About 31109 - gprofng not built and installed in a combined binutils+gcc build

2024-01-30 Thread Vladimir Mezentsev
Hi, I asked in https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31109 > I prepared a patch for the releases/gcc-13 branch. > Richard Biener rejected my patch for this branch. > Which branch should I use? master, trunk or something else? Do you really need gprofng in the gcc repo ? if yes:  

Fwd: [PATCH] gprofng: a new GNU profiler

2023-12-19 Thread Vladimir Mezentsev
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org CC: Vladimir Mezentsev From: Vladimir Mezentsev This is fixes for releases/gcc-13 for 31109 gprofng not built and installed in a combined binutils+gcc build I only cherry-picked 24552056fd5fc677c0d032f54a5cad1c4303d312 and tested my build. ChangeLog

[PATCH] gprofng: a new GNU profiler

2023-12-13 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev This is fixes for releases/gcc-13 for 31109 gprofng not built and installed in a combined binutils+gcc build I only cherry-picked 24552056fd5fc677c0d032f54a5cad1c4303d312 and tested my build. ChangeLog: * Makefile.def: Add gprofng module

Re: [PATCH] PR gcc/84923 - gcc.dg/attr-weakref-1.c failed on aarch64

2018-05-21 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
On 05/21/2018 01:30 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/17/2018 02:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Given this is a midend change it's a good idea to CC some of the maintainers >>> of that area. >>> I've copied richi and Honza. >> The patch is

Re: [PATCH] PR gcc/84923 - gcc.dg/attr-weakref-1.c failed on aarch64

2018-05-16 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
Ping. -Vladimir On 05/10/2018 11:30 PM, vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com wrote: > From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> > > When weakref_targets is not empty a target cannot be removed from the weak > list. > A small example is below when 'wv12' is remov

[PATCH] PR gcc/84923 - gcc.dg/attr-weakref-1.c failed on aarch64

2018-05-11 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> When weakref_targets is not empty a target cannot be removed from the weak list. A small example is below when 'wv12' is removed from the weak list on aarch64: static vtype Wv12 __attribute__((weakref ("wv12"))); e

[PATCH] PR gcc/84923 - gcc.dg/attr-weakref-1.c failed on aarch64

2018-04-13 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> When weakref_targets is not empty a target cannot be removed from weak_decls. A small example is below when 'wv12' is removed from the weak list on aarch64: static vtype Wv12 __attribute__((weakref ("wv12"))); e

Re: [PATCH] PR gcc/68256 Defining TARGET_USE_CONSTANT_BLOCKS_P causes go bootstrap failure on aarch64.

2018-03-16 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
On 03/15/2018 07:07 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:18 PM, <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> wrote: >> From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> >> >> Ramana Radhakrishnan made a workaround in gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c to &

[PATCH] PR gcc/68256 Defining TARGET_USE_CONSTANT_BLOCKS_P causes go bootstrap failure on aarch64.

2018-02-16 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> Ramana Radhakrishnan made a workaround in gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c to resolve bootstrap comparison failure (2015-11-10, commit bc443a71dafa2e707bae4b2fa74f83b05dea37ab). The real bug is in gcc/varasm.c. hash_section() r

Re: [PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2018-02-06 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
On 02/06/2018 08:53 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > The files in libgcc/soft-fp must be verbatim copies of the master sources > in glibc. So you can't make any local changes to them, and if you think > changes are needed you need to patch things upstream in glibc first, with > a proper extended

Re: [PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2018-02-06 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
On 01/29/2018 12:51 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com wrote: > >>> What about powerpc __divkc3? >>> >>> What was the rationale for using soft-fp rather than adding appropriate >>> built-in functions as suggested in a comment? >> I had a version with

[PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2018-02-05 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu. No regression. New tests now passed. There is a performance degradation for complex double type: failed cases |time old

Re: [PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2018-01-29 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
On 01/25/2018 04:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com wrote: > >> From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> >> >> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and >> sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu. &g

[PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2018-01-25 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu. No regression. New tests now passed. There is a performance degradation for complex double type: failed cases |time old

Re: [PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2017-10-25 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
On 10/25/2017 10:28 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com wrote: > >> +# Disable FMA (floating-point multiply-add) instructions for complex >> division. >> +# These instructions can produce different result if two operations >> executed separately. >>

[PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2017-10-25 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> FMA (floating-point multiply-add) instructions are supported on aarch64. These instructions can produce different result if two operations executed separately. -ffp-contract=off doesn't allow the FMA instructions. Tested on a

Re: [PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2017-10-24 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
omplex division, it > would have an unintended performance impact. It's best to do > this just for complex division. On 10/19/2017 10:17 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> >> On 10/19/2017 06:37 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wr

Re: [PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2017-10-19 Thread Vladimir Mezentsev
On 10/19/2017 06:37 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 19/10/17 14:07, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: Vladimir wrote: +# Disable floating-point expression contraction +LIBGCC2_FFP_CONTRAST_CFLAGS = -ffp-contract=off + It looks like this disables fp-contract in all of libgcc... What is the the

[PATCH] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2017-10-18 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> FMA (floating-point multiply-add) instructions are supported on aarch64. These instructions can produce different result if two operations executed separately. -ffp-contract=off doesn't allow the FMA instructions. Tested on two pla

Re: [PATCH 2/2] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2017-10-13 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
On 10/12/2017 03:40 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 12/10/17 06:21, vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com wrote: >> From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> >> >> FMA (floating-point multiply-add) instructions are supported on aarch64. >> These instruct

[PATCH 2/2] PR libgcc/59714 complex division is surprising on aarch64

2017-10-11 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> FMA (floating-point multiply-add) instructions are supported on aarch64. These instructions can produce different result if two operations executed separately. -ffp-contract=off doesn't allow the FMA instructions. Tested on aarch64

Re: [PATCH] PR target/68256 Defining TARGET_USE_CONSTANT_BLOCKS_P causes go bootstrap failure on aarch64

2017-10-05 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
On 10/05/2017 07:09 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 04/10/17 00:50, vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com wrote: >> From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> >> >> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu. >> No regression. >> No bootstrap failure. >&

[PATCH] PR target/68256 Defining TARGET_USE_CONSTANT_BLOCKS_P causes go bootstrap failure on aarch64

2017-10-03 Thread vladimir . mezentsev
From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu. No regression. No bootstrap failure. gcc/ChangeLog: 2017-09-26 Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezent...@oracle.com> * gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c: restore fix in aarch64_use_blocks_for_constan