Re: [PATCH] Speed-up use-after-scope (re-writing to SSA) (version 2)

On 01/19/2017 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:34:48PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hello. >> >> During bootstrap, I came to following test-case: >> >> struct A >> { >> int regno; >> }; >> struct >> { >> A base; >> } typedef *df_ref; >> int *a; >> void >> fn1 (int

Another cprop trap_if fix, PR79125

This is essentially the same patch I sent for the previous instance of this problem, but this time applied to local_cprop_pass. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux, and it seems to fix the testcase with a ppc cross. Ok? Bernd PR rtl-optimization/79125 * cprop.c (local_cprop_pass):

Re: [PATCH] Add AVX512 k-mask intrinsics

2017-01-19 20:55 GMT+03:00 Kirill Yukhin : > On 19 Jan 19:42, Andrew Senkevich wrote: >> 2017-01-19 13:39 GMT+03:00 Kirill Yukhin : >> > Hi Andrew, >> > On 18 Jan 15:45, Andrew Senkevich wrote: >> >> 2017-01-17 16:51 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek

Re: [PATCH] Use arclinux_nps linker emulation for nps400

* Graham Markall [2016-12-12 20:44:17 +]: > Hi Claudiu, > > On 12/12/16 19:18, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote: > > It looks sane to me, please apply (ask Andrew to do it for you) > > > > //Claudiu > > Many thanks for the quick review. I'll ask Andrew to do it once

Re: [1/5][AArch64] Return address protection on AArch64

On 20/01/17 11:15, Jiong Wang wrote: On 20/01/17 03:39, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jiong Wang wrote: On 11/11/16 18:22, Jiong Wang wrote: As described in the cover letter, this patch implements return address signing for AArch64, it's

Re: [PATCH] C++: fix fix-it hints for misspellings within explicit namespaces (v2)

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 13:15 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:29 PM, David Malcolm >> wrote: >> > Here's a version of the patch which simply tweaks >> >

Re: [PATCH] Speed-up use-after-scope (re-writing to SSA) (version 2)

On 01/20/2017 12:49 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > Great, thanks a lot. I'm going to re-trigger asan-bootstrap with your patch. > I'm also adding gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/asan/use-after-scope-10.c that is a valid > test-case for this issue. Hi. Unfortunately this way would not work as clobber marks

Re: [PATCH] Speed-up use-after-scope (re-writing to SSA) (version 2)

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > Unfortunately this way would not work as clobber marks content of the memory > as uninitialize > is different behavior that just marking a memory can be used (and maybe > already contains a value). > > This shows the problem: > >

Re: [PATCH] Speed-up use-after-scope (re-writing to SSA) (version 2)

On 2017.01.20 at 15:27 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > > Unfortunately this way would not work as clobber marks content of the > > memory as uninitialize > > is different behavior that just marking a memory can be used (and maybe > >

Re: [PATCH, ARM] PR71607: New approach to arm_disable_literal_pool

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 29/11/16 09:45, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 17/11/16 10:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) >>> wrote:

Re: [PATCH][ARM] PR target/71270 fix neon_valid_immediate for big-endian

On 20/01/17 14:33, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 06/01/17 11:54, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, In this wrong-code issue the RTL tries to load a const_vector: (const_vector:V8QI [ (const_int 1 [0x1]) (const_int 0 [0]) (const_int 1 [0x1]) (const_int 0

Bump BASE-VER

As our development plan says, stage4 means bumping to 7.0.1. Richard. 2017-01-20 Richard Biener * BASE-VER: Bump to 7.0.1. Index: gcc/BASE-VER === --- gcc/BASE-VER(revision 244712) +++

Re: [PATCH] Be careful about combined chain with length == 0 (PR, tree-optimization/70754).

