> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:48:35 +0200
> > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:31:10 +0200
> > > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > > Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:38:22 +0200
> >
> > > gcc:
> > > Fix configure test for "stack protector support in target C l
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:07:23 +0200
A ping.
> Y is 28 for introduction of the quoted code in
> arch/arm/mm/alignment.c, AFAICT, so how about this one, ok now?
>
> Index: changes.html
> ===
> RCS file:
Here's one more patch that addresses a problem I found out while
investigating the PR53671 regressions: rather than recording incoming
stack args as MEMs with non-VALUE expressions, it's more consistent (and
less surprising) if we emit them as VALUE expressions, like other MEMs.
Regstrapped on x86
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, rbmj wrote:
> There is an alternate solution- I could use fixincludes to add a macro to wrap
> over mkdir on VxWorks. A couple of possible ways to do this:
>
> 1. Define a normal macro to posix-ify it, i.e. #define mkdir(a, b)
> ((mkdir)(a)). Since this would hide single-arg
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:08:42PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> 4) Later loads and stores to which a dependency is carried from the
> initial load (see 1.10p9 and 1.10p10 in the standard) cannot be
> reordered to precede the load(memory_order_consume). Other loads and
> stores following the load
On Jun 20, 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I have a question on the pre-existing condition
> - if (GET_CODE (y) == AND || ysize < -INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)))
> xsize = -1;
> so if this condition is not true then we simply strip off the AND of X and
> do not adjust xsize at all? Likewis
On Jun 14, 2012, Ayal Zaks wrote:
> Thanks for the duplicate ping. This is fine.
> So this indeed solves the discrepancy between running SMS w/ and w/o
> debugging?
I can't tell whether it solves it completely, but it's surely a step in
the right direction.
> Please include a comment next to t
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 06:57:16PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-suse-linux, OK for mainline and 4.7 branch?
>
>
> 2012-06-21 Eric Botcazou
>
> * tree-ssa-live.c (remove_unused_scope_block_p): Remove again
> DECL_IGNORED_P non-reg vars even if they
Hello Everyone,
This patch is for the Cilkplus branch affecting mainly the C++
compiler. This compiler was crashing when a continue was inside a cilk_for.
This patch should fix that. I have also added a couple test programs to the
testsuite.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
diff --git a/gcc/cp
... because they are unused. Will commit as an obvious cleanup in a
few days' time.
Ciao!
Steven
* system.h: Poison ASM_BYTE_OP and ASM_OUTPUT_BYTE.
* vmsdbgout: Do not undefine it if defined.
Rename loca ASM_BYTE_OP definition to VMS_ASM_BYTE_OP.
* config/microbla
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 19:05 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Steve Ellcey " writes:
> > This patch addresses the problem of building GCC for mips with the
> > '--with-synci' configure option. If you do that and then compile a
> > program with GCC and specify an architecture that does not suppor
On 06/11/2012 03:05 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 06/11/2012 08:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/06/2012 13:59, rbmj ha scritto:
On 05/22/2012 04:37 PM, rbmj wrote:
This patch adds an AC_ARG_ENABLE option to build/not build
libstdc++-v3. I wrote the patch in order to allow the user to
override the auto
Subject says it all ...
2012-06-21 Meador Inge
* MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval): Add myself.
Index: MAINTAINERS
===
--- MAINTAINERS (revision 188858)
+++ MAINTAINERS (working copy)
@@ -392,6 +392,7 @@
Andrew John Hug
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 11:28 PM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>>
>> the attached patch makes the FTELL intrinsic function work on offsets
>> larger than 2 GB on 32-bit systems that support large files. As this
>> is an ABI change the old library function is
On 06/21/12 13:05, Richard Guenther wrote:
This fixes an annoying thing on release branches - the gcov
version changes from 407p to 407* at the single revisions that
are releases and then back to 407p. That makes it impossible
to consume profile-feedback data across the revisions on a branch.
