On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 10:28 AM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 10:15 AM Matthieu Longo
> wrote:
> >
> > A previous patch ([1]) introduced a build regression on aarch64-none-elf
> > target. The changes were primarilly tested on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu,
> > so the issue was mi
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:21 AM Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:43 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
> >
> > From: Fangrui Song
> >
> > -fno-pic -mfdpic generated code is like regular -fno-pic, not suitable
> > for FDPIC (absolute addressing for symbol references and no function
>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 10:15 AM Matthieu Longo wrote:
>
> A previous patch ([1]) introduced a build regression on aarch64-none-elf
> target. The changes were primarilly tested on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu,
> so the issue was missed during development.
> The includes are slighly different between
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:43 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
>
> From: Fangrui Song
>
> -fno-pic -mfdpic generated code is like regular -fno-pic, not suitable
> for FDPIC (absolute addressing for symbol references and no function
> descriptor). The sh port simply upgrades -fno-pic to -fpie by setting
> fl
> On 25 Sep 2024, at 7:38 PM, Andre Vieira (lists)
> wrote:
>
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch restores missed optimizations for armv8.1-m.main targets that
> were missed when the generation of csinc, csinv and csneg were enabled
> or the sa
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 8:42 PM Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> This short patch series adds the ability to unset the -mcpu and -march
> options on the Arm port. This helps to avoid ambiguities and warnings
> if, for some reason, the compiler flags need to be overridden.
>
> The main intent of this i
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 4:30 PM Victor Do Nascimento
wrote:
>
>
> Changes from previous revision:
>
> As was done for the equivalent aarch64 patch, we rework this patch to do away
> with
> mission creep, keeping changes as simple as possible.
>
> We thus remove the `gimple_fold_builtin' changes th
On 9/25/24 6:24 PM, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
OK.
TIA
-- >8 --
If we reach a CLEANUP_POINT_EXPR while trying to walk statements, we
actually care about the statement or statement list contained within it.
Indeed, such a construction
On 9/26/24 5:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
When path isolation performs CFG manipulations (block splitting) it
fails to update post-dominators it computes on-demand. That both
runs into dominance verification issues when we compute post-dominators
again and possibly accessing missing or broken
On 9/26/24 10:03, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 9/26/24 03:07, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I added a note to the PR before I saw this... we can just disable
transitives
when the graph gets too big... I don't think they are worth the
expense when
things ge
On 9/18/24 2:35 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
OK.
-- >8 --
This PR reports that the warning would be better off using a check
for trivially constructible rather than trivially copyable.
LLVM accepted a similar fix:
https://github.com/ll
Hi -
> Regarding functionality, perfect enough AFAICT. I was going to
> make a nitpick comment about comments with full sentences and
> all that GNU...but better be consistent with the rest of the
> file. Thanks!
I don't mind addressing even nitpicks, while awaiting word from
someone who can
Andreas Schwab writes:
> This has been fixed in commit d31c9cf54ac.
Thanks.
ge_query and a create a gori_ssa unit for it during DOM..
ie something like
range_query *m_ranger = get_global_range_query ();
m_ranger->create_gori ();
then there will be a normnal set of exports calculated as required...
And instead of disable_ranger (), call
m_ranger->destroy_gori ();
All in th
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Richard Biener wrote:
> When path isolation performs CFG manipulations (block splitting) it
> fails to update post-dominators it computes on-demand. That both
> runs into dominance verification issues when we compute post-dominators
> again and possibly accessing missing or b
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi, HP -
>
> > I'd love for (something like) gcc-testresults@ to be usefully
> > searchable (it can be done but... lacks), so please allow me:
>
> Certainly!
>
> > > +: ${bunsengit=ssh://sourceware.org/git/bunsendb.git/};
> > > +: ${bunsentag=`who
This has been fixed in commit d31c9cf54ac.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
Now committed as r15-3895-ge4a58b6f28383c.
* * *
Next step is to sent the Fortran part. While it exists, I want to proof
read what I wrote a couple years back and I want to split-off the
polymorphism/class part as the current implementation has some issues
and OpenMP 6 decided to disallow pol
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 08:34:45PM +1000, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> --- a/libgcc/gthr-posix.h
> +++ b/libgcc/gthr-posix.h
> @@ -44,6 +44,21 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively.
