Re: [Open64-devel] review request for changes to libhugetlbfs

2012-08-26 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: David Coakley [mailto:dcoak...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 8:37 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for changes to libhugetlbfs > > Hi Doug, > > I reviewed the

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for changes to libhugetlbfs

2012-08-23 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: "C. Bergström" [mailto:cbergst...@pathscale.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:15 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for changes to libhugetlbfs > > On 08/24/12 05:13 A

[Open64-devel] review request for changes to libhugetlbfs

2012-08-23 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I have two changes to libhugetlbfs that I would like to have reviewed. The first is just a fix to eliminate a compiler warning. The second is a change to the library to handle situations where a huge page mapping would exhaust the huge page limit. Previously no huge pages would be allocated (whe

[Open64-devel] ping on review requests

2012-08-20 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I haven't heard back on the review of several of the patches that I sent out. For convenience I attached the patches to the message (the patch number may have change due to running git rebase): CG: 0004-Changed-a-test-in-INTERFERE_MGR-Create_End.patch CG/Intrastructure: 0005-X8664-m32-FP-compila

Re: [Open64-devel] r4014 - trunk/osprey/common/com/x8664

2012-08-20 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Sorry, I forgot to add the CR info line to the commit log message for r4013 and r4014. I just ran svn propedit to edit the log entries, so they now read: r4014 | dgilmore | 2012-08-20 13:04:42 -0700 (Mon, 20 Aug 2012) | 4 l

[Open64-devel] FW: FW: Review request: fixing issues when building the compiler as 64-bit binaries

2012-08-13 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Per David's message, he already reviewed the change so if there are not any objections I'll commit the change in the next few days. Doug -Original Message- From: David Coakley [mailto:dcoak...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 2:15 PM To: Gilmore, Doug Subject: Re: F

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when building the compiler as 64-bit binaries

2012-08-10 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Are there still objections to committing this patch? Doug > -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:15 PM > To: Jian-Xin Lai > Cc: Gilmore, Doug; open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing iss

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when building the compiler as 64-bit binaries

2012-08-08 Thread Gilmore, Doug
better performance. Could a gatekeeper review this patch? Thanks, Doug > -----Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 6:26 PM > To: 'Sun Chan' > Cc: '"C. Bergström"'; 'open64-devel' > Subject: RE: [Open

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when building the compiler as 64-bit binaries

2012-08-08 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I forgot that I was going to add some comments in the second patch. I'll be sending out another version of that patch. Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:05 PM > To: 'Sun Chan' > Cc: "C. Bergström&qu

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when building the compiler as 64-bit binaries

2012-08-08 Thread Gilmore, Doug
e compiler and compares the generated assembly files. Could a gatekeeper review these changes when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug > -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 2:31 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: &qu

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when building the compiler as 64-bit binaries

2012-08-04 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I was looking into other issues yesterday so I was sidetracked. > -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:24 AM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: "C. Bergström"; open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] R

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when building the compiler as 64-bit binaries

2012-08-02 Thread Gilmore, Doug
WHIRL when building with different variants of the compiler (debug/release/32-bit/64-bit). Doug > -Original Message- > From: Jian-Xin Lai [mailto:laij...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:05 AM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open6

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when building the compiler as 64-bit binaries

2012-08-02 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: David Coakley [mailto:dcoak...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:02 AM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when building > the compiler as 64-bit binaries >

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when building the compiler as 64-bit binaries

2012-08-02 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Sorry for the delay in my reply. > -Original Message- > From: "C. Bergström" [mailto:cbergst...@pathscale.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:09 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fixing issues when build

[Open64-devel] review request (FE): fix to bug 1001

2012-07-25 Thread Gilmore, Doug
We found an long standing bug that causes the C/C++ FE to generate a segmentation fault on exit when SPIN is being written to the output file. Note that you need to build the compiler 64 bits to expose the problem (at least with the example that I have provided). The problem occurs when the gen

Re: [Open64-devel] (no subject) (make_libdeps change version 2)

2012-04-09 Thread Gilmore, Doug
2012 10:43 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] (no subject) (make_libdeps change version > 2) > > I guess I read wrong. I am not the one to review build makefiles :-) > Sun > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Gilmore, Doug > wrot

Re: [Open64-devel] (no subject) (make_libdeps change version 2)

