On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 4 August 2014 22:48, Prathamesh Kulkarni bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached my notes on libgccjit.so - An experimental
JIT library using GCC as backend. I would be grateful if you would
On 04/08/14 23:34, Evandro Menezes wrote:
I noticed that when -mgeneral-regs-only FP registers are still used by the
LRA for spilling. Though in rare cases I saw an ICE because of it, even
when it works it seems to me that the compiler should follow the desires of
its user.
If you've
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:49 PM,
Hello,
it it possible to get a kind of diagnostics if the variable
is totally optimized away? For example, in:
void foo (struct some_type *obj) {
... some code where 'obj' is not used ...
bar (obj-some_member);
... some code where 'obj' is not used again ...
baz (obj-some_member);
}
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Dmitry Antipov dmanti...@yandex.ru wrote:
it it possible to get a kind of diagnostics if the variable
is totally optimized away? For example, in:
void foo (struct some_type *obj) {
... some code where 'obj' is not used ...
bar (obj-some_member);
...
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Please find my note attached for the presentation on Unifying GENERIC
and GIMPLE folding with pattern description at Cauldron.
I would be grateful if you would review it for me.
Looks good to me.
Hello,
i am trying to develop a GCC frontend using flex and bison as lexer/parser.
i've read several documentation (the list below and also the gccint.info)
* https://github.com/rabishah/Mini-C-Compiler-using-Flex-And-Yacc/
* http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/GCC-Frontend-HOWTO.html
*
Hi,
I have written notes on GCC re-architecture BOF
presented at the Cauldron. I would be grateful if you would
review it for me.
GCC re-architecture BOF
Author: Andrew MacLeod
This project is follow-up to GNU Tools Cauldron 2013 GCC
re-architecture BOF, focused on better modularization
Hi Art,
Hello.
Could be, see above. Apart from that, I wonder why you insist on using
GNU ld on Solaris. install.texi strongly suggests to use the Solaris
linker instead, and I stand by that advise.
A couple of comments on those configure options: avoid everything not
strictly necessary
Hi,
I have written notes on GCC and LLVM collaboration BOF
presented at the Cauldron. I would be grateful if you would
review it for me.
GCC and LLVM Collaboration
Author: Renato Golin
Motivation behind collaboration is to address problems that
are intrinsic to the compilation
On 5 August 2014 15:17, Daniel Neis danieln...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
i am trying to develop a GCC frontend using flex and bison as lexer/parser.
i've read several documentation (the list below and also the gccint.info)
* https://github.com/rabishah/Mini-C-Compiler-using-Flex-And-Yacc/
*
On 5 August 2014 16:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have written notes on GCC and LLVM collaboration BOF
presented at the Cauldron. I would be grateful if you would
review it for me.
Hi Prathamesh,
Sounds about right.
Other reviews, FYI:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 05:54:04PM -0700, Carrot Wei wrote:
Another problem is in the definition of insn pattern *movdi_internal64.
(define_insn *movdi_internal64
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 nonimmediate_operand
Hello,
Tags for the following releases are not in the Git mirror repository:
* 3.3
* 3.3.1
* 3.3.5
* 3.3.6
* 4.7.4
* 4.8.3
* 4.9.1
I figure this is the place to report it?
Roman.
What version linker? In particular, do you have the fix for PR12975?
It seems to work with gold and the LLVM plugin. I have added a test to
make sure it stays that way:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140804/229493.html
Cheers,
Rafael
On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 01:32:00PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 05:54:04PM -0700, Carrot Wei wrote:
Another problem is in the definition of insn pattern *movdi_internal64.
(define_insn *movdi_internal64
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 nonimmediate_operand
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
What version linker? In particular, do you have the fix for PR12975?
The Fedora 19 version. I think it hasn't changed since then which
means it is 2.23.88.0.1-13 (from the RPM version number). No idea
whether that fix is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
A fix for the offending instruction at trans-expr.c:2107
n = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) (m 0 ? -m : m);
might be
n = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) (m 0 ? - (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) m : m);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62017
Bug ID: 62017
Summary: AddressSanitizer reports *-buffer-overflow in
destructor when multiple virtual inheritance is used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One crude way to look is by looking for the w constraint that signifies usage
of FP registers in the md files and seeing whether those usages are properly
guarded by the 'simd' attribute or by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
One crude way to look is by looking for the w constraint that signifies
usage of FP registers in the md files and seeing whether those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also, James pointed out the patterns in the region of aarch64_movtilow_tilow.
They use SIMD registers to move wide values but are not guarded.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61529
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dehao at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62005
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
Bug ID: 62018
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/ftrapv-1.c * execution test on
x86_64-apple-darwin13
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Bug ID: 62019
Summary: [4.10 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/weak2.adb (test for
excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin13
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Arnaud Charlet charlet at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61876
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Aug 5 09:52:21 2014
New Revision: 213628
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213628root=gccview=rev
Log:
[convert.c] PR 61876: Guard transformation to lrint by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61876
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62020
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62020
Bug ID: 62020
Summary: [4.10 regression] ICE in add_symbol_to_partition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
Bug ID: 62021
Summary: ICE in verify_gimple_assign_single
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33247
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33247action=edit
test-case to reprroduce
Test should be compiled with
-O2 -fopenmp -march=core-avx2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62022
Bug ID: 62022
Summary: [4.10 regression] 27_io/basic_ofstream/pthread2.cc
FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62022
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62023
Bug ID: 62023
Summary: [4.10 regression]
30_threads/condition_variable_any/50862.cc FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62023
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62024
Bug ID: 62024
Summary: __atomic_always_lock_free is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62020
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62023
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That exception comes from here in src/c++11/thread.cc
void
thread::_M_start_thread(__shared_base_type __b)
{
if (!__gthread_active_p())
#if __EXCEPTIONS
throw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61672
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/4.10 Regression] Less |[4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62006
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
--- Comment #3 from Andev debiandev at gmail dot com ---
This seems to be specific to some latest Intel CPUs. I am not sure which other
CPUs are affected. There is no official errata for this behavior AFAIK.
