On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/21/2015 11:02 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/21/2015 10:12 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
My original proposal, for x86_64 only, was to add
On 22/05/15 16:29 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:15:10PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/aligned_buffer.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/aligned_buffer.h
@@ -31,21 +31,23 @@
#pragma GCC system_header
-#if __cplusplus = 201103L
-# include
On 22/05/15 17:13 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:59:47PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ alignas(alignof(_Tp2)) unsigned char _M_storage[sizeof(_Tp)];
Is alignof(_Tp2) always the same as alignof(_Tp2::_M_t) on all targets
(I mean, won't some target align the
Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com writes:
Some pieces of code create a temporary REG or MEM and only fill it
in later when they're testing the cost of a particular rtx. This patch
makes sure that even the dummy REG or MEM is valid, rather than force
the gen_* code to handle garbage values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65598
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:15:10PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/aligned_buffer.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/aligned_buffer.h
@@ -31,21 +31,23 @@
#pragma GCC system_header
-#if __cplusplus = 201103L
-# include type_traits
-#else
+#if __cplusplus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65491
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri May 22 14:36:27 2015
New Revision: 223577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223577root=gccview=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/65491: Classify V1TF vectors as AAPCS64
Hi,
between Richis improvements of grouped accesses, and mine to strided
stores is an interaction that now leads to ICEs and wrong code after both
are in, for instance PR66251. The added testcases reflects this
situation, and uses both, narrowing and widening (narrowing would still
ICE,
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:59:47PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ alignas(alignof(_Tp2)) unsigned char _M_storage[sizeof(_Tp)];
Is alignof(_Tp2) always the same as alignof(_Tp2::_M_t) on all targets
(I mean, won't some target align the structure more than its only field)?
Hmm, maybe.
I fixed a typo in gcc/config/openbsd.h. Here is the updated patch. The whole
patch is also on hjl/pie/master branch in GCC git mirror.
--
H.J.
From 64364101d6c888e20eb1146ee2baac4b08e684cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 10:12:20 -0700
Subject:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65750
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3)
Can you check if the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02133.html
helps also gemsfdtd?
I tried and I still got
On 05/17/2015 11:12 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andreas Krebbel kreb...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
Hi Richard,
I see regressions with the current IBM z13 vector patchset which appear to
be related to the new
genrecog.
The following two insn definitions only differ in the mode and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc
The insns generated by hppa_legitimize_address for shift-add
calculations are never directly inserted into a MEM -- they're loaded
into a register first which may or may not be later combined into a
memory reference.
So... We should be using the ASHIFT form rather than the MULT form for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #13 from AK hiraditya at msn dot com ---
We have an updated patch that works for both the cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01991.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65815
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
On 21/05/15 19:26, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 16:45 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
On 19/05/15 20:20, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 17:36 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
Hello,
On 15/05/15 17:22, Torvald Riegel wrote:
This patch improves the documentation of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
I tried and I still got
Running Benchmarks
Running 459.GemsFDTD ref peak lnx32e-gcc default
*** Miscompare of sphere_td.nft; for details
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66240
Josh Triplett josh at joshtriplett dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josh at
Currently, when we print the passes it does not print its name. This becomes
confusing when we want to print all the passes at once (e.g.,
-fdump-tree-all-all=stderr pass.dump).
This patch adds functionality to print the pass name. It passes bootstrap (with
default configurations).
Hope this
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Hi,
While writing atomic_word.h for the ARM backend to fix PR target/66200
I
thought it would make more sense to write it all up with atomic
primitives instead of providing various fragile bits of inline
asssembler. Thus
On 05/22/2015 09:13 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:59:47PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ alignas(alignof(_Tp2)) unsigned char _M_storage[sizeof(_Tp)];
Is alignof(_Tp2) always the same as alignof(_Tp2::_M_t) on all targets
(I mean, won't some target align the
Andreas Krebbel kreb...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
On 05/17/2015 11:12 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andreas Krebbel kreb...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
Hi Richard,
I see regressions with the current IBM z13 vector patchset which appear to
be related to the new
genrecog.
The following two
On May 22, 2015 5:13:16 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
between Richis improvements of grouped accesses, and mine to strided
stores is an interaction that now leads to ICEs and wrong code after
both
are in, for instance PR66251. The added testcases reflects this
situation,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53477
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
On 21/05/15 06:33, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
ARM testing shares the AArch64 advsimd-intrinsics execution tests. On
ARM, though, the NEON support being tested is optional -- some arches
are compatible with the NEON compilation options but hardware available
for testing might or might not be able
Hi,
surprisingly, for NSDMIs we don't use reshape_init and we end-up
rejecting simple testcases like the below. It seems clear to me that we
should - consistently with the comment preceding digest_init too - but
I'm not 100% sure that digest_nsdmi_init is the best place for that.
Anyway, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:30:29PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:02:12PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:24:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:16:06PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On to #5:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66255
Bug ID: 66255
Summary: ice in retrieve_specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@foss.arm.com wrote:
So on powerpc where targetm.guard_mask_bit is false - this is what I see.
{
static int * p;
static int * p;
if (cleanup_point (unsigned char) *(char *) (long long int)
__atomic_load_8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01
On 05/22/2015 11:23 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 22/05/15 15:28, Jason Merrill wrote:
I do notice that get_guard_bits after build_atomic_load just won't work
on non-ARM targets, as it ends up trying to take the address of a value.
So on powerpc where targetm.guard_mask_bit is false -
On 22/05/15 16:21 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22/05/15 17:13 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:59:47PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ alignas(alignof(_Tp2)) unsigned char _M_storage[sizeof(_Tp)];
Is alignof(_Tp2) always the same as alignof(_Tp2::_M_t) on all
On 05/21/15 21:47, Jason Merrill wrote:
How about adding may_alias support to the code a bit lower down that copies the
abi_tag attribute?
Good idea. This keeps the non-copy behavior when the attribute is the last on
the source attribute list, and fixes up the case for when there are both
On 05/19/2015 06:06 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
And are the above indirect calls/jumps (1983+43) candidates for
scheduling/hoisting the address load (that's not being done yet), or
are they the ones the compiler opted not to schedule/hoist? The win
from relaxation seems small here, but as long as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945
James Y Knight foom at fuhm dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foom at fuhm dot
On 05/22/2015 10:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
On 05/22/2015 10:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
Hi,
in order to get the IBM z13 support into present distros the Linux
distributors asked me to get this
On 05/22/2015 10:36 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
It also seems unnecessary to load 8 bytes on any target; we could add a
function to optabs.c that returns the smallest mode for which there's atomic
load support?
No, while we do use an atomic_loadmode pattern if it exists, we assume that
all loads
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66254
Bug ID: 66254
Summary: Member function shadowing enum classes
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
On May 22, 2015 6:32:38 PM GMT+02:00, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com wrote:
Currently, when we print the passes it does not print its name. This
becomes confusing when we want to print all the passes at once (e.g.,
-fdump-tree-all-all=stderr pass.dump).
This patch adds functionality to print the pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66240
--- Comment #2 from Denis Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #1)
Another alternative discussed in that thread, which seems near-ideal: align
functions to a given size (for instance, 64 bytes),
Hi Paul,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:02:12PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:24:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:16:06PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On to #5:
r1 = atomic_load_explicit(x, memory_order_consume);
if (r1 == 42)
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 17:41 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
On 21/05/15 19:26, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 16:45 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
On 19/05/15 20:20, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 17:36 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote:
Hello,
On 15/05/15 17:22, Torvald
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66198
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
201 - 247 of 247 matches
Mail list logo
