Hi,
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011, Jiangning Liu wrote:
One more question...
Can i = i.6_18; be sinked out of loop, because it doesn't have memory
dependence with others?
With current trunk the stores to i, a_p, b_p and k are sunken after the
loop. (There are no aliasing problems because the
Hi.
from the ld.info manual:
[...] the ability to bind a symbol to a version node in the source
file where the symbol is defined instead of in the versioning script.
This was done mainly to reduce the burden on the library maintainer.
You can do this by putting something like:
Snapshot gcc-4.6-2025 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-2025/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
I have the latest gcc from svn, and with configure --target=avr
--enable-languages=c:
When building with make eventually I get:
gcc -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing
-Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
Jan Engelhardt jeng...@medozas.de writes:
from the ld.info manual:
[...] the ability to bind a symbol to a version node in the source
file where the symbol is defined instead of in the versioning script.
This was done mainly to reduce the burden on the library maintainer.
You can do
Hi,
I looked into PR43491 a while and found in this case the gimple
generated before pre
is like:
reg.0_12 = reg
...
c()
reg.0_1 = reg
D.xxx = MEM[reg.0_1 + 8B]
The pre pass transforms it into:
reg.0_12 = reg
...
c()
reg.0_1 = reg.0_12
D.xxx = MEM[reg.0_1 + 8B]
From now on, following
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51245
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49912
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48150
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu priv123 at hotmail dot fr 2011-11-25 09:37:15 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #6)
This does not fix the problem. (Note, I initialized
tab=42 and ius=1; otherwise, you reference an undefined
variables.)
Steve, I can't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49912
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51287
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
09:46:31 UTC ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Fri Nov 25 09:46:27 2011
New Revision: 181713
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181713
Log:
PR target/51287
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49945
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
09:59:31 UTC ---
This is a bug in lto-streamer-out.c. TYPE_MAXVAL of the ARRAY_TYPE's
TYPE_DOMAIN e.g. in f1 is a VAR_DECL (DECL_NAME is NULL, DECL_ARTIFICIAL, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 10:20:28 UTC ---
The patch solves the problem for me.
Same on i386-pc-solaris2.8 (all gcc.misc-tests/gcov and g++.dg/gcov
tests) and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51287
--- Comment #2 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
10:29:46 UTC ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Fri Nov 25 10:29:42 2011
New Revision: 181714
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181714
Log:
2011-11-24 Enkovich
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-25 10:41:22 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Nov 25 10:41:17 2011
New Revision: 181716
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181716
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-25 10:44:01 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Nov 25 10:43:58 2011
New Revision: 181717
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181717
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50566
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
10:46:15 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Nov 25 10:46:10 2011
New Revision: 181718
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181718
Log:
PR target/50566
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51287
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51301
Bug #: 51301
Summary: Compiler ICE in vect_is_simple_use_1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51302
Bug #: 51302
Summary: ICE with VOLATILE loop variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51203
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39077
Robert Hinson oppiet35 at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oppiet35 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51303
Bug #: 51303
Summary: -Wmissing-include-dirs warnings reported as [enabled
by default]
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51011
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com 2011-11-25
13:35:19 UTC ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Fri Nov 25 13:35:13 2011
New Revision: 181721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181721
Log:
2011-11-24 Andrew
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51302
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 14:04:26 UTC ---
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
19:26:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 14:06:10 UTC ---
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
20:30:43 UTC ---
What does this program do, compiled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51285
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-11-25
14:08:23 UTC ---
... Is this still triggered by the same range ?
Yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 14:12:25 UTC ---
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 14:06:10 UTC ---
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51303
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
14:46:07 UTC ---
Thanks for the info - that error implies the mutex was not correctly
initialized.
What are these macros defined to (if defined)?
__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
14:46:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT
__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT
sorry, ignore the double-paste ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 14:57:24 UTC ---
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
14:46:07 UTC ---
Thanks for the info - that error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
15:17:09 UTC ---
ah so the scan-assembler test is finding the stabs info, not actually a call to
the constructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51302
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
15:18:10 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Nov 25 15:18:06 2011
New Revision: 181724
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181724
Log:
2011-11-25 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51302
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51304
Bug #: 51304
Summary: gcc segfaults for large -ftemplate-depth values (if
depth is reached)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 15:55:36 UTC ---
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
15:17:09 UTC ---
ah so the scan-assembler test is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-11-25 15:58:34 UTC ---
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 09:37:15AM +, priv123 at hotmail dot fr wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #19 from Sean McGovern gseanmcg at gmail dot com 2011-11-25
16:17:03 UTC ---
Was this patch ever committed? If so, can this PR be closed now?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #24 from Sean McGovern gseanmcg at gmail dot com 2011-11-25
16:25:02 UTC ---
Ping^2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-11-25 16:26:41
UTC ---
I have additional patch that checks cpuid bit_CMPXCHG16B (and bit_CMPXCHG8B
fwiw) for runtime support.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
16:27:01 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Nov 25 16:26:47 2011
New Revision: 181725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181725
Log:
2011-11-25 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46502
--- Comment #2 from Sean McGovern gseanmcg at gmail dot com 2011-11-25
16:32:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
When investigating why some users of GCC mainline on Solaris 2 saw more
LTO-related testsuite failures than I, it turned out that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 16:34:03 UTC ---
No progress yet: an attempt to handle this via specs some time ago
failed since there was some of Joseph's option work missing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 16:35:43 UTC ---
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-11-25
16:26:41 UTC ---
I have additional patch that checks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #26 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-11-25 17:15:31 UTC ---
All the various options equivalent to -std=c99 now map to -std=c99 using
Alias in the .opt file, so specs only need to handle that one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
17:18:10 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Nov 25 17:18:05 2011
New Revision: 181726
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181726
Log:
2011-11-25 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #24 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de tkoenig at netcologne dot
de 2011-11-25 17:24:19 UTC ---
Am 24.11.2011 21:51, schrieb burnus at gcc dot gnu.org:
Thanks for the bugreport and the (valid)
testcase.