> If not, see
> # endif
> #endif
>
> +#ifdef __has_attribute
> +# if __has_attribute(__always_
On Aug 14 2024, Sam James wrote:
> In particular, this now allows some harmless diagnostic flags (especially
> useful for things like -Werror=odr), more optimization flags, and some
> Clang-specific options.
This now passes -Werror down to the linker, which breaks the binutils
build with LTO beca
ping?
On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 11:39, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> From: Alfie Richards
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch series refactors the MVE vst and vld intrinsics to use the builtins
> framework.
>
> This is a prerequisite for a later patch which adds gimple folding which in
> turn enables some optimis
ping?
On Wed, 4 Sept 2024 at 15:27, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is v2 of the patch series I sent in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/657065.html.
>
> I have taken into account the feedback I received, and added more
> patches to the series, converting more MVE int
ping?
On Mon, 9 Sept 2024 at 14:44, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> ping?
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 23:41, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > v4 of patch 2/2 fixes a small mistake in 3 testcases, by relaxing the
> > expected q0 as result register into q[0-9]+ to account for codegen
> > diffe
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 06:58:12PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The following patch rewrites the internals of pp_format.
>
> > The tokens and token lists are allocated on the chunk_obstack, and so
> > there's no additional heap activity required, wit
Hi,
Thank you for the review.
Il 25/09/24 20:13, Jason Merrill ha scritto:
Supporting the ambiguous case seems pointless to me but, that is what
the accepted proposal specifies, so indeed that's what we should implement.
It's fundamentally the same with is_base_of, also supporting ambiguous
ize and
after we're fast again but lousy to optimize even "cheap" cases.
That said, my main issue right now is that DOM at -O1 is comparatively
very expensive on those testcases - if you look at a profile 98% of
it's time is spent in ranger code. Fortunately we do have
-fexp
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 09:47:17AM +1000, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
>
> -- >8 --
>
> [module.import] p6 says "A header unit shall not contain a definition of
> a non-inline function or variable whose name has external linkage."
>
>
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 01:30:55PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 12:18:07PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > > And whether similarly we couldn't use
> > > > __attribute__((__visibility__ ("hidden"))) on the static block scope
> > > > vars for C++ (again, if compiler supp
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 10:16 AM Levy Hsu wrote:
>
> This patch enables vectorization of the popcount operation for V2QI, V4QI,
> V8QI, V2HI, V4HI, and V2SI modes.
Ok.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/i386/mmx.md:
> (VQI_16_32_64): New mode iterator for 8-byte, 4-byte, and 2-byte
>
On 9/25/24 4:21 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 08:54:46AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/24/24 5:10 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 06:39:52PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/20/24 12:18 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-g
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 08:54:46AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 9/24/24 5:10 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 06:39:52PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 9/20/24 12:18 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> > > >
>Your interpretation of my typo is correct. Along with Andre I like auto
>cleanup. On new test cases we try to have them self delete whether they pass
>or fail.
>
so why don't we issue the cleanup then, regardless?
>So your changes are ok with me.
>
>> No.
>>
>>>
On 25 September 2024 13:51:07 CEST, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
>Hi Hans-Peter,
>
>preface: I am not a testsuite nor an m4 expert.
>
>So I may be wrong in arguing that your changes look reasonable. I like the
>"automatic" clean-up process very much. So by me, ok for mainline. But you may
>want to wai
> On Sep 17, 2024, at 07:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:13:09AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> So maybe better
>>tree arg = e_p->value;
>>tree f;
>>if ((in_typeof || in_alignof)
>> && TREE_CODE (arg) == COMPONENT_REF
>> && (f = TREE_OPERAND (arg, 1))
>> && T
Le 23/09/2024 à 20:37, Andreas Schwab a écrit :
On Sep 23 2024, Mikael Morin wrote:
For options where the variable is not a separate argument, I think it's
preferable to keep the variable.
For example, -ffree-line-length-@var{n} looks better on the index page as
"-ffree-line-length-n" (with th
Sorry for the late reply (just came back from LPC after Cauldron).
