On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 07/25/16 08:28, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>> I'm also surprised about it :) Let's start without invention of a new
>> flag, I'll work on that.
>
>
> As using atomic add doesn't result in a change to the libgcov interface or
> structures, that
The 4.9 branch is now frozen for the final GCC 4.9.4 release, I will
announce GCC 4.9.4 RC1 once it has built.
Richard.
A release candidate for the last release from the GCC 4.9 branch,
GCC 4.9.4, is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9.4-RC-20160726/
and shortly its mirrors.
I have sofar bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test it and report any
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 27 July 2016 at 00:20, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> On 20 July 2016 at 18:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 20 July 201
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> Hi all. Don't want to be a noodge but is there any info on a timeline
> for the 6.2 release?
>
> I'm planning a major tools upgrade (from GCC 4.9.2) and I've been kind
> of putting it off until 6.2 is out so I can jump to that... but the
> nati
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> Thanks,
> Prasad
>
>
> On 29 July 2016 at 06:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On 29 July 2016 at 00:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>> On 27 July 2016 at 14:22, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to replace c_parser_paren_condition (parser) in
> c_parser_gimple_if_stmt by c_parser_gimple_paren_condition (parser) as
> described in the patch
>
> I am trying test case
> void __GIMPLE () foo ()
> {
> int a;
> bb_2:
>
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.9.4 has been released.
GCC 4.9.4 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 4.9 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 4.9.3 with more than 159 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This is also the last release from the GCC 4.9 bra
After the GCC 4.9.4 release the GCC 4.9 branch is now closed. Please
refrain from committing to it from now on.
Thanks,
Richard.
> gccadmin account, the version in SVN already had the change)
> and removed traces of this snapshot from gcc.gnu.org.
Thanks,
Richard.
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 2 August 2016 at 14:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am trying to replace c_parser_paren_condition
Status
==
The GCC 6 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
We are close to a GCC 6.2 release now with a release candidate
expected at the end of next or the beginning of the week after.
Please go over your assigned bugs and see whether some of the
fixes you have done on trunk
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 4 August 2016 at 18:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 2 August 2016 at 14:29, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 1,
in_late_binary_op = saved;
cgraph_node::finalize_function (current_function_decl, false);
+ set_cfun (NULL);
+ current_function_decl = NULL;
timevar_pop (tv);
return;
}
Richard.
>
> On 9 August 2016 at 14:37, Richard Biener wro
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/14/2016 01:57 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 01:23:16AM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm experimenting with ways to optimize wine (x86 target only) and I
>>> believe
>>> I can shrink wine's total text size by
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 11 August 2016 at 15:58, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> In this patch I am trying to parse gimple call. But I am getting weird
>>> gimple dump fo
On August 16, 2016 7:11:26 PM GMT+02:00, Thomas Koenig
wrote:
>What would it take to use an LTO-enabled version of gfortran?
>
>It could turn out to be quite useful for speeding up programs,
>especially where I/O or array intrinsics are used.
>
>I also expect many issues to surface where libgfort
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 16.08.2016 um 20:57 schrieb Richard Biener:
>>
>> On August 16, 2016 7:11:26 PM GMT+02:00, Thomas Koenig
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What would it take to use an LTO-enabled version of gfortran?
>>&
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I run configure with "--program-suffix=6", I get gcc6, gfortran6, etc.
> When ldd looks for libgcc.so.1 on FreeBSD, she finds the wrong one.
>
> % cat foo.f90
> program foo
>print *, 'Hello'
> end program
> % gfortran6 -o z foo.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Steven G. Kargl
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 09:25:41AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 18 August 2016 at 08:59, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > No, but you can try --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
>>
>> But be aware that fo
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 16 August 2016 at 14:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 11 August 2016 at 15:58, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 11
Status
==
GCC 6.2 has been released, the GCC 6 branch is now open
for regression and documentation fixes again.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P10
P2 124 - 3
P3
The GNU Compiler Collection version 6.2 has been released.