2012-04-05 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:19 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] (no subject) > > looks like you folks are making the binary one monolithic executable, no

[Open64-devel] (no subject)

2012-04-05 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Folks probably noticed that I backed out my "make_libdeps rule" change. I attached a new version of the patch that works with old versions of make. Could someone review this change when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug make_libdeps_v2.patch Description: make_libdeps_v2.patch ---

[Open64-devel] FW: r3901 - trunk/osprey/linux/make

2012-04-03 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Ooops, forgot to add "CR: Sun Chan". I just used "svn propedit" to add this. Doug -Original Message- From: s...@open64.net [mailto:s...@open64.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 6:26 PM To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Open64-devel] r3901 - trunk/osprey/linux/make Autho

Re: [Open64-devel] Query on dependencies for libraries

2012-04-03 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Sounds good with me -- thanks, Doug > -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:54 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Query on dependencies for libraries > > let'

[Open64-devel] Query on dependencies for libraries

2012-04-03 Thread Gilmore, Doug
We noticed that header file dependencies in the library builds were not working when building shared objects. This is a problem with the make_libdeps rule. I can think of two options: 1) The definition of this rule for NVISA seems to be appropriate for X8664. I attached the patch for this change

Re: [Open64-devel] review request -- CG

2012-04-03 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:39 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request -- CG > > looks fine with ebo fix. Thanks! > for the other fix, shouldn&#

[Open64-devel] review request -- CG

2012-04-02 Thread Gilmore, Doug
This patch fixes initializations of several MEM_POOLs in ebo_special.cxx, which eliminates many memory pool initialization trace warnings when the compiler is built in debug mode. Could a gatekeeper review this change when they have a chance? Thanks, Doug ebo_special_pool.patch Description: eb

[Open64-devel] review request -- CG

2012-04-02 Thread Gilmore, Doug
The attached patch fixes a bug in DSP_SCH::Compute_Insn_Size(). Some operations have an opcode variant which assume that rax/eax is an operand/result. Thus when this register is being targeted no Mod R/M byte is needed, thus the instruction is 1 byte shorter. Could a gatekeeper review this chang

Re: [Open64-devel] bug fix to x8664/ebo_special.cxx

2012-03-22 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:30 PM > To: open64-devel > Subject: [Open64-devel] bug fix to x8664/ebo_special.cxx > > We found that adding new fields to the OP structure caused a > segment

[Open64-devel] bug fix to x8664/ebo_special.cxx

2012-03-20 Thread Gilmore, Doug
We found that adding new fields to the OP structure caused a segmentation fault in the build of SPEC dealII during code generation. I tracked this down to a Chi node being assigned the _base field in a POINTS_TO structure, which normally holds a pointer to ST entry, being incorrectly interpreted.

Re: [Open64-devel] Fix to bug 917

2012-03-19 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 2:56 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Fix to bug 917 > > The BE uses the same const fold in simplifier. > to include s

Re: [Open64-devel] Fix to bug 917

2012-03-17 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 10:37 AM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Fix to bug 917 > > which part of const_fold functions do you intend to use? Or are you

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix the O0-DCE bug(bug798)[CG]

2012-03-17 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I originally sent a message on this, noting the issue in the front end. I'll forward the message again. Doug From: Chandrasekhar Murthy [mailto:mur...@sgi.com] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:56 AM To: Gang Yu Cc: open64-devel Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix the O0-DCE bug(bu

[Open64-devel] Fix to bug 917

2012-03-15 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Other Fortran front ends are capable of folding calls to intrinsics that have constant arguments in parameter statements, but this functionality is missing in the Open64 front end. As a first cut, I went to the process of handling this for the real intrinsic. The patch and test case is attached.