To be pedantic, the test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51305
Bug #: 51305
Summary: [C++11][constexpr] noexcept-specifier overconstraints
constexpr functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51306
Bug #: 51306
Summary: MOVE_ALLOC: Make more middle end friendlier
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
--- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25 17:41:49 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Nov 25 17:41:44 2011
New Revision: 181727
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181727
Log:
PR testsuite/51258
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #25 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
17:44:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
Thanks for the bugreport and the (valid)
testcase.
To be pedantic, the test case was not valid
Can you tell me what's wrong
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Bruce Adams tortoise_74 at yahoo dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tortoise_74 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49806
--- Comment #7 from Sean McGovern gseanmcg at gmail dot com 2011-11-25
18:48:05 UTC ---
Still fails on i386-pc-solaris2.10, cf.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-11/msg02204.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #125 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-25 19:21:10 UTC ---
Something is wrong on your system. The normal output, which I can of course
reproduce in mainline, is 199711 or 201193 depending on the -std.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #126 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-25 19:22:06 UTC ---
201103 of course.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
--- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25 19:31:02 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Nov 25 19:30:58 2011
New Revision: 181728
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181728
Log:
PR testsuite/51258
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51305
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade pcpa at mandriva dot com.br changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
,java,ada,obj-c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 2025 (experimental) [trunk revision 181706] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
--- Comment #52 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
20:18:35 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Nov 25 20:18:21 2011
New Revision: 181730
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181730
Log:
fortran/
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51250
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25
20:18:32 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Nov 25 20:18:21 2011
New Revision: 181730
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181730
Log:
fortran/
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51250
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308
Bug #: 51308
Summary: PARAMETER attribute conflicts with SAVE attribute
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51309
Bug #: 51309
Summary: -Wstrict-overflow false alarm when overflow impossible
in loop body
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 08:38:39AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
My preference would be to avoid the abstraction changes though, both
because it is additional clutter in the changeset and because omp_lock
and nested lock are part of public ABIs, so if struct is layed out
differently on some
Rainer Orth r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de writes:
While the first patch allows Solaris 8/9 x86 bootstraps to finish
(testsuite still running), I happened to run a Solaris 10/SPARC
bootstrap that broke configuring stage 2 libgomp: even trivial
executables die with a SEGV in _init.
It turns
Hi,
gfortran has a few long-standing bugs wrt module handling. The more
fundamental, and also more difficult to fix, issue is that we re-read
and re-parse module files every time a USE statement is encountered,
instead of once per translation unit. See PR 25708. Another issue, PR
40958, is that
Hi Revital,
Revital Eres revital.e...@linaro.org writes:
The attached patch adds register pressure estimation of the partial schedule.
My main comment is that we shouldn't need to track separate liveness
sets for each loop here, since we're only looking at one basic block.
I.e., rather than
Richard Henderson writes:
On 11/23/2011 06:46 AM, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
+FAIL: c-c++-common/gomp/atomic-10.c scan-tree-dump-times ompexp
__atomic_fetch_add 4
+FAIL: c-c++-common/gomp/atomic-3.c scan-tree-dump-times ompexp xyzzy, 4
1
+FAIL: c-c++-common/gomp/atomic-9.c
On 21/11/11 17:13, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 11/18/2011 10:29 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
For the test-case of PR50764, a dead label is introduced by
fixup_reorder_chain in cfg_layout_finalize, called from
pass_reorder_blocks.
I presume that there
The patch fixes an issue when the backend_decl is reused (-fwhole-file).
The problem is that not always the ts.u.derived-backend_decl was copied
as well. I copied what was done a bit later in the file and extended it
to also include BT_CLASS.