> On Sep 17, 2024, at 05:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 08:58:28PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>if (has_counted_by_object (e_p->value))
>> expr.value = get_counted_by_ref (e_p->value);
>>else
Le 23/09/2024 à 20:43, Arsen Arsenović a écrit :
Andreas Schwab writes:
It's only about the @opindex. The vast majority have those variable
parts removed from the index entry.
We can probably do both at the same time, either via makeinfos -D option
and some special macro, or by emitting a m
On 9/25/24 12:44 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/30/24 6:49 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
On 29/07/2024 22:53, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch is a stab at adding the necessary compiler builtin to
support std::is_virtual_base_of (P2985R0
On 9/24/24 5:46 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Thanks for the review!
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:10:27 -0700
Cc: Jerry D
From: Jerry D
On 9/23/24 11:21 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
I hope the inclusion of gfortran-dg.exp in
fortran-torture.exp is not controversial, but there's no
fortran-spec
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/30/24 6:49 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > On 29/07/2024 22:53, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The attached patch is a stab at adding the necessary compiler builtin to
> > > support std::is_virtual_base_of (P2985R0, approved for C+
Sorry for the late reply (just back to work after the Cauldron and LPC
conferences).
Thanks a lot for your suggestions.
Yes, I agree that the option need a better name -:) and we will figure this out
after more study.
During this year’s Cauldron and LPC, I got quite some good comments and
On 7/30/24 6:49 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
On 29/07/2024 22:53, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch is a stab at adding the necessary compiler builtin to
support std::is_virtual_base_of (P2985R0, approved for C++26). The name
of the builtin matches the one just merged into clang:
> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 13:51:07 +0200
> From: Andre Vehreschild
> Hi Hans-Peter,
>
> preface: I am not a testsuite nor an m4 expert.
Neither am I. Luckily, this has nothing to do with m4, and
not really that much to do with tcl or dejagnu either, being
just basic code, no language-specific t
On 9/25/24 06:51, Richard Biener wrote:
dom_oracle::register_transitives contains an unbound dominator walk
which for the testcase in PR114855 dominates the profile. I've also
noticed odd behavior in the case when set_one_relation returns NULL,
we'd then completely abort processing other relati
Applied to master with a fixup for the spurious
whitespace-change/removal of newline (at the end of the file), thanks!
--Philipp.
On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 15:02, Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:18 PM Konstantinos Eleftheriou
> wrote:
> >
> > From: kelefth
> >
> > In expressio
On 9/25/24 10:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
Seems we already allow the partial specializations the way the DR clarifies,
so this patch just adds a testcase which verifies that.
Tested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
OK.
2024-09-25 Jakub Jelinek
* g++.dg/DRs/dr2874.C: New test.
On 9/25/24 10:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
Seems we already handle it the way the DR clarifies, if double/long double
and std::float64_t have the same mode, foo has long double type (while
x + y would be _Float64 in C23), so this patch just adds a testcase which
verifies that.
Tested on x86_
On 9/25/24 9:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
Seems we already handle delete expressions the way the DR clarifies,
so this patch just adds a testcase which verifies that.
Tested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
OK.
2024-09-25 Jakub Jelinek
* g++.dg/DRs/dr2728.C: New test.
--- gcc/
On 9/25/24 9:31 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
OK (and obvious, IMO).
-- >8 --
While futzing around with PR116416 I noticed that we can use
the _SLOT and _INITIAL macros to make the code more readable.
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
*
Applied to master, thanks!
--Philipp.
On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 14:56, Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 9:43 AM Konstantinos Eleftheriou
> wrote:
> >
> > From: kelefth
> >
> > The following function:
> >
> > int foo(int *a, int j)
> > {
> > int k = j - 1;
> > return a[j - 1]
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Sam James wrote:
> Alan Modra writes:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 11:52:48PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
> >> Sam James writes:
> >>
> >> > Sam James writes:
> >> >
> >> >> libtool defaults to filtering flags passed at link-time.
> >> >>
> >> >> This brings the filtering in
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 12:12 PM Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> > On 24 Sep 2024, at 6:16 pm, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:52 AM Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 2:59 AM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> For generic, `a != 0 ? a * b : 0` would match where `b` would be an expression
> which trap (in the case of the testcase, it was an integer division but it
> could be any).