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Richard Biener >>

Re: [Ping~]Re: [5/5][libgcc] Runtime support for AArch64 return address signing (needs new target macros)

On 20 January 2017 at 12:54, Jiong Wang wrote: > On 20/01/17 10:30, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> error: 'DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE' undeclared (first use in this >> function) >>fs->regs.reg[DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE].loc.offset ^= 1; >>

Re: [PATCH][ARM] PR target/71270 fix neon_valid_immediate for big-endian

On 06/01/17 11:54, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > In this wrong-code issue the RTL tries to load a const_vector: > (const_vector:V8QI [ > (const_int 1 [0x1]) > (const_int 0 [0]) > (const_int 1 [0x1]) > (const_int 0 [0]) > (const_int 1 [0x1]) >

Re: [PR middle-end/79123] cast false positive in -Walloca-larger-than=

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:35:32PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > This may be a naive question but why is it not possible to create > > such an SSA name? > Time and space complexity. To get the range information in this case we > have to create new SSA_NAMEs and PHI nodes to merge them at BB3. Not

Re: [PATCH] Add AVX512 k-mask intrinsics

2017-01-20 20:08 GMT+03:00 Kirill Yukhin : > Hi, > On 20 Jan 14:46, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Senkevich >> wrote: >> >> > here is intrinsics for ktest{b,w,d,q} and kortest{b,w,d,q}. Is it Ok? >> > >> > gcc/

Re: [RFC] fix bootstrap on aarch64-*-freebsd and probably others

On 20/01/17 19:56, Andreas Tobler wrote: > On 20.01.17 17:12, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 19/01/17 06:38, Andreas Tobler wrote: >>> On 19.01.17 00:33, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/18/2017 11:43 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote: > Hi all, > > I have the following issue here on

Re: [PR middle-end/79123] cast false positive in -Walloca-larger-than=

On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: In the attached testcase, we have a clearly bounded case of alloca which is being incorrectly reported: void g (int *p, int *q) { size_t n = (size_t)(p - q); if (n <

Re: [PR middle-end/79123] cast false positive in -Walloca-larger-than=

On 01/20/2017 01:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: In the attached testcase, we have a clearly bounded

Re: [PATCH 9e] Update "startwith" logic for pass-skipping to handle __RTL functions

On 01/19/2017 02:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/17/2017 02:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote: This feels somewhat different, but still a hack. I don't have strong suggestions on how to approach this, but what we've got here

Re: libgo patch committed: Fix build on s390x GNU/Linux

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > This patch to libgo fixes the build on s390x GNU/Linux by ignoring an > s390x-specific file that only works in conjunction with s390x assembly > code that has not (yet) been ported to gccgo. Bootstrapped and ran Go >

Re: [RFC] fix bootstrap on aarch64-*-freebsd and probably others

On 20.01.17 17:12, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 19/01/17 06:38, Andreas Tobler wrote: On 19.01.17 00:33, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/18/2017 11:43 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote: Hi all, I have the following issue here on aarch64-*-freebsd: (sorry if the format is hardly readable) ..

Re: Another cprop trap_if fix, PR79125

On 01/20/2017 05:24 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: This is essentially the same patch I sent for the previous instance of this problem, but this time applied to local_cprop_pass. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux, and it seems to fix the testcase with a ppc cross. Ok? Bernd pr79125.diff

Re: Improve things for PR71724, in combine/if_then_else_cond

Hi Bernd, On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:33:59PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > So, when looking for situations where we have only one condition, we can > try to undo the conversion of a plain REG into a condition, on the > grounds that this is probably less helpful. > > This seems to cure the

Re: [PR middle-end/79123] cast false positive in -Walloca-larger-than=

On 01/20/2017 09:37 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 01/20/2017 01:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: In the

Re: [RFC] fix bootstrap on aarch64-*-freebsd and probably others

On 01/20/2017 12:56 PM, Andreas Tobler wrote: On 20.01.17 17:12, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 19/01/17 06:38, Andreas Tobler wrote: On 19.01.17 00:33, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/18/2017 11:43 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote: Hi all, I have the following issue here on aarch64-*-freebsd: (sorry if

[PATCH] Fix -Wformat-security warnings in dwarf2out.c

Hi! When building gcc with -Wformat -Werror=format-security, there are various warnings->errors. This set has been introduced by me :( in the DWARF5 work, thus it is a 7 Regression. Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? 2017-01-20 Jakub Jelinek

[PATCH] Fix Fortran FE -Wformat-security warnings

Hi! The Fortran FE has huge amounts of -Wformat-security warnings everywhere, but in the end they are only a result of a few commonly used things: 1) gfc_get_string uses a printf-like format string, so calling it with a variable is something -Wformat-security warns about (and would be a bad bug

Re: [PATCH] avoid calling memset et al. with excessively large sizes (PR 79095)

