On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Matthew Fortune
matthew.fort...@imgtec.com wrote:
MIPS is currently evaluating the benefit of using SIMD registers to pass
vector data by value. It is currently unclear how important it is for vector
data
to be passed in SIMD registers. I.e. the need for
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
This smells bad, since it is given a canonical type that is after the
structural equivalency merging that ignores BINFOs, so it may be
completely
different class with completely different bases than the original. Bases
are
structuraly
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
This smells bad, since it is given a canonical type that is after the
structural equivalency merging that ignores BINFOs, so it may be
completely
different class with completely different bases than the original.
Bases are
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
I'm still interested in how successfully the MIPS backend is managing
to avoid floating point but I am also convinced there are bugs in
ld.so entry points for MIPS.
It uses the standard
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 11:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Linus, Peter, any objections to marking places where we are relying on
ordering from control dependencies against later stores? This approach
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 12:02 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Why are we still discussing this idiocy? It's irrelevant. If the
standard really allows random store speculation, the standard doesn't
matter,
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 18:44 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
One way of looking at the discussion between Torvald and myself would be
as a seller (Torvald) and a buyer (me) haggling over the fine print in
a
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
I think a major benefit of C11's memory model is that it gives a
*precise* specification for how a compiler is allowed to optimize.
Clearly it does *not*. This whole discussion is proof of that. It's
not at all clear,
Folks,
One of the things that we've been discussing for a while and there are
just too many options out there and none fits exactly what we're
looking for (obviously), is the vectorization control pragmas.
Our initial semantics is working on on a specific loop / lexical block to:
* turn
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
I think the example is easy to misunderstand, because the context isn't
clear. Therefore, let me first try to clarify the background.
(1) The abstract machine does not write speculatively.
(2) Emitting a branch
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 06:56:42PM +, Renato Golin wrote:
1. Local pragma (#pragma vectorize), which is losing badly on the
argument that it's yet-another pragma to do mostly the same thing many
others do.
2. Using OMP SIMD pragmas (#pragma simd, #pragma omp simd) which is
already
On 15 February 2014 19:26, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
GCC supports #pragma GCC ivdep/#pragma simd/#pragma omp simd, the last one
can be used without rest of OpenMP by using -fopenmp-simd switch.
Does the simd/omp have control over the tree vectorizer? Or are they
just flags for the
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20140215 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20140215/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 2/15/2014 3:36 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
On 15 February 2014 19:26, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
GCC supports #pragma GCC ivdep/#pragma simd/#pragma omp simd, the last one
can be used without rest of OpenMP by using -fopenmp-simd switch.
Does the simd/omp have control over the tree
On 15 February 2014 22:49, Tim Prince n...@aol.com wrote:
In my experience, the (somewhat complicated) gcc --param options work
sufficiently well for specification of unrolling.
There is precedent for --param in LLVM, we could go this way, too.
Though, I can't see how it'd be applied to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60207
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
But we didn't remove mode == TFmode check in construct_container.
This check is benign. classify_argument will return:
case TFmode:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|richard.guenther at gmail dot com |rguenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Feb 15 09:54:52 2014
New Revision: 207797
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207797root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As the standard doesn't specify that the value is undefined upon error and it
only specifies its contents upon successfull completion it implicitely says
that it retains the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57935
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Feb 15 10:49:55 2014
New Revision: 207798
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207798root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/58675
PR target/57935
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58675
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Feb 15 10:49:55 2014
New Revision: 207798
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207798root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/58675
PR target/57935
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58675
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60210
Bug ID: 60210
Summary: segfault when trying to use a const template using
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59814
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59844
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anton at samba dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59599
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sat Feb 15 11:48:41 2014
New Revision: 207799
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207799root=gccview=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/59599
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60211
Bug ID: 60211
Summary: ICE with #pragma GCC ivdep and for-loop on global
scope
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60212
Bug ID: 60212
Summary: no warning for unused variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #29 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
In gcc = 4.6 I'm unable to tell the compiler to consider the fp compare
trapping even with -ftrapping-math.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60213
Bug ID: 60213
Summary: Weird crash when delete an object
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60213
--- Comment #1 from hubert.vansteenhuyse at freecode dot be ---
struct A {
A *a[2];
A() { a[0] = 0; a[1] = 0; }
~A(){ if(a[0]) delete a[0]; if(a[1]) delete a[1];
}
void main(){
A *a = new A();
a-a[0] = new A();
a-a[1] = new A();
delete a;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59774
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 15:48:48 2014
New Revision: 207801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207801root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59836
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 15:48:48 2014
New Revision: 207801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207801root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59771
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 15:48:48 2014
New Revision: 207801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207801root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60213
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59771
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 15:57:35 2014
New Revision: 207802
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207802root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59836
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 15:57:35 2014
New Revision: 207802
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207802root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59774
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 15:57:35 2014
New Revision: 207802
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207802root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60208
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59836
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 16:53:07 2014
New Revision: 207803
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207803root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59771
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 16:53:07 2014
New Revision: 207803
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207803root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59774
--- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 16:53:07 2014
New Revision: 207803
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207803root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59774
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 16:55:19 2014
New Revision: 207804
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207804root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59836
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 16:55:19 2014
New Revision: 207804
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207804root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59771
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 15 16:55:19 2014
New Revision: 207804
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207804root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-15 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60191
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The function make_real is not invoked directly, but through the type-bound
a%real, which is called three times in the test case. Does the failure occur
already at the first one (i.e. line 67)? Can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59836
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59771
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59774
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 15, 2014 3:22:54 PM GMT+01:00, sch...@linux-m68k.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #29 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60214
Bug ID: 60214
Summary: Variables with same DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME are treated as
different variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60214
--- Comment #1 from Johannes Pfau johannespfau at gmail dot com ---
Sorry, I forgot to add that this only happens if the test9_1 variable has got
an initializer. However this is almost always the case for GDC/D as we have
default initialization.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60213
--- Comment #3 from hubert.vansteenhuyse at freecode dot be ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
Your example is bogus: { and } don't match, main must return int, etc. If I
fix it so it compiles, I don't see any crash.