>
> This adds a new helper function, expr_no_side_effects_p which t
On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 4:23 PM wrote:
>
> From: Pan Li
>
> This patch would like to support the form 3 of the vector signed
> integer .SAT_ADD. Aka below example:
>
> Form 3:
> #define DEF_VEC_SAT_S_ADD_FMT_3(T, UT, MIN, MAX) \
> void __attribute__((noinline))
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:18 PM Konstantinos Eleftheriou
wrote:
>
> From: kelefth
>
> In expressions like (a != b || ((a ^ b) & c) == d) and
> (a != b || (a ^ b) == c), (a ^ b) is folded to false.
> In the equivalent expressions (((a ^ b) & c) == d || a != b) and
> ((a ^ b) == c || a != b) this i
[CC'ing Jason]
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>
> > On 29/07/2024 22:53, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The attached patch is a stab at adding the necessary compiler builtin to
> > > support std::is_virtual_base_of (P298
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 29/07/2024 22:53, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The attached patch is a stab at adding the necessary compiler builtin to
> > support std::is_virtual_base_of (P2985R0, approved for C++26). The name
> > of the builtin matches the one jus
Alan Modra writes:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 11:52:48PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
>> Sam James writes:
>>
>> > Sam James writes:
>> >
>> >> libtool defaults to filtering flags passed at link-time.
>> >>
>> >> This brings the filtering in GCC's 'fork' of libtool into sync with
>> >> upstream libt
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 9:43 AM Konstantinos Eleftheriou
wrote:
>
> From: kelefth
>
> The following function:
>
> int foo(int *a, int j)
> {
> int k = j - 1;
> return a[j - 1] == a[k];
> }
>
> does not fold to `return 1;` using -O2 or higher. The cause of this is that
> the expression `4 * j
On 9/24/24 5:10 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 06:39:52PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/20/24 12:18 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
-- >8 --
This PR reports a missed optimization. When we have:
Str str{"Test"};
Hi
now committed the following as r15-3856-gfcff9c3dad4f35 with two
testcase additions (and improved changelog wording).
Tobias Burnus wrote:
OpenMP mandates that when certain clauses are used with 'omp requires'
that in all compilation units this requires clause appears.
Those clauses infl
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 01:42:04PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> When min != max we know min ^ max != 0.
>
> Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
> * value-range.cc (get_bitmask_from_range): Remove redundant
> compare of xorv with zero.
LGTM.
Jakub
Hi Hans-Peter,
preface: I am not a testsuite nor an m4 expert.
So I may be wrong in arguing that your changes look reasonable. I like the
"automatic" clean-up process very much. So by me, ok for mainline. But you may
want to wait for one other ok from some one who has more experience in
the gfort
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 12:18:07PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > And whether similarly we couldn't use
> > > __attribute__((__visibility__ ("hidden"))) on the static block scope
> > > vars for C++ (again, if compiler supports that), so that the changes
> > > don't affect ABI of C++ libraries
On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 11:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 11:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:43:50AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > > libgcc/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * gthr-posix.h (__GTHREAD_INLINE): New macro.
> > > > (_
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 11:42 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> Address override only applies to the (reg32) part in the thread address
> fs:(reg32). Don't rewrite thread address like
>
> (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
> (compare:CCZ (reg:SI 98 [ __gmpfr_emax.0_1 ])
> (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (plus:SI (unspec
On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 11:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:43:50AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > libgcc/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * gthr-posix.h (__GTHREAD_INLINE): New macro.
> > > (__gthread_active): Convert from variable to function.
> > > (__g
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:43:50AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > libgcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * gthr-posix.h (__GTHREAD_INLINE): New macro.
> > (__gthread_active): Convert from variable to function.
> > (__gthread_trigger): Mark as __GTHREAD_INLINE instead of static.
> >
Hi all,
I finally managed to apply the fixed patch. It still had some stray line break
so check_GNU_style.py wouldn't succeed. But with that fixed I agree to have
only some nonsense bickering of the script.