On 01/18/2017 01:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:59:43PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: I agree that breaking those applications would be bad. It could be dealt with by adding an option to let them disable the insertion of the trap. With the warning, programmers would get a

Re: [PATCH] avoid calling memset et al. with excessively large sizes (PR 79095)

On 01/20/2017 04:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 04:32:19PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: then the loop does the same thing as will memset (p, 6, 3U * 1024 * 1024 * 1024); do. On such large objects some operations may not work properly, e.g. [i] - [0] might be negative etc., but

Re: [PATCH,rs6000] Correct argument and result types for binary floating point built-in functions

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 04:07:47PM -0700, Kelvin Nilsen wrote: > > This patch corrects several errors in a patch originally committed on > 2016-08-10. The following corrections are required to maintain > compliance with "Power Architecture 64-Bit ELF V2 ABI Specification", > also known as

Re: [PATCH] avoid calling memset et al. with excessively large sizes (PR 79095)

On 01/18/2017 10:45 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 01/18/2017 01:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:59:43PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: I agree that breaking those applications would be bad. It could be dealt with by adding an option to let them disable the insertion of the trap.

Re: [PATCH] avoid calling memset et al. with excessively large sizes (PR 79095)

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 04:32:19PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > then the loop does the same thing as will memset (p, 6, 3U * 1024 * 1024 * > > 1024); > > do. On such large objects some operations may not work properly, e.g. > > [i] - [0] might be negative etc., but that is not something the above

[PATCH] Some further --with-gcc-major-version-only fixes

Hi! I've discovered today that while I've handled all */Makefile* and toplevel, in the */*/Makefile* files there are some cat .../BASE-VER constructs left (for NVPTX offloading testing it actually caused the accel compiler not being found with --with-gcc-major-version-only). The following patch

Re: [RFC] fix bootstrap on aarch64-*-freebsd and probably others

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:37:13PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > Which is best will depend on what the front/mid ends might have done to > > > apply the documented limit. > > > > Here I know not enough to give a decision. In tree the priority_type is > > unsigned short. In varasm priority is an

Re: [PATCH 1/6] RISC-V Port: gcc/config/riscv/riscv.c

On 01/11/2017 06:30 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: +/* The largest number of operations needed to load an integer constant. + The worst case is LUI, ADDI, SLLI, ADDI, SLLI, ADDI, SLLI, ADDI, + but we may attempt and reject even worse sequences. */ +#define RISCV_MAX_INTEGER_OPS 32 Why would

[PR 79108] Put ipa_node_params to GC memory

Hi, when I fixed PR 78365 by streaming types of parameters that might not have been anywhere else, I forgot that I was holding them in non-GC memory and so I caused PR 79108. The following patch fixes it by putting ipa_param_descriptor and ipa_node_params structures into GC memory, together with

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR78515

Hi, On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:55:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Martin Jambor wrote: > > ... > > > > There's still that odd 'stmt2' > > > hanging around that gets set to sth else than stmt with > > > > > > op1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt); > > > > > > if (TREE_CODE

libgo patch committed: Fixes for cgo

This patch to libgo fixes misc/cgo/test in the master repository to work with gccgo. The package testing/internal/testdeps is now installed. It is required by the new go test. The function runtime.lockedOSThread is exported from the runtime package, so that it can be called from misc/cgo/test

A + B CMP A -> A CMP' CST' match.pd patterns [was [PATCH] avoid calling memset et al. with excessively large sizes (PR 79095)]

On 01/20/2017 04:30 PM, Jeff Law wrote: Going to work from the self-contained test... Here's a test case that's closer to the one from the bug. It also ends up with the out of bounds memset even at -O1, during PRE. typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t; struct S int *p0, *p1, *p2; size_t size

Re: [PATCH 2/6] RISC-V Port: gcc

On 01/11/2017 06:30 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: +(define_register_constraint "f" "TARGET_HARD_FLOAT ? FP_REGS : NO_REGS" + "A floating-point register (if available).") + I know this is the Traditional Way, but I do wonder if using the new enable attribute on the alternatives would be better.