GCC 6.2 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 6 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 6.1 with more than 110 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the FTP servers listed at:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> Is there a reason there's no changes.html for GCC 7 at this point?
>
> None, apart from me missing it and http://gcc.gnu.org/releasing.html
> as well.
We've been creating those lazily over the la
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Jérôme Kunegis wrote:
> Dear GCC Web team
>
>
> I just wanted to let you know that on
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/
>
> the link to the gcc-6.2 documentation links to the gcc-6.1 documentation
Thanks, fixed.
Richard.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jérôme
>
>
> --
> Dr. Jérôme
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> I was trying to have a look at PR35503.
> The attached patch tries to warn when an argument is passed to a
> restrict-qualified parameter
> and the argument could alias with other argument.
>
> For the following test-case:
> int f2(i
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was considering changing the implementation of _mm_loadu_pd in x86's
> emmintrin.h to avoid a builtin. Here are 3 versions:
>
> typedef double __m128d __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16),
> __may_alias__));
> typedef double __m128
l
suspects would be an update from the we-rewrite-the-vectorizer
folks and ideas about how to improve cost modeling.
If there's no strong interest in any of the above we can schedule
stuf as needed at the Cauldron itself as well.
Thanks,
Richard.
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX Gmb
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> There appears to be a redundant second assignmeent bb_copy = NULL in
> free_copy_original_tables(). I suppose it should be
> bb_original = NULL instead ?
> I found this mentioned on a blog "Bugs found in gcc with help of PVS studio":
> http://
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I trimmed the CC list -- I'm looking for advice about debugging a lto1
> ICE.
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:05:59 +, Joseph Myers
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:23:18 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > I trimmed the CC list -- I'm looking for advice about debugging
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've
> been playing with folding arbitrary range expressions, which I expect fold()
> to ahem...fold.
>
> I'm surprised that even seemingly simple trees can't be folded aft
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 09:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:25:30AM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've
>>> been playing with folding arbitrary rang
On September 14, 2016 6:39:14 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 09/14/2016 08:08 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 09/14/2016 09:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez
>wrote:
>>>> Hi folks. I'm working on bette
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>
>> It's what match-and-simplify does as well.
>>
>> I question the need to build GENERIC here though. M-a-s happily gets you
>> a simplified expressio
On September 15, 2016 6:21:34 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 09/15/2016 02:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's what match-
; On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:43:30 +0200, I wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:23:18 +0200, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:05:59 +, Joseph Myers
>> > > wrot
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Swati Rathi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We want to fetch fields of a record type from the formal arguments of a
> function.
> For a RECORD_TYPE, we fetch the fields using TYPE_FIELDS.
>
> In the program 471.omnetpp (from the SPEC CPU2006 benchmark suite), we
> encountered
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
>> That's what I was afraid of: for example, I can't tell if it holds for
>> all GCC configurations (back ends), that complex types' component types
>> will always match one of the already existing
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:59:16 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:43:30 +0200, I wrote:
>> >> On W
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:18:35 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > --- gcc/tree-core.h
>> > +++ gcc/tree-core.h
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I'm seeing a number of failures in different tests in the tree-prof
> directory when I run make check in parallel none of which are
> reproducible with -j1. I don't see anything about in Bugzilla or
> in recent test results. Has anyone notic
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Sep 22 2016, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
>> for RTEMS we use linker sets to initialize the system. The following code
>> worked up to GCC 6, but no longer in GCC 7:
>>
>> typedef void ( *rtems_sysinit_handler )( void );
>>
>> typedef struct
On September 22, 2016 5:20:56 PM GMT+02:00, paul.kon...@dell.com wrote:
>
>> On Sep 22, 2016, at 11:16 AM, David Brown
>wrote:
>>
>> On 22/09/16 16:57, paul.kon...@dell.com wrote:
>>>
On Sep 22, 2016, at 6:17 AM, David Brown
>wrote:
...