On 12-06-20 23:04 , Sandeep Soni wrote:
Hi,
This patch creates basic gimple_assign statements. It is a little raw
not considering all types of gimple_assign statements for which I have
already started working.
Here is the Changelog.
2012-06-09 Sandeep Soni
* parser.c (gimple_symt
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> I modified the documentation and it now looks like this:
>>
>> @item -ftemp-stack-reuse
>> @opindex ftemp_stack_reuse
>> This option enables stack space reuse for temporaries. T
On 2012-06-21 00:48, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> @@ -9142,9 +9152,12 @@ ix86_compute_frame_layout (struct ix86_frame *frame)
> {
>HOST_WIDE_INT diff;
>
> - /* If we can leave the frame pointer where it is, do so. */
> + /* If we can leave the frame pointer where it is, do so.
Committed as attached. Thanks for your reviews.
Sterling
gcc/ChangeLog
2012-06-21 Sterling Augustine
Cary Coutant
* dwarf2out.c (is_cu_die, is_namespace_die, is_class_die,
add_AT_pubnames, add_enumerator_pubname, want_pubnames): New functions.
(comdat_type_
Your links were a big help. Hopefully, I can return the favor with
a few comments and suggestions. Note that I did not understand
everything here, so my comments and suggestions may be wrong.
If they are, please use my mistakes as data!
On 6/20/12, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> First of all you made
On 06/21/2012 02:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
The flag is not restricted to the C++ compiler and applies to all automatic
variables.
This only affects the clobbers for C++ temporary objects, not clobbers
for automatic variables going out of scope.
Also with this patch you remove code moti
"Steve Ellcey " writes:
> This patch addresses the problem of building GCC for mips with the
> '--with-synci' configure option. If you do that and then compile a
> program with GCC and specify an architecture that does not support synci
> (such as the -mips32 option), GCC will issue a warning tha
Hi,
this is a regression present on the mainline and 4.7 branch with -O -flto -g.
Starting with 4.7.x, the Ada compiler implements a form of NRV optimization on
the GENERIC representation (like C++ but more powerful) and, in some cases, it
replaces a returned variable with a new one, disconnecti
As promised, this breaks out the changes to the IVOPTS cost model and
the added function in double-int.c. Please let me know if you would
rather see me attempt to consolidate the IVOPTS logic into expmed.c per
Richard H's suggestion.
I ran into a glitch with multiply_by_const_cost. The original
>> There are two possibilities:
>> a) Making _gfortran_show_backtrace accessible from the outside (via manual
>> C binding from Fortran)
>> b) Adding a new intrinsic
>>
>
> I would vote for b), as it gets documented then.
> It is enough useful for a wide range of programmers to deserve
> an intrins
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> A couple of small tweaks to PowerPc atomic operations. The first
> omits the "cmp; bc; isync" barrier on atomic_load with mem model
> __ATOMIC_CONSUME. PowerPC pointer loads don't need a barrier. Ref
> http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/scala
Hi,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> The flag is not restricted to the C++ compiler and applies to all
> automatic variables.
The use of that flag in the gimplifier (->in_cleanup_expr) makes it
actually c++ specific.
> Also even with this flag there is no guarantee we cannot fig
Hi -
> This is OK. You should have write-after-approval access. Overseers,
> please add user meadori to group gcc.
Done.
- FChE
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I'm posting this as an RFC: Does this look like the right approach?
> Have I overlooked other things than just documentation updates? I hope
> this would not cause too much trouble for branches like the
> cxx-conversion branch?
Yes, this looks like th
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Meador Inge wrote:
> P.S. If it is OK, then can someone commit for me (I don't have write access)?
This is OK. You should have write-after-approval access. Overseers,
please add user meadori to group gcc.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> This patch was bootstrapped&tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> The issues with #ident have already been addressed, and this patch
> adds a new test case, to make sure...
>
> OK for trunk?