Re: [Open64-devel] FW: CG minor cleanup review request

2011-11-21 Thread Gilmore, Doug
, November 21, 2011 2:51 PM To: Gilmore, Doug Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] FW: CG minor cleanup review request sure Sun On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Gilmore, Doug mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com>> wrote: Sorry for the delay in getting back, Jianxin had a dif

Re: [Open64-devel] FW: CG minor cleanup review request

2011-11-21 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Sorry for the delay in getting back, Jianxin had a different proposal: we can define a new function CGTARG_Is_Shift_Redundant() and implement it for all targets. Sun: how does that sound? Doug From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:59 PM To: Sun

Re: [Open64-devel] FW: CG minor cleanup review request

2011-11-09 Thread Gilmore, Doug
From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:41 PM To: Gilmore, Doug Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] FW: CG minor cleanup review request Or let CGTARG_Is_Right_Shift_Op() return false for X86 at where it is defined [Doug

[Open64-devel] FW: CG minor cleanup review request

2011-11-09 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I see that another Post-5.0 change has been committed to the trunk. Could someone review this change when they have a chance. Thanks, Doug From: Gilmore, Doug Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:57 PM To: Jian-Xin Lai Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Open64-devel] CG

Re: [Open64-devel] CG minor cleanup review request

2011-10-19 Thread Gilmore, Doug
s/got it/got in/ Sorry about that. Doug From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:33 PM To: Jian-Xin Lai Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] CG minor cleanup review request I wasn't too concerned about when it g

Re: [Open64-devel] CG minor cleanup review request

2011-10-19 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I wasn't too concerned about when it got it. I just wanted to know what people thought was a better stylistic solution to this problem in the long term. Doug From: Jian-Xin Lai [mailto:laij...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:13 PM To: Gilmore, Doug Cc: open64-

[Open64-devel] CG minor cleanup review request

2011-10-18 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I noticed tons of warnings associated with CGTARG_Is_Right_Shift_Op() when I compiled a source file in CG with "-Wall -O2". The patch cleans up the warnings. Note that the only use for CGTARG_Is_Right_Shift_Op() is the following code in cgemit.cxx: if (CGTARG_Is_Right_Shift_Op (op)) {

Re: [Open64-devel] fix to bug 744 (driver fix to avoid problem in libhugetlbfs).

2011-10-11 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I haven't heard back on this one. Could a gatekeeper take a look at this change when he or she has the chance? Thanks, Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 6:42 PM > To: open64-devel@list

Re: [Open64-devel] Code review request for bug880, build fail caused by bug771 [WOPT]

2011-10-11 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Sorry about the flub. This fix looks good to me. Thanks! Doug > -Original Message- > From: 朱庆 [mailto:zqing1...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:40 AM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Open64-devel] Code review request for bug880, build fail > caused by

Re: [Open64-devel] Fix for bug 771, problem in global value numbering.

2011-10-08 Thread Gilmore, Doug
From: Jian-Xin Lai [mailto:laij...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 11:21 PM To: Gilmore, Doug Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Fix for bug 771, problem in global value numbering. Looks like the opt_vn.cxx_patch is unnecessary? [Doug: ] Right, the

[Open64-devel] fix to bug 744 (driver fix to avoid problem in libhugetlbfs).

2011-10-07 Thread Gilmore, Doug
This change causes the driver to generate an error if -pg is supplied with either -HP:bd or -HP:bdt. I just added a comment to the bug about the issues involved: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=744#c3 I plan to leave this bug open, but at a lower priority since there is a chance that t

[Open64-devel] Fix for bug 771, problem in global value numbering.

2011-10-07 Thread Gilmore, Doug
There are two changes I would like to have reviewed. One is trace_cleanup.patch, which cleans up CODEREP tracing output in WOPT. Without the patch the following tracing output is generated: > LDRC F10 0x0x80b67e8 flags:0x0 b=-1 > LDRC F10 0x0x80b68d8 flags:0x0 b=-1 > F10DIV isop_flags:0x

Re: [Open64-devel] review request IPA global file table implementation -- bug 675

2011-08-19 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> From: Gautam Chakrabarti [mailto:gautam.c...@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:31 AM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Gilmore, Doug > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request IPA global file table > implementation -- bug 675 > > Hi Doug, >

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for bug in wn_lower.cxx

2011-08-15 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Thanks! Doug -Original Message- From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 7:06 PM To: Gilmore, Doug Cc: Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for bug in wn_lower.cxx looks ok to me Sun On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:35

[Open64-devel] review request for bug in wn_lower.cxx

2011-08-15 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I uncovered a problem exposed by the debug build: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=857 I attached a trivial fix, could a gatekeeper review/approve the change when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug bug857.patch Description: bug857.patch ---