Re: [PATCH 2/6] RISC-V Port: gcc

On 01/17/2017 01:16 PM, Andrew Waterman wrote: We went with the /libXX/YY/ approach because, on a multilib system, the system libraries also need to be distinguished by ABI. It seemed most natural to us to handle ld.so and e.g. libc.so in a consistent manner. However, something along the lines

Re: [PATCH 3/6] RISC-V Port: libgcc

On 01/11/2017 06:30 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: +__riscv_save_12: + addi sp, sp, -112 + li t1, 0 + sd s11, 8(sp) + j .Ls10 + +__riscv_save_11: +__riscv_save_10: + addi sp, sp, -112 + li t1, -16 No unwind info? r~

Re: [PR 79108] Put ipa_node_params to GC memory

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > when I fixed PR 78365 by streaming types of parameters that might not > have been anywhere else, I forgot that I was holding them in non-GC > memory and so I caused PR 79108. The following patch fixes it by >

Re: Another cprop trap_if fix, PR79125

On 01/20/2017 05:24 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: This is essentially the same patch I sent for the previous instance of this problem, but this time applied to local_cprop_pass. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux, and it seems to fix the testcase with a ppc cross. Ok? Bernd pr79125.diff

[v3 PATCH] Make poisoned hashes SFINAE away the call operator of the hash.

Tested on Linux-x64. The approach is a bit ugly, the hashes derive from __poison_hash and also use its nested __enable_hash_call as an argument for another utility base. I prototyped various approaches to try to decrease that duplication, but didn't like any of them (more utility bases, aliases,

Re: [PATCH, v2] (9e) Update "startwith" logic for pass-skipping to handle __RTL functions

On January 20, 2017 3:56:31 PM GMT+01:00, David Malcolm wrote: >On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 09:06 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:22 PM, David Malcolm >> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 14:42 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: >> > > On

Re: [v3 PATCH] Make poisoned hashes SFINAE away the call operator of the hash.

On 20/01/17 17:00 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote: --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/unique_ptr.h +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/unique_ptr.h @@ -789,10 +789,9 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION { return !(nullptr < __x); } /// std::hash specialization for unique_ptr. - template -

Re: [ARM,AArch64][testsuite] Fix format string in AdvSIMD tests

On 17/01/17 08:52, Christophe Lyon wrote: > Hi, > > This patch fixes inconsistencies in the format strings used to emit > error messages when problems are detected in the AdvSIMD tests. They > are not used normally since there is currently no error, but Doko > complained about warnings when he

contrib/update-copyright.py: remove Java

This is a follow-up to 2017-01-01 Jakub Jelinek * update-copyright.py (TestsuiteFilter): Skip params/README. (GCCCmdLine): Remove libjava and libjava/testsuite add_dir. which removed the usage of LibJavaFilter in this script, just not the filter class

Re: Implement -Wduplicated-branches (PR c/64279) (v3)

This patch introduced a new testsuite failure: FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C:9:3: warning: this condition has identical branches [-Wduplicated-branches]

[libgcc] i386/cygming-crtbegin.c: remove LIBGCJ_SONAME

Not a regression in the strict sense, but a left over from the Java removal. Can we still get that in? (I think I pretty much committed all other changes of things I found as left overs from the GCJ/libgcj removal.) Gerald 2017-01-20 Gerald Pfeifer *

Re: [v3 PATCH] Make poisoned hashes SFINAE away the call operator of the hash.

On 20 January 2017 at 17:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > This part for std::unique_ptr is the only part that isn't C++17-only, > so this is the part I'm most nervous about. Given that we're in stage > 4 and this isn't even fixing something in Bugzilla (even if it is a > real

Re: [PATCH, v2] (9e) Update "startwith" logic for pass-skipping to handle __RTL functions

On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 09:06 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:22 PM, David Malcolm > wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 14:42 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 01/09/2017 07:38 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * passes.c: Include

[PATCH] PR69240 Define inequality operators for param types

We're in stage 4 now, and this isn't a regression, but I'm going to be naughty and commit it anyway because it's a large patch but very simple. It just adds operator!= to every xxx_distribution::param_type, doing return (!p1 == p2), so hard to get wrong. The rest of the patch only changes

Re: Implement -Wduplicated-branches (PR c/64279) (v3)

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:05:22AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > This patch introduced a new testsuite failure: > > FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess > errors) > Excess errors: >

Re: [PATCH, GCC/testsuite/ARM, ping] Skip optional_mthumb tests if GCC has a default mode

On 13/01/17 18:17, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > Ping ARM maintainers? (target independent part ACKed by Jeff) > > Best regards, > > Thomas > > On 03/01/17 17:19, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: >> Ping? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Thomas >> >> On 12/12/16 17:52, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>

Re: [v3 PATCH] Make poisoned hashes SFINAE away the call operator of the hash.