As to the patch (I have stripped large parts.):
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/g
On 27/12/22 08:33 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 4:58 PM Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 07:27:11PM -0500, Lipeng Zhu via Fortran wrote:
> This patch try to introduce the rwlock and split the read/write to
> unit_root tree and unit_cache with rwlock in
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 11:36:33AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'll note it would be much simpler if we could write x > y ? x : y in
> the intrinsic header.
Unfortunately, not so much.
It can do that only for simple cases like _mm_min_p{s,d} or similar,
which aren't masked, aren't the "scalar"
OK
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: pan2.li
Date: 2024-09-25 16:10
To: gcc-patches
CC: juzhe.zhong; kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw; rdapp.gcc; Pan Li
Subject: [PATCH v1] RISC-V: Cleanup debug code for SAT_* testcases [NFC]
From: Pan Li
Some print code for debugging is committed by mistake, remove them
f
On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 01:50, Nathaniel Shead
wrote:
>
> I found that my previous minimal change to libstdc++ was only sufficient
> to pass regtest on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu; Linaro complained about ARM and
> aarch64. This patch removes the rest of the internal-linkage entities I
> could find expos
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:49 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 4:42 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:17:50AM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > > > + for (int i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
> > > > + {
> > > > + unsigned count = vector
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 4:56 AM wrote:
>
> From: Pan Li
>
> This patch would like to support the form 1 of the scalar signed
> integer SAT_SUB. Aka below example:
>
> Form 1:
> #define DEF_SAT_S_SUB_FMT_1(T, UT, MIN, MAX) \
> T __attribute__((noinline)) \
> sat_s_sub_##T##
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 4:42 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:17:50AM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > > + for (int i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
> > > + {
> > > + unsigned count = vector_cst_encoded_nelts (args[i]), j;
> > > + for (j = 0;
t;>> As an aside - {evex} (and other) pseudo-prefixes would better be avoided
>>>> anyway whenever possible, as those are getting in the way of code
>>>> putting in place macro overrides for certain insns: gas 2.43 rejects
>>>> such bogus placement of pseudo-prefixes.
> So it sounds like a walkaround in GCC to avoid the gas bug?
There's no gas bug here. Gas 2.43 is validly complaining; older gas was
buggy not to complain.
> In general, I'm ok for the patch since we already did that in
> TARGET_AES patterns.
IOW AIUI I'm to re-submit then with an adjusted (shortened) description.
Okay.
Jan
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 3:55 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 25.09.2024 09:38, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 2:56 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
> >> Commit a79d13a01f8c ("i386: Fix aes/vaes patterns [PR114576]") correctly
> >> said "..., but we need to emit {evex} prefix in the assembl
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 6:14 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Another small phiprop improvement, in some cases
> we could have a vop defining statement be a phi which might
> be the same bb as the load happens. This is ok since the phi
> here is not a store so we can just accept it.
>
> Bootstrapped an
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 6:15 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> In C++ code the clobber gets in the way of phiprop.
> E.g.
> ```
> if (lr_bitpos.2401_412 < rr_bitpos.2402_413)
> goto ; [INV]
> else
> goto ; [INV]
>
>:
>
>:
> MEM[(struct poly_int *)&D.192544] ={v} {CLOBBER(bob)};
>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 6:14 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> While looking into improving phiprop, I noticed that
> the current pr70740.c testcase was being optimized almost
> all the way before phiprop because the addresses were considered
> the same; the arrays were all zero in size.
