[PATCH] PR libstdc++/81891 fix double-free in hashtable constructor

We introduced a regression in r214986 when changing the _Hashtable range constructor to delegate to another constructor. That change means that the object has completed construction after the target constructor completes, and so if an exception is thrown in the delegating constructor then the

Re: [PATCH] detect incompatible aliases (PR c/81854)

On 08/18/2017 10:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 18/08/17 08:54 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: On 08/18/2017 07:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 17/08/17 21:21 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: Joseph, while looking into implementing enhancement your request pr81824 I noticed that GCC silently accepts

Re: [PATCH] detect incompatible aliases (PR c/81854)

On 18/08/17 08:54 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: On 08/18/2017 07:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 17/08/17 21:21 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: Joseph, while looking into implementing enhancement your request pr81824 I noticed that GCC silently accepts incompatible alias declarations (pr81854) so as

[PATCH/AARCH64] Generate FRINTZ for (double)(long) under -ffast-math on aarch64

Like https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg00060.html for PowerPC, we should do something similar for aarch64. This pattern does show up in SPEC CPU 2006 in astar but I did not look into performance improvement of it though. OK? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no

[PATCH] Simplify allocator usage in unordered containers

While fixing PR 81891 I noticed that _Hashtable always creates a __value_alloc_type for constructing and destroying the elements, which is unnecessary. https://wg21.link/lwg2218 confirmed that. We can avoid constructing new allocators just for these calls and can call them directly on the stored

Re: std::list optimizations

On 28/07/17 18:42 +0200, François Dumont wrote: Hi Completing execution of the testsuite revealed a bug. So here is the correct version of this patch. François On 21/07/2017 19:14, François Dumont wrote: Hi Here is a proposal for 2 optimizations in the std::list implementation.

[PATCH] Fix PR81488

Hi, https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 reports a problem with SLSR where too many memory resources are required to complete SLSR processing of conditional candidates. The code in question contains large trees of PHI dependencies that must be examined in order to find all

Re: [PATCH], Enable -mfloat128 by default on PowerPC VSX systems

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 06:59:50PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > This patch enables -mfloat128 to be the default on PowerPC Linux VSX systems. > > This patch depends on the libquadmatch/81848 patch being approved and > installed: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00977.html That

libgo patch commited: Don't use little-endian code to dump big-endian PPC regs

According to GCC PR 81893 the code that dumps the registers for PPC only works for little-endian. This patch fixes it to only be used in that case. Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, for what that's worth. Committed to mainline. Ian Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE

Re: Ping on target independent stack clash protection patches

> #01 of #08: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01971.html > > #02 of #08: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01972.html > > #03 of #08: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01974.html > > Need to reach some kind of closure on these, then I can start

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add testcase coverage for vec_sums built-in

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:18:54AM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote: > Add some testcase coverage for the vec_sums() built-in. > > Tested across power platforms (p6 and newer). OK for trunk? Okay, thanks! Segher > * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-sums-int.c: New.

Re: [PATCH], Delete some PowerPC debug switches

Hi! On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 07:48:54PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > This patch deletes some of the debug switches that I've added over the years, > and now don't use any more. > > I did bootstrap builds and make check runs on a little endian power8 system. > There were no regressions. Can I

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] 2/3 Add x86 SSE intrinsics to GCC PPC64LE taget

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:40:34PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > > > +/* Convert the lower SPFP value to a 32-bit integer according to the > > > current > > > + rounding mode. */ > > > +extern __inline int __attribute__((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__, > > > __artificial__)) > > >

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] 3/3 Add x86 SSE intrinsics to GCC PPC64LE taget

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 04:49:44PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:47 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:50:55PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > > > This it part 3/3 for contributing PPC64LE support for X86 SSE > > > instrisics. This patch includes

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] testcase coverage for vec_perm built-ins