Of course it is,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60213
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to hubert.vansteenhuyse from comment #3)
Of course it is, the example is merely a pseudo code to make clear what
happened.
That's my point, pseudo-code is useless, if we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60215
Bug ID: 60215
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE with invalid bit-field size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60215
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60216
Bug ID: 60216
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] Trouble with deleted
template functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60216
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60218
Bug ID: 60218
Summary: [c++11] ICE using __bases for broken class hierarchy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60217
Bug ID: 60217
Summary: Numerous ICEs involving wrong usage of __bases
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60219
Bug ID: 60219
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE invalid use of
variadic template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60219
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60220
Bug ID: 60220
Summary: Vectorization : simple loop : fails to vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60203
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: meissner
Date: Sun Feb 16 03:08:03 2014
New Revision: 207808
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207808root=gccview=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-02-15 Michael Meissner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60203
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60203
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: meissner
Date: Sun Feb 16 03:19:11 2014
New Revision: 207809
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207809root=gccview=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-02-15 Michael Meissner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60221
Bug ID: 60221
Summary: gcc -fexceptions generates unnecessary cleanup code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60220
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In GCC 4.9 (maybe even in 4.8), the loop is converted into memset by the time
the vectorizer gets around to the code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60221
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56088
Yuxuan Shui yshuiv7 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yshuiv7 at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56088
Václav Zeman vhaisman at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52651
Bug 52651 depends on bug 45586, which changed state.
Bug 45586 Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
This patch folds strchr (e, 0) to e + strlen (e), if e has no side-effects.
Bootstrapped, regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Ok for trunk ?
[gcc]
* gcc/builtins.c (fold_builtin_strchr): returns tree for s1 + strlen (s1)
if TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (s1) is false and integer_zerop (s2) is true.
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 02:23:24PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
This patch folds strchr (e, 0) to e + strlen (e), if e has no side-effects.
Bootstrapped, regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Ok for trunk ?
Why do you think it is a good idea? It is often very much the opposite.
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 02:23:24PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
This patch folds strchr (e, 0) to e + strlen (e), if e has no side-effects.
Bootstrapped, regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Ok for trunk ?
Why do
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 02:23:24PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
This patch folds strchr (e, 0) to e + strlen (e), if e has no
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:34 PM
To: Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Cilk+ ICEs in the alias oracle
On
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Mikael Morin wrote:
Hello,
this bug is not a regression, but the patch shouldn't wreck the compiler
too much on the other hand.
The problem is a wrong number of arguments while generating code for the
ichar intrinsic. The correct number is 2 without the kind argument
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:50:02AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 02:23:24PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Le 15/02/2014 11:04, Richard Biener a écrit :
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Mikael Morin wrote:
Hello,
this bug is not a regression, but the patch shouldn't wreck the compiler
too much on the other hand.
The problem is a wrong number of arguments while generating code for the
ichar intrinsic. The
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:15:22PM +0100, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:50:02AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Graham Stott graham.st...@imgtec.com writes:
+(define_constraint YC
+ @internal
+ A constant vector with each element is a unsigned bitimm-bit integer with
only one bit set
Maybe:
A replicated vector constant in which the replicated value has a single
bit set
Likewise YZ and clear
Hi!
The following patch fixes a bug in SEH exception handling that made it
crash with ObjC (and most likely other languages as well). The problem
is that the SEH exception handler always passes the unwind exception as
4th parameter to RtlUnwindEx, which RtlUnwindEx then later passes to
the
On 14/02/14 14:34, Kugan wrote:
On 14/02/14 11:24, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Kugan
kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
Is there any reason why HFmode is not there in arm_preferred_simd_mode?
NEON does support this.
Most likely because there is no
86 matches
Mail list logo
