This moves the initialization of the linemap up to before the first assertion
at the beginning of the gigi routine. As experienced under PR ada/49084, if
the assertion fails and the linemap isn't initialized yet, things can go awry.
Tested on i586-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:11:28AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
@@ -1330,16 +1345,38 @@ gfc_code_walker (gfc_code **c, walk_code_fn_t code
WALK_SUBEXPR (co-ext.dt-extra_comma);
break;
- case EXEC_OMP_DO:
+ in_omp_workshare = true;
+
+
As suggested by Robert, it would be valuable to have an assertion in gigi to
detect conflicting alignments in renaming, i.e. when an alignment value set on
the renaming cannot be honored because the renamed object isn't sufficiently
aligned.
Tested on i586-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
The 6.2(12) paragraph reads:
If one name denotes a part of a formal parameter, and a second name denotes
a part of a distinct formal parameter or an object that is not part of a
formal parameter, then the two names are considered distinct access paths. If
an object is of a type for which the
We now generate elaboration code to initialize an aggregate that contains a
null access-to-unconstrained-array value.
Fixed thusly, tested on i586-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2011-12-11 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com
* gcc-interface/utils2.c (gnat_build_constructor):
[Mingjie, please could you help with the Loongson question near the end?]
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com writes:
@@ -89,61 +89,102 @@
DONE;
})
-; pul.ps - Pair Upper Lower
-(define_insn mips_pul_ps
+(define_insn vec_perm_const_ps
[(set (match_operand:V2SF 0 register_operand
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Regression-tested. OK for trunk (finally)?
Looks also OK from my side - except for the left over which Jakub has
already noticed. I think the following lines can be simply removed:
- case EXEC_OMP_DO:
+ in_omp_workshare = true;
+
+
Jakub Jelinek writes:
Hi!
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to 4.6
branch.
2011-12-09 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
Backport from mainline
2011-12-08 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
PR tree-optimization/51466
*
Jakub Jelinek writes:
Hi!
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to 4.6
branch:
...
2011-12-08 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
Backport from mainline
2011-12-05 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
Eric Botcazou
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
[Mingjie, please could you help with the Loongson question near the end?]
As H-P mentioned, this changes the __builtin_* interface for the PSHUFH
intrinsics. These intrinsics are supposed to be used via the inline
wrappers in loongson.h, so we
Hi,
Here, we weren't creating a typename_type for a dependent type
introduced by a using declaration. A USING_DECL was not recording the
fact that it refers to a dependent type, so I've created a new macro
USING_DECL_TYPENAME_P to record that information (using the free slot
DECL_LANG_FLAG_1 for
On 12/10/11 17:13, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On 12/10/2011 02:16 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Using the parent node for aliases (as in your patch) makes sense, but I
don't see tree_function_versioning() segfaulting as you claim. What I
see is estimate_function_body_sizes()
Humm you are seeing this
Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@bitrange.com writes:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
[Mingjie, please could you help with the Loongson question near the end?]
As H-P mentioned, this changes the __builtin_* interface for the PSHUFH
intrinsics. These intrinsics are supposed to be used
On 12/11/2011 09:11 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 12/10/11 17:13, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On 12/10/2011 02:16 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Using the parent node for aliases (as in your patch) makes sense, but I
don't see tree_function_versioning() segfaulting as you claim. What I
see is
On 5 December 2011 00:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Yep, here's another patch with some more duplication removed. WIth
this, the document only needs to be updated when a new symbol version
is added or a library filename changes, not for every point release
with identical library versions. I
ping
On 3 December 2011 12:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 3 December 2011 12:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This implements a new C++ trait, __is_final, to query the 'final'
specifier that 4.7 supports. The trait is needed for the library so we
can detect when it's not possible to derive from a
Hello,
The configure scripts check for -Wno-narrowing, but GCC ignores rather
than rejects unknown -Wno-* warnings.
Fixed by checking for the positive warning, -Wnarrowing.
OK for trunk?
Ciao!
