On 6/19/20 11:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> Okay for trunk. Thanks!
I committed this along with patch2, so it was pushed upstream with it.
Thanks!
Peter
On 6/19/20 12:06 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 6/19/20 11:45 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> +(define_insn_and_split "*mma_assemble_acc"
>>> + [(set (match_operand:PXI 0 "fpr_reg_operand" "=d")
>>> + (unspec:PXI [(match_operand:PXI 1 "mma_input_operand" "mwa")
>>> +(match_opera
On 6/19/20 11:47 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>> +;; Special pattern to prevent DSE from generating an internal error if it
>>> +;; notices a structure copy that it wants to eliminate. This generates
>>> pretty
>>> +;; bad code, but at least it doesn't die.
>>> +(define_insn_and_split "truncpoidi2"
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 8:16 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:41 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:26 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:25 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:20 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> > > > >
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:41 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:26 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:25 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:20 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:12 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > >
>
Skip EXT_REX_SSE_REG_P for vzeroupper optimization since upper 16 vector
registers don't trigger SSE <-> AVX transition penalty.
gcc/
PR target/95791
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_dirflag_mode_needed): Skip
EXT_REX_SSE_REG_P.
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/95791
*
On 6/14/20 11:05 AM, Asher Gordon wrote:
Hello,
Asher Gordon writes:
I also added a note after the warning showing where the field was
defined in the structure, like this:
inform (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (info.field),
"in definition of %qT", constructor_type);
However, I think
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:53 AM Kito Cheng wrote:
> * config/riscv/riscv.h (DRIVER_SELF_SPECS): New.
This looks good to me. This has the side effect that we are now
passing -march twice to cc1 and as, but that should be harmless as the
last one wins. I think this makes the riscv_expand_
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:26 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:25 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:20 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:12 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:37 AM Yichao Yu wrote:
> > > > >
>
Hi! Good to see you "back"!
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020, Roger Sayle wrote:
> Thanks to you too. Alas, my credentials from the CVS days of GCC almost
> certainly don't
> work any more (in git),
My guess is that your credentials are fine (possibly modulo FSF
assignment issues) if it wasn't for the ssh k
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:25 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:20 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:12 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:37 AM Yichao Yu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:54 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> > > > >
>
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:20 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:12 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:37 AM Yichao Yu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:54 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > The current logic seems to be comparing the whole attri
$8, %rsp
call__cpu_indicator_init@PLT
movq__cpu_model@GOTPCREL(%rip), %rax
leaq_ZL2f2Pi.avx2.0(%rip), %rdx
testb $4, 13(%rax)
leaq_ZL2f2Pi.default.1(%rip), %rax
cmovne %rdx, %rax
addq$8, %rsp
ret
.size _
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:37 AM Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:54 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
> >
> > > > The current logic seems to be comparing the whole attribute tree
> > > > between the callee
> > > > and caller (or at least the tree starting from the target attribute).
> > > > Thi
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/b8ce8129a560f64f8b2855c4a3812b7c3c0ebf3f#diff-e2d535917af8555baad2e9c8749e96a5
> with/adding to the test the following one should work. I still
> couldn't get test to run though..
And yet another related issue that I think I would appreciate some
help
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:54 PM Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> > > The current logic seems to be comparing the whole attribute tree between
> > > the callee
> > > and caller (or at least the tree starting from the target attribute).
> > > This is unnecessary and causes strange dependency of the indirection
From: Nicholas Krause
This fixs the PR95672 by adding the missing TYPE_PACK_EXPANSION case in
cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic in order to avoid ICES on diagnosing
incomplete template pack expansion cases. In v2, add the missing required
test case for all new patches. v3 Fixes both the test case to
> > The current logic seems to be comparing the whole attribute tree between
> > the callee
> > and caller (or at least the tree starting from the target attribute).