On 20 January 2017 at 17:27, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 20 January 2017 at 17:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> This part for std::unique_ptr is the only part that isn't C++17-only, >> so this is the part I'm most nervous about. Given that we're in

Re: [1/5][AArch64] Return address protection on AArch64

On 20/01/17 03:39, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jiong Wang wrote: On 11/11/16 18:22, Jiong Wang wrote: As described in the cover letter, this patch implements return address signing for AArch64, it's controlled by the new option:

Re: [PR middle-end/79123] cast false positive in -Walloca-larger-than=

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > On 01/20/2017 03:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17

Re: [PATCH] PR72792 PR72793 relax requirements on rebind members

On 20/01/17 02:37 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: I misread the specifications for pointer_traits::rebind and allocator_traits::rebind_alloc and was requiring them to be valid for any specialization of the class templates. In fact they're only needed if instantiated. This fixes the problem.

Improve things for PR71724, in combine/if_then_else_cond

The PR is about infinite recursion in combine_simplify_rtx, because if_then_else_cond does strange things to an expression, and we end up simplifying something to itself. The patch below tries to address this by improving that function a little. As stated in the PR, the situation is that we

[C++ PATCH] c++/78495 inherited ctor and inivis-ref parm

Bug 78495 is a wrong code bug caused by an invisiref parm. When building the inherited ctor, we use forward_parm to create a forwarding reference. That code generation considers the type of the parm to be 'T'. We thus end up with a tree that looks like * The subsequent call gets

[Ada] Legality and removal of ignored Ghost context clauses

This patch implements several checks on use clauses to prevent mixing Ghost and non-Ghost names. A context clause is marked as ignored Ghost when it mentions an ignored Ghost package or type. Pruning of ignored Ghost code now looks at compilation unit nodes in order to remove ignored Ghost clauses

[Ada] Warn on non-standard check pragmas

The pragma Check_Poliy and the names Precondition / Postcondition were introduced in GNAT before the Ada2012 standardization, and they have a different behavior from that of the standardized pragma Assertion_Policy. Rather than making the behavior of both more conformant we choose to preserve the

Re: [Ping~]Re: [5/5][libgcc] Runtime support for AArch64 return address signing (needs new target macros)

On 20/01/17 10:30, Christophe Lyon wrote: error: 'DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE' undeclared (first use in this function) fs->regs.reg[DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE].loc.offset ^= 1; ^ Hi Christophe, could you please confirm you svn

Re: [WPA PATCH] Comdat group splitting

On 01/19/2017 10:26 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: 2) For LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF members we don't make_decl_local, but instead clear DECL_COMDAT and DECL_WEAK. Thus forcing this decl to be the prevailing decl in the final link 3) For decls we localize, we also clear node->externally_visible and

Re: Implement -Wduplicated-branches (PR c/64279) (v3)

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:32:59PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > s/indentical/identical in the doc/invoke.texi changes. Fixed. > > diff --git gcc/c/c-typeck.c gcc/c/c-typeck.c > > index 96e7351..ed8ffe4 100644 > > --- gcc/c/c-typeck.c > > +++ gcc/c/c-typeck.c > > @@ -5193,6 +5193,15 @@

[Ada] Crash on overloaded function call with limited view

This patch fixes a compiler abort on a call to a function that returns a limited view of a type. The following sources must compile quietly: limited with Root; package Api is type Object is tagged null record; function Is_Present (Name : in String) return Boolean; function Get (Name :

Re: [Ping~]Re: [5/5][libgcc] Runtime support for AArch64 return address signing (needs new target macros)

On 20/01/17 11:54, Jiong Wang wrote: > On 20/01/17 10:30, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> error: 'DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE' undeclared (first use in this >> function) >>fs->regs.reg[DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE].loc.offset ^= 1; >>

[hsa] Rename hsa.[ch] to hsa-common.[ch]

Hi, because the BRIG FE run-time and HSA libgomp plugin need the same hsa.h that is currently in libgomp/plugin/, the plan is to move that file to top-level include/ subdirectory. This patch renames gcc/hsa.h to gcc/hsa-common.h so that it does not conflict with the one in include. It was an