Re: [Open64-devel] SSL Certificate: Open64.net

2011-06-23 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I think it would be good that we get a signed certificate, not doing so makes Open64 look like a Podunk project, which it is not. It only costs several hundred dollars a year and I would be happy to contribute $50 a year to help make this happen. Note that Open64 appears to be a SPI member pro

Re: [Open64-devel] review request IPA global file table implementation -- bug 675

2011-06-13 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Thanks for the comments. Hopefully I'll have a new version of the patch ready for review in the near future. Doug From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:42 AM To: Gautam Chakrabarti Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Gilmore, Doug Subject: Re: [O

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fix to make -IPA:output_file_size work properly

2011-06-01 Thread Gilmore, Doug
@lists.sourceforge.net; Gilmore, Doug Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Review request: fix to make -IPA:output_file_size work properly Hi Doug, I believe this option is actually working as expected. Maybe it needs to be better documented. The code (config_ipa.cxx) says this option is supposed to specify the percentage

[Open64-devel] Review request: fix to make -IPA:output_file_size work properly

2011-05-26 Thread Gilmore, Doug
While tracking down the fix to bug 675, we noticed that -IPA:output_file_size wasn't working properly. I attached a patch to make this work better (this is a worthwhile option to use from time to time if you are tracking down a back end bug since it essentially allows IPA to generate one function

[Open64-devel] review request IPA global file table implementation -- bug 675

2011-05-26 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Attached is a patch that fixes bug 675 (line numbers of inlined routines is broken by IPA). The fix is basically described in a comment attached to the bug (which I have cleaned up a bit): Currently line number information in WHIRL statements for code being inlined is being replaced with

Re: [Open64-devel] code review - fix for Bug #778

2011-05-23 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 6:26 PM > To: Ye, Mei > Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] code review - fix for Bug #778 > LFTR is not a safe optimization and never will be > Sun Note Mei's com

[Open64-devel] Review request for LNO bug

2011-05-18 Thread Gilmore, Doug
This patch fixes a "use before defined" problem exposed by building gamess with -Ofast -apo -IPA:noinline, which can cause a segmentation fault in the compiler during LNO. The failure signature is that a segmentation fault occurs in IPA_WN_MAP_Get() when Any_Loop_In_SNL_Parallelizable() is called

[Open64-devel] Bug fix for DO_LOOP_INFO constructor

2011-05-17 Thread Gilmore, Doug
We saw a hard-to-reproduce runtime regression in SPEC Leslie3 that was due the field Prefer_Fuse not being initialized in an instance of the DO_LOOP_INFO class that was constructed with: DO_LOOP_INFO::DO_LOOP_INFO(DO_LOOP_INFO *dli, MEM_POOL *pool) I attached a patch to fix this problem. Also I

[Open64-devel] Open64 svn server done?

2011-05-12 Thread Gilmore, Doug
We are having problems connecting to the SVN server. Is anyone else seeing this? Doug -- Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has ext

Re: [Open64-devel] r3574 - in trunk/osprey/common/com: . MIPS NVISA SL ia64 loongson ppc32 x8664

2011-05-03 Thread Gilmore, Doug
ff openf95 INTERNAL ERROR: /scratch/dgilmore/sot-pp2/bd/local/lib/gcc-lib/x86_64-open64-linux/4.2/be returned non-zero status 1 I attached the test. Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:41 PM > To: open64-devel

Re: [Open64-devel] r3574 - in trunk/osprey/common/com: . MIPS NVISA SL ia64 loongson ppc32 x8664

2011-05-03 Thread Gilmore, Doug
s and probably more problems in the compiler. Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 6:21 PM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: RE: [Open64-devel] r3574 - in trunk/osprey/common/com: . MIPS > NVISA SL ia64 loongson ppc

Re: [Open64-devel] r3574 - in trunk/osprey/common/com: . MIPS NVISA SL ia64 loongson ppc32 x8664

2011-05-02 Thread Gilmore, Doug
With this change my debug build of the compiler on x86-64, that is, configure with --with-build-optimize=DEBUG, breaks during the library build: ### Assertion failure at line 259 of /local/home/dgilmore/sot-pp1/bd/osprey/../../osprey/common/com/x8664/targ_const.cxx: ### Compiler Error during Writ

Re: [Open64-devel] floating-point test failures in code generated by Open64 compiler version 4.2.4