The trans-type.c change is not needed, but I thought
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Denis Chertykov wrote:
2011/11/20 Georg-Johann Lay .:
Subtracting 0x20 to get the SFR address from a RAM address is scattered all
over the backend. The patch makes - PRINT_OPERAND_PUNCT_VALID_P and uses
%- to
subtract the SFR offset instead of hard coded magic
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
Note that you actually can remove labels also if they are
!can_delete_label_p, if you use delete_insn (which you do). It will
replace such undeletable labels by a DELETED_LABEL note.
I tried that as well but ran into these errors in
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
Note that you actually can remove labels also if they are
!can_delete_label_p, if you use delete_insn (which you do). It will
replace such undeletable labels by a DELETED_LABEL
2011/11/25 Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Denis Chertykov wrote:
2011/11/20 Georg-Johann Lay .:
Subtracting 0x20 to get the SFR address from a RAM address is scattered
all
over the backend. The patch makes - PRINT_OPERAND_PUNCT_VALID_P and uses
%- to
On 25/11/11 14:05, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
Note that you actually can remove labels also if they are
!can_delete_label_p, if you use delete_insn (which you do). It will
replace
This patch fixes a bug in the RTL doloop pass that showed as timeouts
of gcc.c-torture/execute/961017-1.c execution on slow targets because
a 256-iteration loop was replaced with a 2^32-iteration loop (if the
test did not time out, it would still pass as it didn't contain any
checks on the number
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:10:00AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
- compiling stage2 target libs and stage3 host patched sources (with
both unpatched and patched stage2 compiler) produced cc1plus with 10%
fewer entry value expressions (a welcome surprise!), 1% fewer call site
value expressions,
Committed.
-- Index: MAINTAINERS
===
--- MAINTAINERS (revision 181721)
+++ MAINTAINERS (working copy)
@@ -345,6 +345,7 @@
David Daney david.da...@caviumnetworks.com
Bud Davis jmda...@link.com
Chris Demetriou
Fixed the ICE:
internal compiler error: in gfc_add_modify_loc, at fortran/trans.c:161
Build, regtested and committed (Rev. 181724 ) on x86-64-linux.
Tobias
Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/fortran/ChangeLog (revision
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 11:46:37AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
The patch fixes an issue when the backend_decl is reused (-fwhole-file).
The problem is that not always the ts.u.derived-backend_decl was copied
as well. I copied what was done a bit later in the file and extended it
to also
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
This patch updates the implementations of locks and notes used in libgo
to use the current version from the master Go library. This now uses
futexes when running on GNU/Linux, while still using semaphores on other
systems. This implementation should
Hello!
Attached patch introduces sync_int128_runtime and
sync_long_long_runtime runtime check to prevent running atomic runtime
tests on targets that don't support them. I also merged runtime check
for arm*-*-linux-gnueabi with corresponding arm*-*-* compile-time
check. This change has a nice
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs during flow verification, because there is
an unconditional branch with EDGE_PRESERVE set on the edge and because of
that bit rtl_verify_flow_info_1 wouldn't count it as n_branch.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for
trunk?
Hi!
Kirill's recent change to mem_overlaps_already_clobbered_arg_p
resulted in various code quality regressions, many calls that used
to be tail call optimized no longer are.
Here is an attempt to make the check more complete (e.g.
the change wouldn't see overlap if addr was PLUS of two REGs,
Rainer Orth r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de writes:
This broke bootstrap on Linux/x86_64 (CentOS 5.5), which lacks
O_CLOEXEC.
... and also Solaris 8 and 9 bootstrap which lack sem_timedwait:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libgo/runtime/thread-sema.c: In function
'runtime_semasleep':
Hello!
Attached patch enables sync_long_long tests on 32bit x86 and alpha.
Enabling the tests for alpha is obvious (it is 64bit-by-default
target, after all), but 32bit x86 needs at least -march=pentium passed
via dg-options. My previous patch checks bit_CMPXCHG8B cpuid bit
before compiling these
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't check SSE, but it looks that fild/fistpl combo isn't atomic
or does not obey lock barriers.
Adding -msse to failing test works OK.
Uros.
Hi!
While looking at this PR, I was first surprised that on i?86
we got pseudo = argp + 4 and mem_overlap* was called with
that pseudo + 4 etc. I don't see why we should force the address
into register for EXPAND_SUM modifier, with this mem_overlap* sees
argp + 8 etc. directly (on i?86, of
On Friday 25 November 2011 11:10:01 Janne Blomqvist wrote:
Based on a brief inspection of the code, most if
not all of these seeks are for a very short distance (typically peek a
few bytes ahead in the stream, then seek back)
I'm afraid they aren't.
The moves are as follows (-: sequential, x:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Michael Zolotukhin
michael.v.zolotuk...@gmail.com wrote:
I found and fixed another problem in the latest memcpy/memest changes
- with this fix all the failing tests mentioned in #51134 started
passing. Bootstraps are also ok.
Though I still see fails in
On load-store architectures, the function address is generally loaded into
a register before any outgoing arguments are stored in the stack frame
(if any). Thus, generally allowing memory loads before any arguments of
the sibcall have been stored in the stack frame is effective to make the
100 matches
Mail list logo
