementation of -falign-foo=0 [PR96247]

> In addition to Segher's comments, I wonder if it would be better > to pass >x_flag_align_foo and >x_str_align_jumps to > check_alignment_argument and do the check there instead. > The condition for whether to do this would then be: > > align_result.length () == 1 && align_result[0] == 0 > >

RE: [PATCH v2] driver: fix a problem with implementation of -falign-foo=0 [PR96247]

Add CC to Richard. > Thanks, Richard! > > I think your suggestion is very good, so I made a new patch. > > v2: at a high level handles -falign-foo=0 like -falign-foo > v1: at the target level overides the -falign-foo=0 option values > > Obviously, v2 is better than v1. In addition, anthor

[PATCH v2] driver: fix a problem with implementation of -falign-foo=0 [PR96247]

Thanks, Richard! I think your suggestion is very good, so I made a new patch. v2: at a high level handles -falign-foo=0 like -falign-foo v1: at the target level overides the -falign-foo=0 option values Obviously, v2 is better than v1. In addition, anthor option to reject 0 that discussed in the

RE: [PATCH] target: fix default value checking of x_str_align_functions in aarch64.c

> Sorry for the slow response on this. Like you say, it seems to be a pretty > pervasive problem. In fact I couldn't see anywhere that actually treated - > falign-foo=0 as anything other than -falign-foo=1. > > Technically using an alignment of one for zero is within what the > documentation

RE: [PATCH] target: fix default value checking of x_str_align_functions in aarch64.c

PING. > -Original Message- > From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Hu > Jiangping > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:55 PM > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: [PATCH] target: fix default value checking of x_str_align_functions > in > aarch64.c > > Hi, > &

[wwwdocs PATCH v2] projects/tree-ssa: add a big banner to tree-browser.html

Hi, Different from Patch v1 which removed the page, I add a big banner to say that the page is no longer up-to-date, just as Richard and Gerald recommended. OK for push? Regards! Hujp --- htdocs/projects/tree-ssa/tree-browser.html | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git

[PATCH] target: fix default value checking of x_str_align_functions in aarch64.c

Hi, This patch deal with the -falign-X=0 options. According to man pages, if zero is specified, a machine-dependent default value should be used. But in fact, zero was used in internal process, it is inconsistent. Tested on aarch64-linux cross compiler, Is that OK? BTW, the similar problems

RE: [wwwdocs PATCH] remove tree-browser page and links

> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> I'm trying Tree Browser during debugging, but failed. > >> I found that tree-browser.c and tree-browser.def have been removed at > >> 2015-07-25. So, to avoid misunderstanding, can we remove this > >> tree-browser page too? > > Thanks for the

[wwwdocs PATCH] remove tree-browser page and links

Hi, I'm trying Tree Browser during debugging, but failed. I found that tree-browser.c and tree-browser.def have been removed at 2015-07-25. So, to avoid misunderstanding, can we remove this tree-browser page too? Regards. hujp --- htdocs/projects/tree-ssa/index.html| 6 -

[wwwdocs PATCH] Fix typo

Hi, this patch fix a typo in contribute.html. Best Regards. Hujp --- htdocs/contribute.html | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/htdocs/contribute.html b/htdocs/contribute.html index 80a4470e..a913565b 100644 --- a/htdocs/contribute.html +++