OK.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Am 21.06.2012 14:15, schrieb Tobias Burnus:
On 03/03/2012 08:44 AM, FX wrote [1]:
PR 36044 (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36044) is an enhancement
request for a way to display backtraces from user code.
I wanted to come back to that patch for some while. I think it makes sense t
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Hmm? The original expression is an address, I have to build a MEM_REF
> > out of that, and the is_gimple_mem_ref_addr() just checked that that
> > very address (after going through fold) is not acceptable as MEM_REF
> > operand. So how coul
On 06/20/2012 11:28 PM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
the attached patch makes the FTELL intrinsic function work on offsets
larger than 2 GB on 32-bit systems that support large files. As this
is an ABI change the old library function is left untouched, to be
removed when/if the library ABI is bumped.
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:20 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:48 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > > I remember having this discussion, and I was looking for
On 03/03/2012 08:44 AM, FX wrote [1]:
PR 36044 (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36044) is an enhancement
request for a way to display backtraces from user code.
I wanted to come back to that patch for some while. I think it makes
sense to offer this feature in some why and as the
This fixes an annoying thing on release branches - the gcov
version changes from 407p to 407* at the single revisions that
are releases and then back to 407p. That makes it impossible
to consume profile-feedback data across the revisions on a branch.
As we do not change the gcov-version with pat
On Jun 21, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> On 21 June 2012 09:48, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> Here is the new version. It is now possible to use __builtin_frame_address
>> (0) to get the current establisher frame thanks to a tiny adjustment.
>>
>> No regressions on x86_64-linux, and an x
On 21 June 2012 09:48, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Here is the new version. It is now possible to use __builtin_frame_address
> (0) to get the current establisher frame thanks to a tiny adjustment.
>
> No regressions on x86_64-linux, and an x86_64-windows native gdb can be built
> and run.
>
> Tris
A couple of small tweaks to PowerPc atomic operations. The first
omits the "cmp; bc; isync" barrier on atomic_load with mem model
__ATOMIC_CONSUME. PowerPC pointer loads don't need a barrier. Ref
http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/scalability/paper/N2745r.2011.03.04a.html
As best I can see, mem_
Hello!
> > During htab_delete (dropped_values), loc_exp_dep_pool
> > allocated objects might be accessed, so it is better to free the
> > pool afterwards.
> >
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> Looks obvious.
The patch doesn't fix all writes to freed up memory, please see
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> During htab_delete (dropped_values), loc_exp_dep_pool
> allocated objects might be accessed, so it is better to free the
> pool afterwards.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on i686-linux, ok for trunk?
Looks obvious.
Thanks,
Richard.
> 2
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> I modified the documentation and it now looks like this:
>
> @item -ftemp-stack-reuse
> @opindex ftemp_stack_reuse
> This option enables stack space reuse for temporaries. The default is on.
> The lifetime of a compiler generated temporar
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Attached is a concept patch to move the C front end to its own
>> sub-directory
>
> I like the idea... but did you build and test objective c++?
Yes, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testres
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 10 April 2012 10:11, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
> >>> The patch with correct configure output is ok.
> >>
> >> Thanks - this is what I committed.
> >
> > Is this something that can be considered for backporting to release
> > branches ? Thi
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:22 PM, William J. Schmidt
wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 13:11 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, William J. Schmidt
>> wrote:
>> > Pro forma ping. :)
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> I notice (with all of these functions)
>>
>> +unsigned
>> +negate_cost (e
Here is the new version. It is now possible to use __builtin_frame_address (0)
to get the current establisher frame thanks to a tiny adjustment.
No regressions on x86_64-linux, and an x86_64-windows native gdb can be built
and run.
Tristan.
2012-06-18 Tristan Gingold
* config/i386
A recent change of mine caused auto to persist until instantiation time
in more cases, and the OMP for instantiation code wasn't prepared to
deal with that. This patch simplifies the handling of the for-init-expr
in an OMP loop by processing the DECL_EXPR right away, rather than
trying to spli
48 matches
Mail list logo