2011-04-13 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I have already started looking into the issue: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=771 Doug > -Original Message- > From: Wu Yongchong [mailto:wuyongch...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:34 PM > To: Nelson H. F. Beebe > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] floa

[Open64-devel] Fix for bug 758 -Wuninitialized not handled properly in Fortran compilations

2011-04-01 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I attached the test and patch that were already attached to the bug. The change was ported from the PSC 3.3 beta. Could a gatekeeper review/approve this change when he or she has a chance? Thanks, Doug bug758.f Description: bug758.f bug758.patch Description: bug758.patch ---

[Open64-devel] review request for fix to bug 757 (WOPT)

2011-03-31 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I attached the test and patch that were already attached to the bug. transcript of session that reproduces bug: $ openf90 bug757.f90 -mso -O3 -c ### Assertion failure at line 458 of /scratch/dgilmore/sot-pp1/bd/osprey/../../osprey/be/opt/opt_wn.cxx: ### Compiler Error in file ./gfort

[Open64-devel] Review request: fix for LNO bug 755

2011-03-31 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I attached the test and patch that were already attached to the bug. The text in the comment associated with patch attachment is: The comment above the code I changed is: // For example, //I4I4LDID 41 <1,4,.preg_I4> T<4,.predef_I4,4> # i //U4INTCONST 8 (0x

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for workaround fix to bug 688

2011-03-11 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Could a gatekeeper review this change soon? Thanks, Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:45 PM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Open64-devel] review request for workaround

Re: [Open64-devel] request for code review for OpenMP bug 743

2011-03-11 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Could a gatekeeper review this change soon? Thanks, Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:19 PM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] request for code review for

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix to OpenMP runtime bug 742

2011-03-11 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Is there any chance that a gatekeeper could review this change soon? Thanks, Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:22 PM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Open64-devel] Review

[Open64-devel] review request for workaround fix to bug 688

2011-03-10 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Sorry for supplying a sloppy fix this issue. The problem was exposed by a user so, so getting I think it is important that we supply some sort of fix that prevents the compiler assertion for the current release. The problem was introduced when lowering in WOPT started to convert complex types

Re: [Open64-devel] request for code review for OpenMP bug 743

2011-03-10 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I forgot to mention that the compile time problem will be fixed with the patch, but the tests will abort unless the patch to bug 742 is also applied. Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 4:27 PM > To:

[Open64-devel] review request for bug 744

2011-03-10 Thread Gilmore, Doug
This fix to this bug is straightforward, when libhugetlbfs is remapping program segments it must check to see if memory has already been allocated (the runtime startup invoked when compiling an app with -pg will do this). If so, the segment to be copied must be extended to include this allocated

[Open64-devel] request for code review for OpenMP bug 743

2011-03-10 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I attached patch that fixes issues exposed by bug 743. The problem is that for each program unit, the compiler is currently generating a new symbol for each thread private pointer array (this symbol points to the array of pointers that point to the memory associated each threads version of the

[Open64-devel] Review request for fix to OpenMP runtime bug 742

2011-03-10 Thread Gilmore, Doug
The OpenMP 2.5 SPEC states: 2.8.2 threadprivate Directive ... Each copy of a threadprivate object is initialized once, in the manner specified by the program, but at an unspecified point in the program prior to the first reference to that copy. I attached a test example that works with gcc, icc,

[Open64-devel] review request for fix to bug 736 (CG medium model expansion problem)

2011-03-02 Thread Gilmore, Doug
The expansion of I8/U8 loads is broken for -mcmodel=medium: Executing on host: openf90 ./gfortran.dg/bug736.f -O0 -mcmodel=medium -lm -o ./bug736.exe(timeout = 300) /tmp/dgilmore/cco.jUK4px: In function `MAIN__': /scratch/dgilmore/sanity/test/testsuite/bug736.f:17: relocation truncated

[Open64-devel] Review request for fix to bug 728

2011-02-17 Thread Gilmore, Doug
A test and a patch is attached to the bug. It is a run time bug that is only exposed when team size is 1. https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=728 Could a gatekeeper review this change when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug ---

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for bug 725 (complex sqrt is broken)

2011-02-17 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I haven't heard back on this one. Can a gatekeeper take a look it when they have a chance? Thanks, Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:58 AM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Su

[Open64-devel] review request for bug 725 (complex sqrt is broken)

2011-02-14 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I have a fix for bug 725, which it is attached to the bug report: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=725 Could a gatekeeper review/approve the patch? Thanks, Doug -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: I

Re: [Open64-devel] should we close bug588 as user error?

