Re: [PATCH 1/4][RFC] middle-end/90348 - add explicit birth

> In the past stack sharing has been quite important for the linux > kernel. So perhaps one of the tests we should do if we wanted to go > forward in this cycle would be to test kernel builds to see if any start > tripping over the stack space diagnostics they've put in place over the > years.

Re: [PATCH] [gfortran] Add support for allocate clause (OpenMP 5.0).

On 04/02/2022 11:25, Hafiz Abid Qadeer wrote: > On 04/02/2022 09:46, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >> >> Abid, are you going to address these? I think it does make sense if the >> C/C++ and Fortran test cases match as much as feasible. >> > Sure. I will do that. The attached patch address those

Re: [PATCH 1/4][RFC] middle-end/90348 - add explicit birth

On 2/4/2022 6:49 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: This adds explicit variable birth CLOBBERs in an attempt to fix PR90348 and duplicates. The birth / death CLOBBER pairs are used to compute liveness and conflicts for stack variable coalescing where the lack of an explicit birth but

Re: ifcvt: Fix PR104153 and PR104198

On 2/3/2022 1:00 AM, Robin Dapp wrote: Do you need to adjust anything now that this is emitting into TEMP rather than TARGET? The idea now is to emit to TEMP in the first pass and check if we read the initial condition. Overwriting the condition (and of course reading it in every sequence)

[committed] Fix expected output for s390 tests

Recent (mid Jan) changes in the diagnostic outputs have been triggering failures on the s390s testsuite.  In particular capitalization changed in one diagnostic and the range representation changed in another.  This patch makes the obvious updates so the s390 testsuite Pushed to the trunk,

Re: [PATCH] c++, v4: Further address_compare fixes [PR89074]

On 2/5/22 07:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 12:02:14AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: You mean for folding_cxx_constexpr ? The code does that basically, with one exception, the folding_initializer FUNCTION_DECL cmp FUNCTION_DECL case. We don't track sizes of

[PATCH] c++, v4: Further address_compare fixes [PR89074]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 12:02:14AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > You mean for folding_cxx_constexpr ? The code does that basically, with one > exception, the folding_initializer FUNCTION_DECL cmp FUNCTION_DECL case. > We don't track sizes of functions, so the size of 1 is just a

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH,v3,1/1,AARCH64][PR102768] aarch64: Add compiler support for Shadow Call Stack

Hi, Richard, I have sent out my v4[1], please let me know if i got something wrong :). [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/589921.html Thanks, Dan. On 1/31/22 09:00, Richard Sandiford wrote: Dan Li writes: Shadow Call Stack can be used to protect the return address

[PATCH] [PATCH, v4, 1/1, AARCH64][PR102768] aarch64: Add compiler support for Shadow Call Stack

Shadow Call Stack can be used to protect the return address of a function at runtime, and clang already supports this feature[1]. To enable SCS in user mode, in addition to compiler, other support is also required (as discussed in [2]). This patch only adds basic support for SCS from the compiler

Re: [PATCH] match.pd: Fix x * 0.0 -> 0.0 folding [PR104389]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > Am 05.02.2022 um 00:08 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > > : > > The recent PR95115 change to punt in const_binop on folding operation > > with non-NaN operands into NaN if flag_trapping_math broke the following > >

[committed] RISC-V: Fix detection of zifencei support for binutils

- binutils will complain version info is not found if default ISA spec is 2.2 for binutils. Error: cannot find default versions of the ISA extension `zifencei' gcc/ChangeLog: * configure.ac: Fix detection for zifencei support. * configure: Regenerate. --- gcc/configure| 2

Re: [PATCH] match.pd: Fix x * 0.0 -> 0.0 folding [PR104389]

> Am 05.02.2022 um 09:21 schrieb Xi Ruoyao : > > On Sat, 2022-02-05 at 08:21 +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: >> >> Am 05.02.2022 um 00:08 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches : >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> The recent PR95115 change to punt in const_binop on folding

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Always pass -misa-spec to assembler [PR104219]

Committed to trunk :) On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:56 PM Martin Liška wrote: > > May I please PING this? > > Thanks, > Martin > > On 1/25/22 14:04, Kito Cheng wrote: > > Add -misa-spec to OPTION_DEFAULT_SPECS to make sure -misa-spec will > > always pass that into assembler, that prevent GCC and

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 7:34 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:21 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > > > Sorry, just realised I'd never replied to this. > > > > Marc Poulhies writes: > > > Eric Botcazou writes: > > >>> The new variables seem to be unused, so I

Re: [PATCH] match.pd: Fix x * 0.0 -> 0.0 folding [PR104389]

On Sat, 2022-02-05 at 08:21 +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > Am 05.02.2022 um 00:08 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > > : > > > > Hi! > > > > The recent PR95115 change to punt in const_binop on folding operation > > with non-NaN operands into NaN if

Re: [PATCH v2] doc: RISC-V: Document the `-misa-spec=' option

Thanks, LGTM :) On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 7:56 AM Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > We have recently updated the default for the `-misa-spec=' option, yet > we still have not documented it nor its `--with-isa-spec=' counterpart > in the GCC manuals. Fix that. > > gcc/ > *