Hi Will, On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:19:23AM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote: > Add some Testcase coverage for the vector permute intrinsics. > > Tested across power platforms. OK for trunk? > * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-char.c: New. > * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-double.c:

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR target/80210: ICE in extract_insn

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 07:02:14PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > PR target/80210 exposes a problem in rs6000_set_current_function() where > is fails to correctly clear the rs6000_previous_fndecl cache correctly. > With the test case, we notice that rs6000_previous_fndecl is set (when it >

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR target/80210: ICE in extract_insn

On 8/18/17 6:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 07:02:14PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: >> This is also broken in GCC 7, GCC 6 and GCC 5. Ok for those after this >> has been on trunk for a little while and assuming testing passes? > > Okay for trunk and all branches.

[committed] jit: fix segfault with autovectorization (PR tree-optimization/46805)

On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 11:51 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 09:15 +1200, Michael Cree wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:01:57AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 21:58 +1200, Michael Cree wrote: > > > > > > > > But I have hit a problem which I suspect

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] testcase coverage for vec_perm built-ins

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:19:17AM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote: > Add testcase coverage for the vec_ld intrinsic builtins. > > Tested across power platforms (p6 and newer). OK for trunk? > * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-ld-char.c: New. > * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-ld-double.c: New. >

Re: [PATCH] Fix fallout from VRP strict-overflow changes

gnu, applied to trunk. This breaks gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_2.f90 on aarch64 with -mabi=ilp32 (only for -O3): FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_2.f90 -O3 -g (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /opt/gcc/gcc-20170818/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array

[committed] jit: make simpler reproducers

The C reproducers generated by gcc_jit_context_dump_reproducer_to_file contain numerous pointer values (from %p) to ensure uniqueness of the identifiers, but this makes them less readable than they could be. This patch updates reproducer::make_identifier so that the pointer is only added if it's

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] 3/3 Add x86 SSE intrinsics to GCC PPC64LE taget

On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:47 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:50:55PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > > This it part 3/3 for contributing PPC64LE support for X86 SSE > > instrisics. This patch includes testsuite/gcc.target tests for the > > intrinsics included by

[PATCH 1/2] c-family/c/c++: pass optional vec to c-format.c

This patch passes along the vec of argument locations at a callsite from the C frontend to check_function_arguments and from there to c-format.c, so that we can underline the pertinent argument to mismatched format codes even for tree codes like decls and constants which lack a location_t for

[PATCH 2/2] C: use full locations within c_parser_expr_list's vec

The previous patch uncovered a bug in how c_parser_expr_list builds the vec: it was only using the location of the first token within each assignment-expression in the expr-list. This shows up in e.g. this -Wformat warning, where only part of the 2nd param is underlined: printf("hello %i",

Re: [PATCH] correct documentation of attribute ifunc (PR 81882)

On Aug 17 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: > -static void (*resolve_memcpy (void)) (void) > +static void* (*resolve_memcpy (void))(void *, const void *, size_t) Please use consistent spacing. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53

Re: [Libgomp, Fortran] Fix canadian cross build

On 4 August 2017 at 15:52, Yvan Roux wrote: > On 11 July 2017 at 12:25, Yvan Roux wrote: >> On 3 July 2017 at 11:21, Yvan Roux wrote: >>> On 23 June 2017 at 15:44, Yvan Roux wrote: Hello,

Re: [PATCH v2] Simplify pow with constant

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > >> This patch simplifies pow (C, x) into exp (x * C1) if C > 0, C1 = log (C). > > Note this changes the outcome for C == +Inf, x == 0 (pow is specified to > return 1.0 in

Re: [PATCH] PR c++/80287 add new testcase

On 4 August 2017 at 15:52, Yvan Roux wrote: > On 13 July 2017 at 14:02, Yvan Roux wrote: >> Hi, >> >> as discussed in the PR, this patch adds a new reduced testcase which >> doesn't rely on c++17 features, this is a prereq to the backport of >> the fix