>
> This adds a
On 25.09.2024 09:38, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 2:56 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> Commit a79d13a01f8c ("i386: Fix aes/vaes patterns [PR114576]") correctly
>> said "..., but we need to emit {evex} prefix in the assembly if AES ISA
>> is not enabled". Yet it did so only for the TARG
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 2:56 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> Commit a79d13a01f8c ("i386: Fix aes/vaes patterns [PR114576]") correctly
> said "..., but we need to emit {evex} prefix in the assembly if AES ISA
> is not enabled". Yet it did so only for the TARGET_AES insns. Going from
> the alternative cho
ke sure the forward walk in memref_used_between_p
> > will find the insn in question. Given we do have a CFG here the
> > functions operation is questionable, given memref_used_between_p
> > together with the walk of all insns is obviously quadratic in the
> > worst case that whole th
LGTM
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: pan2.li
Date: 2024-09-25 14:45
To: gcc-patches
CC: juzhe.zhong; kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw; rdapp.gcc; Pan Li
Subject: [PATCH v1 3/3] RISC-V: Refine the testcase of vector SAT_TRUNC
From: Pan Li
Take scan-assembler-times for vsadd insn check instead of function
On 9/24/24 14:08, haochen.jiang wrote:
On Linux/x86_64,
96246bff0bcd9e5cdec9e6cf811ee3db4997f6d4 is the first bad commit
commit 96246bff0bcd9e5cdec9e6cf811ee3db4997f6d4
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date: Fri Sep 6 20:58:13 2024 +
OpenMP: Check additional restrictions on context selector
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 1:07 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> The following patch adds GENERIC and GIMPLE folders for various
> x86 min/max builtins.
> As discussed, these builtins have effectively x < y ? x : y
> (or x > y ? x : y) behavior.
> The GENERIC folding is done if all the (relevant)
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 5:46 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:23 AM liuhongt wrote:
> >
> > Return constm1_rtx when GET_MODE_CLASS (MODE) == MODE_VECTOR_INT.
> > Otherwise NULL_RTX.
> >
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu{-m32,}.
> > Ready push to trunk.
> >
Thanks for the review!
> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:10:27 -0700
> Cc: Jerry D
> From: Jerry D
> On 9/23/24 11:21 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > I hope the inclusion of gfortran-dg.exp in
> > fortran-torture.exp is not controversial, but there's no
> > fortran-specific testsuite file common to
On 9/23/24 11:21 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Here's a general approach to handle PR116701. I considered
adding manual deletions as quoted below and mentioned in the
PR, but seeing the handling of "integer 8" in
fortran-torture-execute I decided to follow that example:
better scan the source fo
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 11:52:48PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
> Sam James writes:
>
> > Sam James writes:
> >
> >> libtool defaults to filtering flags passed at link-time.
> >>
> >> This brings the filtering in GCC's 'fork' of libtool into sync with
> >> upstream libtool commit 22a7e547e9857fc94fe5
On Tue, 24 Sept 2024, 21:43 Jason Merrill, wrote:
> On 9/24/24 7:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> >
> > Is this the right fix, or do we want to stop using these deprecated
> classes,
> > here and in stl_function.h?
>
We can't stop using them in stl_function.h for ABI
On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 05:00:51PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 07:03:45PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > The CALL_EXPR case in cp_fold uses !flag_no_inline instead, that makes
> > > more
> > > sense to me.
> > > Because checking "noinline" attribute (which means don't
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 06:39:52PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 9/20/24 12:18 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > This PR reports a missed optimization. When we have:
> >
> >Str str{"Test"};
> >callback(str);
On 9/24/24 7:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Is this the right fix, or do we want to stop using these deprecated classes,
here and in stl_function.h?
Oops, adding libstdc++ CC.
-- 8< --
The CI saw failures on 17_intro/headers/c++2011/parallel_mode.cc due to
-Wdepreca
Richard Biener writes:
> The following reduces the number of wide_ints built which show up
> in the profile for PR114855 as the largest remaining bit at -O1.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
Thanks.
On 9/23/24 7:44 PM, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
I don't currently have any testcases where this changes something, but I felt
it to be a valuable cleanup.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
OK.
-- >8 --
This avoids any possible inconsistencies (current or future) ab
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:34:44PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Let's also give an error for trying to disable it in C++23+.
> Missing function comment, maybe just use the one below?
> Please add a comment to this and range-for4 explaining that this is to get
> the fix enabled in GNU modes.
>
> O
On 9/23/24 7:43 PM, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
This patch intends no change in functionality apart from the mangling
difference noted; more tests are in patch 4 of this series, which adds a
way to actually check what the linkage of decl_linkage provides more
directly.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x
On 9/24/24 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 03:46:36PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
-frange-based-for-ext-temps
or do you have better suggestion?
I'd probably drop "based", "range-for" seems enough.
Shall we allow also disabling it in C++23 or later modes, or override
us
1 - 100 of 7020 matches
Mail list logo
