Status of gcc 9.1.1 rev. 274208 on x86_64-w64-mingw32

2019-08-09 Thread Rainer Emrich
Testresults can be seen here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-08/msg00909.html Complete logs of the testsuite run are available here: https://cloud.emrich-ebersheim.de/index.php/s/g9D245XdCW6GD5W signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Use predicates for RTL objects

2019-08-09 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:34 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 12:15:29PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > > I would also like to get some comments on the following idea to make the > > code checks more readable: I am thinking of adding > > bool rtx_def::is_a (enum rtx_cod

Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra

2019-08-09 Thread John Darrington
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:57:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: Yea, it's certainly designed with the more mainstream architectures in mind. THe double-indirect case that's being talked about here is well out of the mainstream and not a feature of anything LRA has targetted to date.

Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra

2019-08-09 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi! On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:14:39AM +0200, John Darrington wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:57:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > Yea, it's certainly designed with the more mainstream architectures in > mind. THe double-indirect case that's being talked about here is well > out

Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra

2019-08-09 Thread Paul Koning
> On Aug 9, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > > Hi! > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:14:39AM +0200, John Darrington wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:57:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> ... However I wonder if this issue is >> related to the other major outstanding proble

Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra

2019-08-09 Thread Jeff Law
On 8/9/19 2:14 AM, John Darrington wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:57:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > Yea, it's certainly designed with the more mainstream architectures in > mind. THe double-indirect case that's being talked about here is well > out of the mainstream and not a

Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra

2019-08-09 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 2019-08-09 4:14 a.m., John Darrington wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:57:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: Yea, it's certainly designed with the more mainstream architectures in mind. THe double-indirect case that's being talked about here is well out of the mainstream and no

gcc-8-20190809 is now available

2019-08-09 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-8-20190809 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20190809/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-8

Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra

2019-08-09 Thread John Darrington
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 01:34:36PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: If you provide LRA dump for such test (it is better to use -fira-verbose=15 to output full RA info into stderr), I probably could say more. I've attached such a dump (generated from gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/

Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra

2019-08-09 Thread John Darrington
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 09:16:44AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: Is your code in some branch in our git? No. But it could be pushed there if people think it would be appropriate to do so, and if I'm given the permissions to do so. Or in some other public git? It's in my rep

Using gcc/ChangeLog instead of gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog?

2019-08-09 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
Has there been a change of policy so it's a valid option to use gcc/ChangeLog for testsuite changes? I was about to move a semi-randomly spotted misplaced entry, and when checking if there were others, I noticed that there's like tens of them, so I thought better ask. (IMHO it's confusing to have