Steven
gcc/
PR bootstrap/51388
configure.ac: Check for Wnarrowing instead of
Dear Paul, dear all,
first, thanks again for the patch.
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Boostrapped and regtested on x86_64/FC9 - OK for trunk?
I have now re-read the patch and it is OK from my side. It wouldn't harm
is someone else with experience with CLASS or with the scalarizer could
also
On 8 Dec 2011, at 21:06, Richard Henderson wrote:
;
+
+ high = (highp == TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN ? 0 : nelt);
+
This breaks bootstrap on ppc-darwin, which came as a bit f a surprise
to me...
... however, it would appear that TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN is not used
anywhere else...
(plenty of
On 12/11/2011 04:50 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
[Mingjie, please could you help with the Loongson question near the end?]
Actually, can you tell me how to test these abi combinations? I keep trying to
use mips-sim or mips64-sim and get linker errors complaining of abi
combinations.
Dear Tobias,
Build and regtested on x86-64-linux.
OK for the trunk? How far should this be backported - all the way down to
4.4?
This is OK for trunk and... well, I don't know. 4.4 is likely a bit
too far. I guess that the linux distros are already at 4.5? I will
leave it to you.
Cheers
Dear Tobias,
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Dear Paul, dear all,
first, thanks again for the patch.
Thank you for the continuous reviewing over the last couple of months
- also to Dominique, Salvatore and Damian; all of whom have kept the
test cases
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 02:48:52PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
This patch, r182112 on 4.6 branch, caused a test suite regression on
arm-linux-gnueabi:
+FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050713-1.c compilation, -O2 (internal
compiler error)
+UNRESOLVED: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050713-1.c
Hi,
According to § 11.3/1 from c++98, access delarations are deprecated:
The access of a member of a base class can be changed in the derived
class by mentioning its qualified-id in the derived class declaration.
Such mention is called an access declaration. The effect of an access
declaration
On 11 December 2011 22:22, Fabien Chêne wrote:
Consequently, I propose to deprecate them with a warning, as clang already
does.
So that you get a warning for the following code:
struct A { int i; };
struct B : A
{
A::i; // - warning here
};
warning: access declarations are
On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
How about the patch below?
I'm fine with whatever you guys come up with...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@bitrange.com writes:
Please also consider incrementing __mips_loongson_vector_rev
For avoidance of doubt, that only applies to the latter (as H-P
suggests) option. The patch as posted keeps the public interface
the same.
In the tcmalloc memory
allocator(http://google-perftools.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/tcmalloc.html),
deallocation involves a costly lookup to get the size of the deleted
object. The size is required to find the right free list to release
back the object. By passing the size of the object to the
Sorry about my oversight. I am on vacation now until Dec 19. I don't
have good internet access now and I will backport this to upstream 4.6
after I come back if the 4.6 maintainers agree to take this.
-Doug
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Hello,
The patch below adds a missing free operation in mark_loop_unsched.
Tested (bootstrap and regtest) ppc64-redhat-linux.
OK for 3.7?
Thanks,
Revital
Changelog:
* modulo-sched.c (mark_loop_unsched): Free bbs.
Index: modulo-sched.c
Hello,
OK for 3.7?
Sorry, I meant GCC 4.7.0...
Thanks,
Revital
Hi,
This patch fixes dg-final scans in tests from vect.exp suite, which
currently fail when avx2 is used.
Ok for trunk?
Changelog:
2011-12-12 Michael Zolotukhin michael.v.zolotuk...@intel.com
* gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-31.c: Adjust diagnostic test to
fix fail on
2011/12/11 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com:
On 11 December 2011 22:22, Fabien Chêne wrote:
Consequently, I propose to deprecate them with a warning, as clang already
does.
So that you get a warning for the following code:
struct A { int i; };
struct B : A
{
A::i; // - warning
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:06:37AM +0400, Michael Zolotukhin wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-31.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-31.c
index 21b87a3..f75253e 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-31.c
+++
34 matches
Mail list logo