Add a full_integral_type_p helper function

There are several places that test whether: TYPE_PRECISION (t) == GET_MODE_PRECISION (TYPE_MODE (t)) for some integer type T. With SVE variable-length modes, this would need to become: TYPE_PRECISION (t) == GET_MODE_PRECISION (SCALAR_TYPE_MODE (t)) (or SCALAR_INT_TYPE_MODE, it doesn't

Add a partial_integral_type_p helper function

This patch adds a partial_integral_type_p function, to go along with the full_integral_type_p added by the previous patch. Of the changes that didn't previously have an INTEGRAL_TYPE_P check: - the convert_to_integer_1 hunks are dominated by a case version of INTEGRAL_TYPE_P. - the

[GCC RFC]Expensive internal function calls.

Hi, As a followup patch for fix to PR81832, this patch considers internal function call to IFN_LOOP_DIST_ALIAS and IFN_LOOP_VECTORIZED as expensive. Or interpreted in another way: return false since we shouldn't be asked the question? Any comments? BTW, I have no problem to drop this if not

Re: [patch 0/2] PR49847: Add hook to place read-only lookup-tables in named address-space

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > On 28.07.2017 09:34, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>> >>> On 27.07.2017 14:34, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:29 PM,

Re: Add a full_integral_type_p helper function

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > There are several places that test whether: > > TYPE_PRECISION (t) == GET_MODE_PRECISION (TYPE_MODE (t)) > > for some integer type T. With SVE variable-length modes, this would > need to become: > >

Re: Add a full_integral_type_p helper function

Richard Biener writes: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> There are several places that test whether: >> >> TYPE_PRECISION (t) == GET_MODE_PRECISION (TYPE_MODE (t)) >> >> for some integer type T. With

Re: [GCC RFC]Expensive internal function calls.

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi, > As a followup patch for fix to PR81832, this patch considers internal > function call to > IFN_LOOP_DIST_ALIAS and IFN_LOOP_VECTORIZED as expensive. Or interpreted > in another way: return false since we shouldn't be

Re: PR81635: Use chrecs to help find related data refs

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> "Bin.Cheng" writes: >>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford >>>

Re: [PATCH] detect incompatible aliases (PR c/81854)

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: > PPS To make use of this checking (and compile without the new > warnings) Glibc needs the following patch: This should be submitted to libc-alpha (independently of the GCC patch, presuming existing GCC versions accept the correct types). -- Joseph S.

Re: [PATCH] [PR79542][Ada] Fix ICE in dwarf2out.c with nested func. inlining

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat > wrote: >> On 08/11/2017 11:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> >>> OK. >> >> >> Committed. Thank you for your sustained review effort,

Re: [PATCH] Fix file find utils and add unit tests (PR driver/81829).

On 08/15/2017 02:45 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > Hi. > > As shown in the PR, remove_prefix function is written wrongly. It does not > distinguish > in between a node in linked list and pprefix->plist. So I decide to rewrite > it. > Apart from that, I identified discrepancy in between do_add_prefix

Re: PR81635: Use chrecs to help find related data refs

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> "Bin.Cheng"

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Make expansion of balanced binary trees of switches on tree level.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 08/14/2017 10:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> Hmm, but the existing "lowering" part is called from the >> switch-conversion pass. So >> I'm not sure a new file is good. > > Good, I'm not against having that in a single

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Make expansion of balanced binary trees of switches on tree level.

On 08/18/2017 11:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 08/14/2017 10:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Hmm, but the existing "lowering" part is called from the >>> switch-conversion pass. So >>> I'm not sure a new file is good.

Re: [patch 0/2] PR49847: Add hook to place read-only lookup-tables in named address-space

On 18.08.2017 12:01, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: On 28.07.2017 09:34, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: On 27.07.2017 14:34, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jul 27,

RE: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 3:53 PM > To: Tsimbalist, Igor V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling > > On Fri, Aug

constexpr basic_string_view as required by C++17

The current implementation does miss a lot of constexpr in basic_string_view. (Bug 70483) The patch adds the missing constexpr's as required by C++17. I did run the the stdlibc++-v3 testsuite and got no errors. I didn't changes the basic_string_view test cases, because I couldn't find a pattern

[PATCH] Asm memory constraints

This patch adds some documentation on asm memory constraints, aimed especially at constraints for arrays. I may have invented something new here as I've never seen "=m" (*(T (*)[]) ptr) used before. So this isn't simply a documentation patch. It needs blessing from a global maintainer, I think,

Re: [PATCH] detect incompatible aliases (PR c/81854)

On 08/18/2017 07:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 17/08/17 21:21 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: Joseph, while looking into implementing enhancement your request pr81824 I noticed that GCC silently accepts incompatible alias declarations (pr81854) so as sort of a proof-concept for the former I

Re: [PATCH] PR libstdc++/79162 ambiguity in string assignment due to string_view overload (LWG 2946)

Hi, This is a friendly reminder asking for a review of the suggested patch! Thanks, - Daniel 2017-07-30 15:01 GMT+02:00 Daniel Krügler : > 2017-07-28 22:40 GMT+02:00 Daniel Krügler : >> 2017-07-28 22:29 GMT+02:00 Daniel Krügler

Re: [PATCH 4/3] improve detection of attribute conflicts (PR 81544)

On 16/08/17 16:38 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: Jon, Attached is the libstdc++ only patch to remove the pointless const attribute from __pool::_M_destroy_thread_key(void*). https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-08/msg00027.html I only belatedly now broke it out of the larger patch under review here:

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 03/08 - V3

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > This patch introduces some routines for logging of stack clash > protection actions. > > I don't think this patch changed at all relative to V2. Ok. Richard. > > Jeff > > > * function.c (dump_stack_clash_frame_info):

libgo patch committed: Fix cgo tests for AIX

This libgo patch by Tony Reix fixes the cgo tests for AIX. Bootstrapped and ran testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE === --- gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE (revision 251179) +++

Re: [PATCH v2] Simplify pow with constant

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Alexander Monakov wrote: >> >> Note this changes the outcome for C == +Inf, x == 0 (pow is specified to >> return 1.0 in that case, but x * C1 == NaN). There's another existing >> transform with the same issue,

Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:43 PM >> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V >> Cc:

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 01/08 - V3

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > This patch introduces the stack clash protection options > > Changes since V2: > > Adds two new params. The first controls the size of the guard area. > This controls the threshold for when a function prologue requires > probes.

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 02/08 - V3

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > This patch introduces generic mechanisms to protect the dynamically > allocated stack space against stack-clash attacks. > > Changes since V2: > > Dynamic allocations can be emitted as unrolled inlined probes or with a >

Re: [PATCH] detect incompatible aliases (PR c/81854)

On 17/08/17 21:21 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: Joseph, while looking into implementing enhancement your request pr81824 I noticed that GCC silently accepts incompatible alias declarations (pr81854) so as sort of a proof-concept for the former I enhanced the checking already done for other kinds of

Re: [PATCH v2] Simplify pow with constant

Alexander Monakov wrote: > > Note this changes the outcome for C == +Inf, x == 0 (pow is specified to > return 1.0 in that case, but x * C1 == NaN).  There's another existing > transform with the same issue, 'pow(expN(x), y) -> expN(x*y)', so this is > not a new problem. > > The whole set of these

RE: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:43 PM > To: Tsimbalist, Igor V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling > > On Tue, Aug

Re: Add a full_integral_type_p helper function

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> There are several places that test whether: >>> >>>

Re: C PATCH to remove unused block of code

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 02:17:31PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > I've been itching to remove this code for some time now. The comment > > suggests > > that the code is actually unused, so I replaced the body of that "else if" > > with > >