2011-02-11 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Sun's experiment worked for me: $ opencc -O0 -Wb,-PHASE:p,-tf3,-tra bug588-1.c -c -keep $ grep -i preopt bug588-1.t == Driver dump after PREOPT == $ opencc -O0 -Wb,-tf3,-tra bug588-1.c -c -keep bug588-1.s: Assembler messages: bug588-1.s:63: Error: Incorrect register `%rax' used wit

Re: [Open64-devel] should we close bug588 as user error?

2011-02-11 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I added a new test example to bug 615: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=615 AFAICS, if conditions are already folded so the DCE processing needed is very straightforward. If we need to add an extra pass to handle, this the detection of called static inline functions (needed to fix bug 615

Re: [Open64-devel] r3466 - in trunk/osprey: be/com common/com kg++fe wgen

2011-01-20 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I'll update the comment to state the that change was approved by Sun. Doug > -Original Message- > From: s...@open64.net [mailto:s...@open64.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:34 AM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Open64-devel] r3466 - in trunk/osprey: be/com co

[Open64-devel] review request for bug fix in IPL tracing

2011-01-10 Thread Gilmore, Doug
There is a test example and the bug fix patch attached to the bug: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=719 Could a gatekeeper review the change when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug -- Gaining the trust of on

Re: [Open64-devel] r3450 - trunk/osprey/wgen

2011-01-10 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I'll update the commit log entry for r3450, the fix was for bug 705 not 703. Doug > -Original Message- > From: s...@open64.net [mailto:s...@open64.net] > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 12:27 PM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Open64-devel] r3450 - trunk/osprey/wgen >

[Open64-devel] Problem with r3403

2011-01-06 Thread Gilmore, Doug
There two mods in r3403 that we need to back out since they break when when the F90 front end is built with debugging/tracing enabled. I just filed a bug concerning the build of the FFE with debugging/tracing enabled: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=720 As it stands now only the compil

[Open64-devel] review request for libhugelbfs

2010-12-21 Thread Gilmore, Doug
When building Open64 on RHEL 6.0 and building a program with libhugetlbfs, a runtime link error occurs: opencc hugebss.c -HP:bdt=2m:heap=2m /local/home/dgilmore/sot-pp1/bd3410/local//lib/gcc-lib/x86_64-open64-linux/4.2/libhugetlbfs_open64.so: undefined reference to `S_ISDIR' collect2: ld return

Re: [Open64-devel] r3436 - trunk/osprey/libhugetlbfs

2010-12-15 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Sorry I, neglected to add a comment that Mei reviewed the change and Sun approved. I'll update the comment. Doug > -Original Message- > From: s...@open64.net [mailto:s...@open64.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:01 PM > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Open64

[Open64-devel] another review request for bug 667

2010-12-15 Thread Gilmore, Doug
There was a performance issue with the original fix to: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=667 Attached to the bug is an update that I ported from the official repository for libhugetlbfs. Mei has already reviewed the change. Could a gatekeeper please review/approve the change for me? T

[Open64-devel] Review request concerning how IPA handle trace and log files.

2010-12-10 Thread Gilmore, Doug
While testing out IPA filename generation fix (see bug 676), I noticed that IPA compiles would sometime generate: /bin/sh: line 0: [: mcf.ipakeep/1.t: binary operator expected I attached a patch to fix this issue, also there is a small semantic change that is described in a comment included in th

[Open64-devel] review request for IPA tracing fixes

2010-12-09 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Bob Scollard is in the process of fixing the IPA line/file numbering problem: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=675 and I noticed that I couldn't enable DevWarn messages, or enable the generating ID/address information in WHIRL trace output when the appropriate flags were passed to ipa_li

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for a fix to bug 628, backend assertion with popcount builtin

2010-12-08 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Could a gatekeeper review this change when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:43 PM To: open64-devel Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for a fix to bug 628, backend assertion with popcount builtin I