As Alexander suggested, it would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Can you please investigate a bit yourself? The test relies on fork()/wait()
to work and properly return the exit status of the forked process.
Where should I start?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61802
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61866
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
*** Bug 61865 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61865
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60874
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
I don't know why making the types smaller in comment #4 makes any difference.
On a system that does not use split stacks, the runtime will allocate a 2M
stack for each goroutine (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60874
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #6)
I don't know why making the types smaller in comment #4 makes any
difference. On a system that does not use split stacks, the runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
With a debugger?
Yerk!-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61871
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Ops, I was also testing with this patch:
--cut here--
Index: go/regexp/all_test.go
===
--- go/regexp/all_test.go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
Bug ID: 62025
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] Miscompilation of openssl
sha512.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
If I remove the attribute 'no clone', the test succeeds with clang, but fails
with at least gcc 4.8.3, 4.9.1, and trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.2
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-fno-shrink-wrap doesn't help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #5 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
Created attachment 33249
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33249action=edit
Dhrystone, part 2 of 3
I firstly observed this issue when looking into Dhrystone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #9 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
It seems to me that it's the LRA which is forcing the use of FP registers, so,
even if the patterns are fixed, I believe that in the end the combiner would
just give up and ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What we really need here is a preprocessed testcase showing the problem.
It should be fairly easy to lock down on the problem then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #11 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #10)
What we really need here is a preprocessed testcase showing the problem.
It should be fairly easy to lock down on the problem then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62017
Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
aarch64_conditional_register_usage() marks all FP registers as unavailable if
!TARGET_FLOAT. So the real question is why this isn't sufficient to disable
use of FP registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #27 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #25)
* Cases like:
1: const str[] = something %d;
2: printf(str);
Note that clang is able to handle this:
manuel@gcc10:~$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testcase:
void foo(void)
{
char str[] = something %d;
__builtin_printf(str);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
Bug ID: 62026
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] Crash in
lto_get_decl_name_mapping
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33251
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33251action=edit
Backtrace from 4.10.0
Appeared in rev. (208444, 209348].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
r21298O is OK, the test fails starting at r213007. Bootstrapping r212982 fails
with
In file included from ../../p_work/gcc/cgraphunit.c:164:0:
../../p_work/gcc/cgraphunit.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62027
Bug ID: 62027
Summary: missing dwarf info for struct/union nested in class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62027
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well the struct/class are unused.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62028
Bug ID: 62028
Summary: Power64/Linux: FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c
scan-rtl-dump-times sms SMS succeeded 0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #13 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
Created attachment 33253
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33253action=edit
Test-case
This test-case is a stripped-down version of Dhrystone, where the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62029
Bug ID: 62029
Summary: Requesting new warning: missing const-qualifier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33246|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61602
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu ---
Hi, it would be really nice if this one could be fixed very soon as it keeps
popping up during my testing. Many thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61923
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The difference after scheduling a block is in DFA state because of additional
advance_one_cycle call when debug_insns are present.
The situation looks like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62030
Bug ID: 62030
Summary: wrong code due to aliasing issue
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: alias, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62030
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here are the two stores:
(insn 30 25 33 3 (set (mem/f:DI (reg/v/f:DI 200 [ prev ]) [5 MEM[(struct head
*)heads][_8].first+0 S8 A64])
(reg/v/f:DI 199 [ next ])) t.c:22 302
On 05/08/2014 06:02, Roman Gareev wrote:
I've attached the patch, which sets the separate option for all
dimensions. Is it fine for trunk?
LGTM.
Tobias
Jonathan Wakely jwak...@redhat.com writes:
One part of the patch I wasn't sure about was this, where 'mgr' is a
function pointer:
func = gdb.block_for_pc(int(mgr.cast(gdb.lookup_type('intptr_t'
Is there a better way to get a pc from the function pointer?
I tried simply int(mgr) but it
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:21 AM, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:50 AM, James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
wrote:
Hi,
The move_by_pieces infrastructure performs a copy by repeatedly trying
the largest safe copy it can make. So for a 15-byte copy we might see:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I've tried to bootstrap with r213515 because later revisions broke because
of the hash_map and Ada changes, but unfortunately even that revision
failus to bootstrap, the new -Wreturn-local-addr warning rightfully
warns about get_ivts_expr
When removing the MEM_ATTR unification hash I didn't grep for
MEM_ATTR equality comares which now causes PR61672, missed
optimizations at least in PRE. The following fixes that by
exporting and using mem_attrs_eq_p.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu - as this is
a regression
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:51:34AM -0500, Edmar wrote:
Committed on trunk, revision 213596
Committed on 4.9 branch, revision 213597
Note the ChangeLog entry was grossly misformated.
I've fixed it up in gcc/ChangeLog on the trunk, but not on the branch
nor in libgcc. There should be no space
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:04 PM, tsaund...@mozilla.com wrote:
From: Trevor Saunders tsaund...@mozilla.com
Hi,
It used to be that edge_var_maps held pointers to embedded vectors, but
now it holds vectors. This means that now instead of copying the
address of the embedded vector from the
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Some code I added for the ptx backend triggered tree-checking failures for
gimple created in tree-nested: we can end up taking the address of an
SSA_NAME, which seems invalid. The problem is that code in tree-nested
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
Following up on Josephs' comments on PR 61876 this patch guards the rint +
cast - lrint transformation on -fno-math-errno.
Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux and x86.
Ok for trunk?
Ok.
Thanks,
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo