> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: 29 October 2024 16:46
> To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> Cc: Richard Biener ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas
> Schwinge ; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offloading to nvptx
>
> External email: U
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: 21 October 2024 12:45
> To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge ; Jakub
> Jelinek
> Subject: RE: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offloading to nvptx
>
> External email: Use caution o
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: 17 October 2024 19:18
> To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge
> Subject: RE: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offloading to nvptx
>
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachment
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: 16 October 2024 13:05
> To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offloading to nvptx
>
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
is is done in p-283-4.txt.
All the three patches fix UNRESOLVED tests due to POLY_INT_CST streaming error
in libgomp testsuite with -mcpu=generic+sve2.
(Altho it introduces a strange FAIL for data-5.f90, which I am investigating).
I would be grateful for suggestions on how to proceed.
Signed-off-b
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Schwinge
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2024 7:37 PM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Prathamesh Kulkarni
> Cc: Tom de Vries ; Roger Sayle
>
> Subject: GCC nvptx-none Target Testing (was: New page "nvptx" in the GCC
> wi
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Pinski
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 12:28 PM
> To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> Cc: Richard Biener ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org;
> tschwi...@baylibre.com
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Summary of libgomp failures for offloading to nvptx
> from AAr
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 7:18 PM
> To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Summary of libgomp failures for offloading to nvptx
> from AArch64
>
> External email: Use caution o
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 6:51 PM
> To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Summary of libgomp failures for offloading to nvptx
> from AArch64
>
> External email: Use caution o
Hi,
I am working on enabling offloading to nvptx from AAarch64 host. As mentioned
on wiki (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Offloading#Running_.27make_check.27),
I ran make check-target-libgomp on AAarch64 host (and no GPU) with following
results:
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expected p
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 21:25, Tim Lange wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
Hi Tim,
Thanks for posting the POC patch!
Just a couple of comments (inline)
>
> tracked in PR105900 [0], I'd like to add support for a new warning on
> dubious allocation sizes. The new checker emits a warning when the
> allocation s
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 01:39, Miika via Gcc wrote:
>
> Based on Jakub's and Yair's comments I created a new attribute "inrange".
> Inrage takes three arguments, pos min and max.
> Pos being the argument position in the function, and min and max defines the
> range of valid integer. Both min and max
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 20:09, Marek Polacek via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 04:29:32PM +0200, Erick Ochoa via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been adding tests to the gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ipa folder
> > successfully for a while now. I am starting to add some tests into
> > gcc/testsui
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 20:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 8/18/21 12:52 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 22:44, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8/12/21 2:32 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 02:09, Mart
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 22:44, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 8/12/21 2:32 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 02:09, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8/6/21 4:51 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 0
gt; On 03/08/2021 18:44, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>>> On 8/3/21 4:11 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 13:49, Richard Biener
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 a
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 18:30, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
> On 04/08/2021 13:46, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 05:20:58PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 15:49, Segher Boessenkool
> >> wrote:
> >>> Bo
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 15:49, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 03:20:45PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 03:27, Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > The Linux kernel has a macro __is_constexpr to test if something i
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 03:27, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 04:23:42PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote:
> > The constraint here is that, vshl_n intrinsics require that the
> > second arg (__b),
> > should be an immediate val
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 15:41, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 13:49, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:06 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 23:29, Andrew Pinski
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 13:49, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:06 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 23:29, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 3:55 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni v
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 23:29, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 3:55 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Continuing from this thread,
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575920.html
> > The propo
Hi,
Continuing from this thread,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575920.html
The proposal is to provide a mechanism to mark a parameter in a
function as a literal constant.
Motivation:
Consider the following intrinsic vshl_n_s32 from arrm/arm_neon.h:
__extension__ extern __inl
On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 18:51, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Well, I was thinking of this test-case:
> >
> > int f(int cond1, int cond2, int cond3, int x, int y)
> > {
> >
On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 17:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Richa
On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard,
> > I was just wondering if second (and higher) order hoistings may defeat
> > the "AVAIL_OUT in at least one successor heuristic" ?
> &g
Hi Richard,
I was just wondering if second (and higher) order hoistings may defeat
the "AVAIL_OUT in at least one successor heuristic" ?
For eg:
bb2:
if (cond1) goto bb3 else goto bb4;
bb3:
if (cond2) goto bb5 else goto bb6;
bb5:
return x + y;
bb6:
return x + y;
bb4:
if (cond3) goto bb7 else g
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 22:54, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, pawel k. via Gcc wrote:
>
> > My best guess is if we could hookify all target code everything callable
> > either from frontends or midend, we could try to severly cut this estimate.
>
> That's a 700-patch series (there are
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 10:31, Shuai Wang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that tree_node is implemented as a union (
> https://code.woboq.org/gcc/gcc/tree-core.h.html#tree_node). However, I
> cannot find a way of checking whether the current tree_node is really a
> base or type.
>
> For ins
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 08:39, Shuai Wang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am doing interprocedural dataflow analysis and countered the following
> issue. Suppose I have an GIMPLE IR code as follows, which is after the
> "simdclone" pass while before my own SIMPLE IPA pass:
>
>
> foo (int a, int b)
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 20:49, divyanshu jamloki via Gcc wrote:
>
> Ma'am
>
> I am a 1st year computer science engineering undergraduate student at
> krishna engineering college (affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical
> University (AKTU)) . I am actively looking for some GSoC organisation t
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 17:11, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 14:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 17:37, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > > >
> &g
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 14:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 17:37, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 16:15, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > &g
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 17:37, Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 16:15, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:47 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
&g
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 16:15, Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:47 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 17:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > &
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 17:18, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 16:35, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > &
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 16:35, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 16:39, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> &
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 16:39, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > For the test mentioned in PR, I was trying to see if we could do
> > specialized expansion for vcond in target when operands are -1 and 0.
> > ar
Hi,
For the test mentioned in PR, I was trying to see if we could do
specialized expansion for vcond in target when operands are -1 and 0.
arm_expand_vcond gets the following operands:
(reg:V8QI 113 [ _2 ])
(reg:V8QI 117)
(reg:V8QI 118)
(lt (reg/v:V8QI 115 [ a ])
(reg/v:V8QI 116 [ b ]))
(reg/v:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 16:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:04 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 16:44, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:36 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 16:44, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:36 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 16:40, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 16:40, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 13:22, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:25 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 13:22, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:25 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 16:36, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:37 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 16:36, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:37 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 12:56, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:08 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 12:56, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:08 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 18:14, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 15:19, Prathamesh Kulkarn
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 18:14, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 15:19, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 17:08, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > >
> > > > I obtained perf stat results for fol
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 15:19, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 17:08, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> > > I obtained perf stat results for following benchmark runs:
> > >
> > > -O2:
> > >
> > > 7856832.69238
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 17:08, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> > I obtained perf stat results for following benchmark runs:
> >
> > -O2:
> >
> > 7856832.692380 task-clock (msec) #1.000 CPUs utilized
> > 3758 context-switches #0.000 K/sec
> >
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 16:53, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 17:33, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if that's (one of) the main factor(s) behind s
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 17:33, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote:
>
> > I wonder if that's (one of) the main factor(s) behind slowdown or it's
> > not too relevant ?
>
> Probably not. Some advice to make your s
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 17:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:17 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:50, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:34 PM Prathamesh Kulk
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:50, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:34 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > We're seeing a consistent regression >10% on calculix with -O2 -flto vs -O2
> > on aarch64 in our validatio
Hi,
We're seeing a consistent regression >10% on calculix with -O2 -flto vs -O2
on aarch64 in our validation CI. I tried to investigate this issue a
bit, and it seems the regression comes from inlining of orthonl into
e_c3d. Disabling that brings back the performance. However, inlining
orthonl into
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 09:17, Gary Oblock wrote:
>
> I'm writing an LTO optimization that requires "-flto-partition=one" How can I
> make
> sure that this is the case? I've spent hours greping the code and the
> Internals Doc is
> worth less than nothing for something like this. If you have an a
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 11:28, Shubham Narlawar wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm writing a Simple LTO pass. I have placed my optimization routine under
> execute() hook. In my optimization routine, I want to delete an
> instruction for which I have the gimple_stmt_iterator. If I call
> gsi_remove(gsi,
Hi,
For following test-case, taken from pr88152.C:
#include
template
using V [[gnu::vector_size(N)]] = T;
int f10 (V a)
{
return _mm_movemask_pd (reinterpret_cast<__m128d> (a > __LONG_LONG_MAX__));
}
.optimized dump shows:
f10 (V a)
{
vector(2) signed long _1;
vector(2) long int _2;
gt; necessary changes which have not been made.
You haven't called roundeven() in the patch. You'll need to add an
entry in fold_const_call_ss()
similar to real_ceil, and probably in other places too.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Regards,
> -Tejas
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 20:36,
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 20:10, Tejas Joshi wrote:
>
> Hello.
> I have implemented roundeven function in real.c as follows: (and
> respective changes in real.h)
It's a better idea to include all changes in patch instead of copy-pasting.
Use the command:
git diff > patch.diff
which will create a file
On 8 June 2018 at 22:46, Hrishikesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> -fdump-lto-body=foo
> will dump gimple body of the function foo
>
> foo (int a, int b)
> {
>[local count: 1073741825]:
> _3 = a_1(D) + b_2(D);
> return _3;
>
> }
>
> Please find the diff file attached herewith.
@@ -53,10 +55,14
On 29 May 2018 at 22:33, Hrishikesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My exams have finally ended and I have started working on the GSOC project.
> I have forked GCC mirror (https://github.com/hrisearch/gcc) and
> created a option for dumping functions and variables used in IL.
> Please find the patch att
On 23 May 2018 at 18:37, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/23/2018 03:20 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 23 May 2018 at 13:58, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 May 2018, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I am trying to work on PR801
On 23 May 2018 at 13:58, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I am trying to work on PR80155, which exposes a problem with code
>> hoisting and register pressure on a leading embedded benchmark for ARM
>> cortex-m7,
Hi,
I am trying to work on PR80155, which exposes a problem with code
hoisting and register pressure on a leading embedded benchmark for ARM
cortex-m7, where code-hoisting causes an extra register spill.
I have attached two test-cases which (hopefully) are representative of
the original test-case.
CCing Andi Kleen, mentor of this project.
Regards,
Prathamesh
On 3 March 2018 at 16:22, Prateek Kalra wrote:
> Hello GCC Community,
> My name is Prateek Kalra.I am pursuing integrated dual
> degree(B.tech+M.tech) in Computer Science Software Engineering,from Gautam
> Buddha University,Greater No
Hi,
For the following test-case,
int a;
__attribute__((noinline))
static void foo()
{
a = 3;
}
int main()
{
a = 4;
foo ();
return a;
}
I assume it's safe to remove "a = 4" since 'a' would be overwritten
by call to foo ?
IIUC, ipa-reference pass does mod/ref analysis to compute side-eff
On 23 January 2018 at 16:26, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 17 2018, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> following a discussion at IRC about an upcoming deadline to register GCC
>> as an independent organization for Google Summer of Code 2018 (GSoC), I
>> have volunteered to serve as the
On 18 September 2017 at 23:12, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-09-15 at 12:22 +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> Wilco or Prathamesh,
>
> I could not apply this patch (cleanly) to ToT. match.pd did not apply,
> I think I fixed that. The cfgexpand.c patch applied but will not
> build. I get thi
Hi,
I have attached revamped version of Kugan's original patch for type promotion
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00472.html)
rebased on r249469. The motivation of the pass is to minimize
generation of subregs
to avoid redundant zero/sign extensions by carrying out computations
in PR
Hi,
I was having a look at PR78809.
For the test-case:
int t1(const char *s) { return __builtin_strcmp (s, "a"); }
for aarch64, trunk with -O2 generates:
t1:
adrpx1, .LANCHOR0
add x1, x1, :lo12:.LANCHOR0
b strcmp
For i386, it seems strcmp is expanded inline v
Hi,
I observed a couple of similar ICE's with -fgimple for a function
having startwith.
eg:
void __GIMPLE (startwith ("ccp1")) foo ()
{
return;
}
Compiling with -fgimple -O works fine however removing -O causes the
following ICE:
foo.c:7:1: internal compiler error: in expand, at cgraphunit.c:2
/opt/notnfs/msebor/src/gcc/gcc-78622/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/execute.exp.
> ERROR: unmatched open brace in list
>
> ERROR: tcl error sourcing
> /opt/notnfs/msebor/src/gcc/gcc-78622/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp.
> ERROR: torture-init: torture_without_loops
On 26 October 2016 at 11:23, Will Hawkins wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> My name is Will Hawkins and I am a longtime user of gcc and admirer of
> the project. I hope that this is the proper forum for the question I
> am going to ask. If it isn't, please accept my apology and ignore me.
>
> I am a re
On 17 October 2016 at 13:52, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 13 October 2016 at 13:22, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 12 October 2016 at 14:43, Richa
On 13 October 2016 at 13:22, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 12 October 2016 at 14:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Prathames
On 13 October 2016 at 23:12, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> I am getting the following error when bootstrapping trunk (tried with r241108)
> on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu during stage-1:
>
> ../../../../gcc/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/compatibility-thread-c++0x.cc:121:12:
> erro
Hi,
I am getting the following error when bootstrapping trunk (tried with r241108)
on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu during stage-1:
../../../../gcc/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/compatibility-thread-c++0x.cc:121:12:
error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of \u2018_Bind_simple_helper\u2019
with no type [-fpermissi
On 12 October 2016 at 14:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>> > I was having a look at PR71636 and added the following pattern to match.pd:
>> > x & ((1U <&l
On 12 October 2016 at 13:09, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> I was having a look at PR71636 and added the following pattern to match.pd:
> x & ((1U << b) - 1) -> x & ~(~0U << b)
> However the transform is useful only if the target supports "andnot"
Hi,
I was having a look at PR71636 and added the following pattern to match.pd:
x & ((1U << b) - 1) -> x & ~(~0U << b)
However the transform is useful only if the target supports "andnot"
instruction.