Re: [C++ PATCH] c++/78495 inherited ctor and inivis-ref parm

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > Bug 78495 is a wrong code bug caused by an invisiref parm. When building > the inherited ctor, we use forward_parm to create a forwarding reference. > That code generation considers the type of the parm to be 'T'. We thus

Re: [PATCH] Add AVX512 k-mask intrinsics

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Senkevich wrote: > here is intrinsics for ktest{b,w,d,q} and kortest{b,w,d,q}. Is it Ok? > > gcc/ > * config/i386/avx512bwintrin.h: Add k-mask test, kortest intrinsics. > * config/i386/avx512dqintrin.h: Ditto. > *

GCC 7 Status report, trunk in regression/documentation fixes mode now (2017-01-20)

Status == The trunk is now in regression and documentation fixes mode (Stage 4) thus as if it were a release branch. We still have the pending adoptions of the BRIG FE and the RISC-V port. Quality Data Priority # Change from last report ---

Re: [Ping~]Re: [5/5][libgcc] Runtime support for AArch64 return address signing (needs new target macros)

On 20/01/17 10:11, Christophe Lyon wrote: /tmp/8132498_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c: In function 'execute_cfa_program': /tmp/8132498_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:1193:17: error: 'DWARF_REGNUM_AARCH64_RA_STATE' undeclared

RFA: Update XFAIL comments in

Hi Guys, I would like to close out PR 70681 by applying the patch below. It updates the XFAIL comments in the two affected tests, explaining why the check for shrink-wrapping will fail. There is nothing actually wrong here. The shrink wrapping optimization is working and the targets

Re: [PATCH] Add AVX512 k-mask intrinsics

Hi, On 20 Jan 14:46, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Senkevich > wrote: > > > here is intrinsics for ktest{b,w,d,q} and kortest{b,w,d,q}. Is it Ok? > > > > gcc/ > > * config/i386/avx512bwintrin.h: Add k-mask test, kortest intrinsics.

[PATCH] Fix bogus warning with -Wimplicit-fallthrough (PR c/79152)

We already have code to handle case 0: foo (); label: bar (); where we don't want to warn, but the code didn't handle consecutive non-case labels. Thus fixed. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk? 2017-01-20 Marek Polacek PR c/79152

Re: [1/5][AArch64] Return address protection on AArch64

On 20/01/17 12:36, Jiong Wang wrote: > > > On 20/01/17 11:15, Jiong Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 20/01/17 03:39, Andrew Pinski wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jiong Wang >>> wrote: On 11/11/16 18:22, Jiong Wang wrote: > As described in the cover letter,

Re: [PR middle-end/79123] cast false positive in -Walloca-larger-than=

On 01/20/2017 01:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: In the attached testcase, we have a clearly bounded

Re: [C++ PATCH] c++/78495 inherited ctor and inivis-ref parm

On 01/20/2017 08:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: Hmm, I would guess that if we're going to do this we need to also use forward_parm in maybe_thunk_body. Apparently not needed. maybe_thunk_body is called after we've genericized the parent ctor. That ctor's parms have been bashed to reference

Re: [RFC] fix bootstrap on aarch64-*-freebsd and probably others

On 19/01/17 06:38, Andreas Tobler wrote: > On 19.01.17 00:33, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 01/18/2017 11:43 AM, Andreas Tobler wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have the following issue here on aarch64-*-freebsd: >>> >>> (sorry if the format is hardly readable) >>> >>> .. >>>

Re: [PATCH] c++/78771 ICE with inheriting ctor

ping? On 01/11/2017 10:53 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 01/04/2017 12:53 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: Hmm, that seems like where the problem is. We shouldn't try to instantiate the inheriting constructor until we've already chosen the base constructor; in the new model the inheriting constructor

Re: [PATCH] Fix bogus warning with -Wimplicit-fallthrough (PR c/79152)

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 05:14:34PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > We already have code to handle > > case 0: > foo (); > label: > bar (); > > where we don't want to warn, but the code didn't handle consecutive non-case > labels. Thus fixed. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR78189

Hi Guys, [I have been asked to look at this PR in the hopes that it can be fixed soon and so no longer act as a blocker for the gcc 7 branch]. It seems to me that Richard's proposed patch does work: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00909.html The only problem is that the

Re: [C++ PATCH] c++/78495 inherited ctor and inivis-ref parm

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 01/20/2017 08:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> Hmm, I would guess that if we're going to do this we need to also use >> forward_parm in maybe_thunk_body. > > > Apparently not needed. maybe_thunk_body is called after

Re: [v3 PATCH] Make poisoned hashes SFINAE away the call operator of the hash.

On 20/01/17 17:50 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote: On 20 January 2017 at 17:27, Ville Voutilainen wrote: On 20 January 2017 at 17:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote: This part for std::unique_ptr is the only part that isn't C++17-only, so this is the

Re: [ARM] Fix broken sibcall with longcall, APCS frame and VFP

> This seems to have fallen through a crack. Did you get a chance to try > either of these suggestions? So just: /* { dg-do run } */ /* { dg-options "-mapcs-frame -O -foptimize-sibling-calls -ffunction-sections" } */ in the header of the tescase? -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [1/5][AArch64] Return address protection on AArch64

Here is the patch. For XPACLRI builtin which drops the signature in a pointer, it's prototype is "void *foo (void *)" FOR PAC/AUT builtin which sign or authenticate a pointer, it's prototype is "void *foo (void *, uint64)". This patch adjusted those modes to make sure they strictly follow

Re: [ARM] Fix broken sibcall with longcall, APCS frame and VFP

On 01/09/16 10:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 01/09/16 10:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 01/09/16 08:47, Eric Botcazou wrote: Since you're going to need a back-port there should be a PR filed for this. >>> >>> PR target/77439 >>> Have you checked that this works with

Re: RFA: Update XFAIL comments in

On Jan 20 2017, Nick Clifton wrote: > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c > === > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c (revision 244691) > +++

Re: transaction_safe exceptions prevent libstdc++ building for some targets

On 19/01/17 12:05 +, Joe Seymour wrote: Here's the patch I'm proposing. I've tested it as follows: - msp430-elf no longer encounters the error when configuring libstdc++-v3. Note that libstdc++-v3 doesn't build due to an ICE though. - Configuring libstdc++-v3 for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

Re: [1/5][AArch64] Return address protection on AArch64

On 20/01/17 18:23, Jiong Wang wrote: OK, the attached patch disable the building of pointer signing code in libgcc on ILP32 mode, except the macro bit RA_A_SIGNED_BIT is still defined as I want to book this bit for ILP32 as LP64 in case we later enable ILP32 support. All pauth builtins

Re: [1/5][AArch64] Return address protection on AArch64

On 20/01/17 18:30, Jiong Wang wrote: > > On 20/01/17 18:23, Jiong Wang wrote: >> >> OK, the attached patch disable the building of pointer signing code in >> libgcc >> on ILP32 mode, except the macro bit RA_A_SIGNED_BIT is still defined as I >> want to book this bit for ILP32 as LP64 in case we

Re: [PATCH] Do not declare artificial variables in tree-profile.c to have a definition (PR lto/69188).

On 01/20/2017 02:46 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 01/13/2017 06:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/13/2017 08:08 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hello. Nice example provided in the PR causes ICE as we have an artificial symbol created in tree-profile.c once being removed by remove unreachable nodes (-O0) and

[OBVIOUS] [PATCH] Fix --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats

Hi. Fixing typo that breaks --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats, where build_decl_stat really expects memory report arguments. Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. Installed as r244686. Martin >From 34a4006c9eec67ee005b4c02c3553525376696e8 Mon Sep 17

Re: [PATCH] Do not declare artificial variables in tree-profile.c to have a definition (PR lto/69188).

On 01/13/2017 06:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 01/13/2017 08:08 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hello. >> >> Nice example provided in the PR causes ICE as we have an artificial symbol >> created in tree-profile.c once being removed by remove unreachable nodes >> (-O0) >> and once not (-O1). Well,

[Ada] Fix typing in special frontend inlining for GNATprove

In some cases of an assignment to an unconstrained formal parameter being inlined as part of the special frontend inlining in GNATprove mode, the inlined assignment is to an unconstrained view of a constrained local variable, which is unexpected in GNATprove. Rather, keep the most precise type of

Re: [PR middle-end/79123] cast false positive in -Walloca-larger-than=

On 01/20/2017 03:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 01/19/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: In the attached testcase, we have a clearly bounded

  1   2   >