Re: [RFC][libitm] Convert to c++11 atomics

2012-01-02 Thread Richard Henderson
On 12/20/2011 11:13 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 15:17 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: On 12/19/2011 02:58 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: In the particular case (the validated loads technique used in method-gl.cc, load(), store(), and validate()), we actually do not need to have

Re: [PATCH] Fix up recent bootstrap regressions in cselib (PR bootstrap/51725)

2012-01-02 Thread Richard Henderson
On 01/03/2012 06:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: PR bootstrap/51725 * cselib.c (add_mem_for_addr): Call canonical_cselib_val on mem_elt first. Ok. r~

[C++ PATCH] Add CLEANUP_POINT_EXPRs around OMP_PARALLEL/TASK/FOR if needed (PR c++/51669)

2012-01-02 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! The f1 function in the testcase fails newly starting with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181332 because there is no CLEANUP_POINT_EXPR around OMP_PARALLEL/OMP_TASK/OMP_FOR whose IF/FINAL/NUM_THREADS/SCHEDULE clause expression might need some cleanups. But as the testcase

[PATCH] Fix gimple_ic if adding a noreturn direct call variant to an indirect not noreturn call (PR tree-optimization/51719)

2012-01-02 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! When gimple_ic is changing an indirect call into if (cond) direct_call (); else (*indirect_call) () and the indirect_call is not noreturn, but direct_call is noreturn, we ICE during checking after profile, because the noreturn call still has lhs set and edges that it shouldn't have. The

[C++ Patch] PR 15867

2012-01-02 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, another old PR, about -Wredundant-decls (not in -Wall, nor in -Wextra, thus safe bootstrap-wise). The issue is that we are emitting a bogus warning for a declaration followed by a specialization. The fix seems easy, just check ! DECL_TEMPLATE_SPECIALIZATION on newdecl; then however,

Re: [C++ PATCH] Add CLEANUP_POINT_EXPRs around OMP_PARALLEL/TASK/FOR if needed (PR c++/51669)

2012-01-02 Thread Richard Henderson
On 01/03/2012 09:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Attached are two different patches, the first one puts the CLEANUP_POINT_EXPR around the whole OMP_PARALLEL etc. stmt, the second one wraps the individual clause expressions into CLEANUP_POINT_EXPR. Both patches have been bootstrapped/regtested on

Re: [PATCH SMS 2/2, RFC] Register pressure estimation for the partial schedule (re-submission)

2012-01-02 Thread Ayal Zaks
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote: Ayal Zaks ayal.z...@gmail.com writes: +  for (i = 0; i ira_pressure_classes_num; i++) +    { +      enum reg_class pressure_class; + +      pressure_class = ira_pressure_classes[i]; + +      if

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 15867

2012-01-02 Thread Jason Merrill
OK. Jason

Fix cross-builds broken from C++-creep

2012-01-02 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
All cross-builds are still done as C. In C++ you don't need the missing struct qualifier or the typedef in typedef struct gfc_expr ... gfc_expr; (the struct declaration suffices) as there's no separate struct namespace IIUC. Doesn't this show a bug in the compatibility warning system, or is that

<    1   2   3