> > This is unnecessary and causes strange dependency of the indirection
> > elimination on unrelated properties like `noinline`(PR9
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 9:17 AM Yichao Yu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> The current logic seems to be comparing the whole attribute tree between the
> callee
> and caller (or at least the tree starting from the target attribute).
> This is unnecessary and causes strange dependency of the indirection
Hi,
Any chance of this patch getting applied soon?
Asher Gordon writes:
> Actually, it would be ideal to point to the attribute itself, so a
> note something like the following could be produced:
>
> test.c:4:22: note: ‘designated_init’ attribute applied here
> 4 | struct __attribut
Hi Segher,
It's great to hear from you again. It's been a while.
>On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:42:54PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
>> My recent patch to add scalar integer simplification unit tests to
>> simplify_rtx_c_tests identified two "trivial" corner cases that could be
improved in simplify
The current logic seems to be comparing the whole attribute tree between the
callee
and caller (or at least the tree starting from the target attribute).
This is unnecessary and causes strange dependency of the indirection
elimination on unrelated properties like `noinline`(PR95780) and
`visibili
The current logic seems to be comparing the whole attribute tree between the
callee
and caller (or at least the tree starting from the target attribute).
This is unnecessary and causes strange dependency of the indirection
elimination on unrelated properties like `noinline`(PR95780) and
`visibi
P2113 from the last C++ meeting clarified that we only compare constraints
on functions or function templates that have equivalent template parameters
and function parameters.
I'm not currently implementing the complicated handling of reversed
comparison operators here; thinking about it now, it s
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:35 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:27 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/26/20 1:59 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:30 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 5/25/20 7
In some target, it is limited to issue two insns with change the same
register.(The insn 73 start with insn:TI, so it will be issued together with
others insns until a new insn start with insn:TI, such as insn 71)
The regrename can known the mode V2VF in insn 73 need two successive registers,
i
Hi!
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:42:54PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> My recent patch to add scalar integer simplification unit tests to
> simplify_rtx_c_tests
> identified two "trivial" corner cases that could be improved in
> simplify-rtx.c.
These two things are independent changes and should be
Hi!
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:10:22PM +0200, Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Add swap files for vim to .gitignore.
>
> This patch adds the most common swap files for vim to .gitignore. The
> editor may leave those behind if is stopped or crashes. We already
> do the same kind of things f
Hi Mark,
Please find attached fix for PR95585.
OK to commit and backport?
OK for master.
For backport: Again, I am not sure we need this, but the fix
is simple enough. So, I probably wouldn't backport this (it's not a
regression), but I'll leave that up to you.
Regards
Thomas
Am 17.06.20 um 09:10 schrieb Mark Eggleston:
Please find attached patch for PR42693.
OK to commit and backport?
OK for trunk.
For backporting, it makes little sense since nobody is going
to do a new translation for the existing branches.
Regards
Thomas
Add swap files for vim to .gitignore.
This patch adds the most common swap files for vim to .gitignore. The
editor may leave those behind if is stopped or crashes. We already
do the same kind of things for emacs.
ChangeLog:
* .gitignore: Add swap files for vim.
diff --git a/.gitignore
Hi Mark,
OK to commit
OK for master.
Since, according to the PR, this is not a regression and this
is an ICE on invalid, I don't think a backport is needed. On
the other hand, the patch is simple enough that I am quite
certain that it will not hurt.
So, I'll leave that up to you.
Best rega
Hi Mark,
Please find attached a fix for PR95708.
OK for commit and backport?
OK (it's a regression, after all).
Thanks!
Regards
Thomas
Hi Harald,
OK for master?
OK. Thanks for the patch!
Regards
Thomas
Hi Harald,
OK for trunk? Backport if suitable?
Yes for both.
Thanks for the patch!
Regards
Thomas
Hi Harald,
Regtested again. OK now?
OK. Thanks for the patch!
Regards
Thomas
Am 17.06.20 um 21:27 schrieb Harald Anlauf:
OK for master / backports?
OK.
Thanks for the patch!
Regards
Thomas
37 matches
Mail list logo