Re: [Open64-devel] r3417 - trunk/osprey/common/com

2010-12-03 Thread Gilmore, Doug
The licensing change is due to that intrn_entry.def was derived from files intrn_info.cxx and wintrinsic.h. You can see this if you take a look at the commit in which intrn_entry.def was created, r1764, see the attached file od1764.patch to the last message I sent to you, which contains the contex

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for a fix to bug 628, backend assertion with popcount builtin

2010-12-03 Thread Gilmore, Doug
I updated the patch attached to the bug report to reflect Jian-Xin's commit: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=628 Is it OK if I commit this patch? Doug From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:35 PM To: Jian-Xin Lai Cc: open64-devel Su

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for a fix to bug 628, backend assertion with popcount builtin

2010-12-03 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Looks good, thanks! Doug From: Jian-Xin Lai [mailto:laij...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:11 PM To: Gilmore, Doug Cc: Sun Chan; open64-devel Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for a fix to bug 628, backend assertion with popcount builtin I will copy the license from the

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for a fix to bug 628, backend assertion with popcount builtin

2010-12-02 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:22 PM > To: Gilmore, Doug > Cc: open64-devel > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for a fix to bug 628, > backend assertion with popcount builtin > &g

[Open64-devel] review request for a fix to bug 628, backend assertion with popcount builtin

2010-12-02 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Again, the bug fix is attached to the patch. https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=628 Could someone take a look at this when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a C

[Open64-devel] example where IPA generates split common blocks

2010-11-24 Thread Gilmore, Doug
To test out my change for bug 686 it would be good to have a test case in which common blocks are being split by IPA. Does anyone know of any programs that are compiled with IPA, where split common blocks are being generated? Thanks, Doug

Re: [Open64-devel] patch for building Fortran frontend with FORTIFY_SOURCE checking

2010-11-24 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Arggh, I neglected to take off the extra pair of parenthesis on the invocation of GEN_MSG. Anyway, you get the idea. Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:03 PM > To: David Coakley; Sun Chan

Re: [Open64-devel] patch for building Fortran frontend with FORTIFY_SOURCE checking

2010-11-24 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Here is something to consider. Don't worry about compile time checking, just detect that there are problems at runtime, and avoid overflow. Change: char msg_str[30]; To: /* Use a large buffer here, since we really want to avoid generating an error message * when generating a

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for bug 685 (Fortran front end does not accept -fopenmp)

2010-11-23 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Michael Lai review this change for me. Do I have the approval of a global gatekeeper to commit this change? Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 5:19 PM > To: 'open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net' > Subject: r

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for fix to bug 686 -- Problem using OMP THREADPRIVATE in FORTRAN module with openf90

2010-11-19 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Doug > -Original Message- > From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 4:28 PM > To: Jian-Xin Lai > Cc: Gilmore, Doug; open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] review request for fix to bug 686 -- > Problem using OM

[Open64-devel] review request for fix to bug 686 -- Problem using OMP THREADPRIVATE in FORTRAN module with openf90

2010-11-18 Thread Gilmore, Doug
The bug fix is attached to the bug: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=686 Could someone review this patch when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 support

[Open64-devel] review request for bug 685 (Fortran front end does not accept -fopenmp)

2010-11-15 Thread Gilmore, Doug
The patch for the bug is attached to the bug report: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=685 Could someone review this patch when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet

Re: [Open64-devel] Can ipa_link link static libraries?

2010-10-25 Thread Gilmore, Doug
ed example, and I don't think we have actually seen this problem exposed in practice. > -Original Message----- > From: Gilmore, Doug > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 2:31 PM > To: 'Tianwei'; Pengqi Cheng > Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: RE: [Open6

Re: [Open64-devel] Can ipa_link link static libraries?

2010-10-25 Thread Gilmore, Doug
> Hi, > which opencc version do you use? I have the following case: > tian...@tianwei:~/test$ cat test.c > int main() { > foo(); > printf("hello world\n"); > } > > tian...@tianwei:~/test$ cat foo.c > #include > void foo(){ > printf("we are in foo!\n"); > } > > first I build the .a file

Re: [Open64-devel] review request for fix to bug 677 (Fortran FE bug).

2010-10-21 Thread Gilmore, Doug
Sorry, I should have provided a link to the bug report: http://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=677 Doug > -Original Message- > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 4:41 PM > To: Open64-devel > Subject: [Open64-devel] review

  1   2   >