As pointed out by Marc in PR for -march=core2, lhs generates worse
code than rhs,
so we shouldn't
On 2 September 2016 at 14:49, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> There seems to be plenty of slots available on the 2nd track to
> schedule additional BOFs. So I'd gather if there is interest
> in discussing
>
> A) Unit testing (GIMPLE FE, RTL FE, the existing unit-testing),
> basically how people fe
On 2 September 2016 at 15:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> There appears to be a redundant second assignmeent bb_copy = NULL in
>> free_copy_original_tables(). I suppose it should be
>> bb_original = NULL instead
Hi,
There appears to be a redundant second assignmeent bb_copy = NULL in
free_copy_original_tables(). I suppose it should be
bb_original = NULL instead ?
I found this mentioned on a blog "Bugs found in gcc with help of PVS studio":
http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0425/#ID0EHCCK
Thanks,
Prathamesh
diff
Hi Richard,
I was trying to have a look at PR35503.
The attached patch tries to warn when an argument is passed to a
restrict-qualified parameter
and the argument could alias with other argument.
For the following test-case:
int f2(int *restrict x, int *y);
void f(void)
{
int a;
f2 (&a, &a);
Hi,
While implementing divmod transform:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01757.html
I ran into an issue with optab_libfunc().
It appears optab_libfunc (sdivmod_optab, DImode) returns
a libfunc with name "__divmoddi4", even though such a libfunc
does not exist in libgcc. This happens
On 29 July 2016 at 00:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 27 July 2016 at 14:22, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On 27 July 2016 at 00:20, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>>> On 20 July 2016 at 18:28, Richard Bi
On 27 July 2016 at 00:20, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 20 July 2016 at 18:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On 20 July 2016 at 11:34, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Pra
Hi,
I am trying to write a WIP patch to warn for dead function calls,
and incidentally it caught the following dead call to gimple_bb() from
slsr_process_phi () in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:
if (SSA_NAME_IS_DEFAULT_DEF (arg))
arg_bb = single_succ (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN (cfun));
else
On 24 July 2016 at 21:26, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> I ran into a problem that C frontend (in function
> build_conditional_expr) creates expression like (C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR
> (NULL, x + const)). The inner expression (and its operands) have
> unsigned int type. After that, the expression needs to b
> > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > On 6 July 2016 at 14:24, Richard Biener
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>>>>> > > wrote:
On 6 July 2016 at 22:25, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On 4 July 2016 at 13:51, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>&g
On 4 July 2016 at 13:51, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have attached a "quick and dirty" prototype patch (var-partition-1.diff),
>> that attempts to partition variables to reduce number of
>
Hi,
I have attached a "quick and dirty" prototype patch (var-partition-1.diff),
that attempts to partition variables to reduce number of
external references and to increase usage of section-anchors
to CSE address computation of global variables.
We could put a variable in a partition that has max
On 30 June 2016 at 17:10, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> On 29 June 2016 at 22:15, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On June 29, 2016 6:20:29 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
>>>>On 18 Jun
On 18 June 2016 at 12:02, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried hacking pass manager to execute only given passes. For this I
> am adding new member as opt_pass *custom_pass_list to the function
> structure to store passes need to execute and providing the
> custom_pass_list to execute_pass_list
On 6 June 2016 at 15:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch parses simple assignment statement
>>
>> int a;
>> void __GIMPLE foo()
>> {
>> a = 1;
>> }
>>
>> but it does not produce gimple dump. In debugging I found that
>> cf
On 30 May 2016 at 20:45, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As David suggested in his rtlfe patch,
> this patch recognizes __GIMPLE keyword and switches to
> c_parser_parse_gimple_body by providing -fgimple option.
>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
> index 4568cf6..
On 19 May 2016 at 13:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 18 May 2016 at 19:38, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 May 2016 at 18:36, Richard
On 18 May 2016 at 19:38, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 2016 at 18:36, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, 11 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6 May 2016 at 17:20, Richard Biener w
On 17 May 2016 at 18:36, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 6 May 2016 at 17:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> > You can't simply use
>> >
>> > + offset = int_byte_position (field);
>> &g
1 - 100 of 237 matches
Mail list logo