Your trouble is that your two pointer
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi Richard!
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:25:01 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:18:35 +0200, Richard Biener
>&g
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Marcin Noga wrote:
> Hello.
> I just starting their adventure with the GNU GCC.
> Successfully compiled binutils and gcc 6.2.0 for FR30-elf target.
> In an environment Msys2 under Windows 10.
> Configuration binutils:
>
> ../../src/binutils-2.27/configure --target=
On October 7, 2016 6:49:39 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the bounds
>of the pointer in I call get_range_info for i (in tree-object-size.c).
>The function returns the following VR_RANGE: [2147483648, -2147483649]
>rather than the expec
On October 7, 2016 8:03:34 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>On 10/07/2016 11:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On October 7, 2016 6:49:39 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor
> wrote:
>>> While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the
>bounds
>>> of the poi
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> I was having a look at PR71636 and added the following pattern to match.pd:
> x & ((1U << b) - 1) -> x & ~(~0U << b)
> However the transform is useful only if the target supports "andnot"
> instruction.
> As pointed out by Marc in PR for -mar
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > I was having a look at PR71636 and added the following pattern to match.pd:
> > x & ((1U << b) - 1) -> x & ~(~0U << b)
> > However the transform is useful only if the target supports "andnot"
> > instr
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Andre Vieira (lists)
wrote:
>
>> That is correct. In RTL constants are always sign-extended from their
>> precision to HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, regardless if it is "signed" or
>> "unsigned" constant. Whether you treat the low precision bits of the
>> constant as
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 10:01 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>>
>> After the "Add Early VRP" GCC trunk commit r240291 (Kugan CC for your
>> information), I've been observing all kinds of OpenACC offloading
>> failures. I now figured out what's going on.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> After the "Add Early VRP" GCC trunk commit r240291 (Kugan CC for your
> information), I've been observing all kinds of OpenACC offloading
> failures. I now figured out what's going on.
>
> The "evrp" pass uses basic_block's BB_VIS
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/14/16 05:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> The BB_VISITED flag has indetermined state at the beginning of a pass.
>> You have to ensure it is cleared yourself.
>
>
> In that case the openacc (&nvptx?) pas
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 11:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Bernd Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So maybe it should just call clear_bb_flags instead of doing the loop
>>>
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 13 October 2016 at 13:22, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 October 2016 at 14:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Mar
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:06:59 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> > On 10/14/16 05:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> >> T
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:22:17 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:06:59 +0200, Richard Biener
>> >
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> http://wg21.link/p0137
> adds std::launder which is supposed to be some kind of aliasing optimization
> barrier.
>
> What is unclear to me is if we really need compiler support for that.
> I have unfortunately not found many examples:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:38:50 +0200, I wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:08:44 +0200, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> > wrote:
>> &g
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 10/21/2016 03:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> Status
>> ==
>>
>> Trunk which will eventually become GCC 7 is still in Stage 1 but its
>> end is near and we are planning to transition into Stage 3 starting
>> Nov 13th end of day time zon
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 10:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>
>
>>> Note that I haven't found the time to implement the vectorization of
>>> log/exp/si
I've posted two patches implementing a GIMPLE Frontend to the extent
required for simple unit testing of GIMPLE passes. The work was
mostly done by Prasad Ghangal during this years GSoC project. I've
picked it up to ensure it would be ready for the end of stage1
even though the frontend itself c
On November 11, 2016 6:34:37 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor
wrote:
>I noticed that variables of signed integer types that are constrained
>to a specific subrange of values of the type like so:
>
> [-TYPE_MAX + N, N]
>
>are reported by get_range_info as the anti-range
>
> [-TYPE_MAX, TYPE_MI
On November 6, 2018 5:45:52 PM GMT+01:00, Steve Ellcey
wrote:
>I was doing some benchmarking with SPEC 2017 fprate on aarch64
>(Thunderx2) and I am getting some segfaults from GCC while compiling.
This should be already fixed.
>I am working with delta to try and cut down one of the test cases
Status
==
GCC trunk is open for general bugfixing (Stage 3) now until the end
of Jan 6th after which only regression and documentation fixes will
be possible.
This means we have now started the stablilization phase of GCC 9
and you should see to start testing the compiler, report and fix
bu
On November 14, 2018 9:16:17 PM GMT+01:00, Dries Deschout
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The changes summary of GCC 8 on https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/changes.html
>states the powerpc*-*-*spe* ports will be removed if there is no
>activity to revive them.
>
>I could not find any more recent info about the status of
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:47 PM Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi
wrote:
>
> As a brief introduction, I am a graduate student that got interested
>
> in the "Parallelize the compilation using threads"(GSoC 2018 [1]). I
> am a newcommer in GCC, but already have sent some patches, some of
> them ha
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:00 PM Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi
wrote:
>
> Hi! Sorry for the late reply again :P
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:29 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:47 PM Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi
> &g
Status
==
The GCC 7 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
I plan to do a GCC 7.4 release in a few weeks starting with a
first release candidate at the end of next week, likely Nov. 29th.
Please go through your assigned regression bugs and see which
fixes can be safely back
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> > On 22 Nov 2018, at 09:30, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > The GCC 7 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
> >
> > I plan to do a GCC 7.4
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 22.11.18 10:30, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > The GCC 7 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
> >
> > I plan to do a GCC 7.4 release in a few weeks starting
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:37 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 11/26/18 1:30 PM, cmdLP #CODE wrote:
> > Dear GCC-developer team,
> >
> > The specification of the const-attribute is a bit ambiguous, it does not
> > fully specify which global variables are allowed to be read from. Obviously
> > constan
A release candidate for GCC 7.4 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7.4.0-RC-20181129/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 266611.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test it and report
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:10 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
> > I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
> > Here is the original:
> >
> > if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
> > {
> > x = x + y;
> > }
> > return x;
Status
==
The GCC 7 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes again.
The next release from the GCC 7 branch is due after GCC 9 was released
and will close the branch.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
---
The GNU Compiler Collection version 7.4 has been released.
GCC 7.4 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 7 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 7.3 with more than 189 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the FTP servers listed at
> [2] https://www.ime.usp.br/~belinass/64cores-experiment.svg
> [3] https://www.ime.usp.br/~belinass/64cores-kernel-experiment.svg
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:53 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:00 PM Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi
> > wrote
Hi,
in the past weeks I've been looking into prototyping both spectre V1
(speculative array bound bypass) diagnostics and mitigation in an
architecture independent manner to assess feasability and some kind
of upper bound on the performance impact one can expect.
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermai
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/18/18 8:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > in the past weeks I've been looking into prototyping both spectre V1
> > (speculative array bound bypass) diagnostics and mitigation in an
> &g
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 18/12/2018 15:36, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > in the past weeks I've been looking into prototyping both spectre V1
> > (speculative array bound bypass) diagnostics and mitigation in
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard Biener:
>
> > The cost is probably target dependent - on x86 it's simply a $fs based
> > load/store.
>
> Do you need to reserve something in the TCB for this?
No idea. But I figured using TLS with the patch o
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard Biener:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> >> * Richard Biener:
> >>
> >> > The cost is probably target dependent - on x86 it's simply a $fs based
> >> > l
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Peter Bergner:
>
> > On 12/19/18 7:59 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Richard Biener:
> >>
> >>> Sure, if we'd ever deploy this in production placing this in the
> >>> TCB for glibc
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 19/12/2018 11:25, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >
> >> On 18/12/2018 15:36, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
>
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 19/12/2018 17:17, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> >> * Peter Bergner:
> >>
> >>> On 12/19/18 7:59 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>>> * R
t; botan/ChaCha20Poly1305 encr 2.14%
> regressions:
> nbench/HUFFMAN-12.51%
> botan/Whirlpool hash -8.26%
> botan/Camellia-192 encrypt -7.12%
> botan/Camellia-256 decrypt -7.07%
> botan/Camellia-192 decrypt -6.82%
> botan/Camellia-128 decrypt -6.73%
> botan/Camellia-256 encrypt -6.59%
> botan/AES-128/XTS decrypt -6.31%
> botan/Camellia-128 encrypt -6.30%
> botan/XTEA decrypt -4.87%
> nbench/ASSIGNMENT-4.85%
> botan/AES-128/OCB encrypt-3.36%
> botan/Keccak-1600(512) hash-3.08%
> botan/AES-128 decrypt -2.52%
> botan/SHA-160 hash-2.31%
>
> Binary sizes and other stats are in the aforementioned links.
>
>
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
Status
==
Stage 3 is done now.
Changes of GCC trunk should now be restricted to regression and documentation
fixes. That is, it is in the same mode as the open release branches we have.
As soon as the count of P1 bugs drops to zero (and un-categorized, aka P3
bugs have been categorized) yo
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [ To revisit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00385.html ]
>
> The current formulation for the description of Stage 4 here (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html ) is:
> ...
> During this period, the only (non-documentation) changes that may be
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:46 AM Joern Wolfgang Rennecke
wrote:
>
> We've been running builds/regression tests for GCC 8.2 configured with
> --enable-checking=all, and have observed some failures related to
> garbage collection.
>
> First problem:
>
> The g++.dg/pr85039-2.C tests (I've looked in de
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 12:48 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:46 AM Joern Wolfgang Rennecke
> wrote:
> >
> > We've been running builds/regression tests for GCC 8.2 configured with
> > --enable-checking=all, and have observed some failures r
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> > [ To revisit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00385.html ]
> >
> > The current formulation for the description of Stage 4 here (
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html ) is:
> > .
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:10:25AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > extern void vf1()
> > {
> >#pragma vectorize enable
> >for ( int i = 0 ; i < 32768 ; i++ )
> > data [ i ] = std::sqrt ( data [ i ] ) ;
> > }
> >
> > Compiling on this x86_64
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:00 PM Carter Cheng wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to assess an idea and whether it is possible to implement a
> certain idea as a gcc plugin. I look over some of the information on the
> web and the gcc internals documentation but I cannot still figure out some
> basic
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 9:02 PM Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> Someone here was asking about GCC, ISL, and tiling and we looked at
> the test gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-3.c on Aarch64. When this
> test is run the graphite pass output file contains the string 'not
> tiled' and since the dg-final scan-tr
IMPLE. Does
> this makes sense? Is this already implemented somewhere? Where is a good
> way to start it?
There's -ftime-report which more-or-less tells you the time spent in the
individual passes. I think there's no overall group to count GIMPLE
optimizers vs. RTL optimizers thoug
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:54 PM Rainer Orth
wrote:
>
> "MCC CS" writes:
>
> > I've been running the testsuite on my macOS, on which
> > it is especially unbearable. I want to (at least try to)
>
> that problem may well be macOS specific: since at least macOS 10.13
> (maybe even 10.12; cannot cur
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:18 PM Frank Tetzel
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> why is the ICF pass in gcc not folding member functions which depend on
> a template parameter but happen to generate identical code?
> Is it because it is not identical on the IR level in the compiler?
> Can I somehow dump the IR in
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:43 PM Frank Tetzel
wrote:
>
> > > why is the ICF pass in gcc not folding member functions which
> > > depend on a template parameter but happen to generate identical
> > > code? Is it because it is not identical on the IR level in the
> > > compiler? Can I somehow dump th
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:40 AM Tadeus Prastowo
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On this link https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline, I see the following:
>
> GCC 9 Stage 1 (starts 2018-04-25) GCC 8.1 release (2018-05-02)
> | \
> |v
>
801 - 900 of 1573 matches
Mail list logo
