On 2012/7/13 02:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> /* Implement TARGET_EXPAND_BUILTIN_THREAD_POINTER. */
>
> static rtx
> mips_expand_builtin_thread_pointer (rtx tp)
> {
> rtx fn;
>
> if (TARGET_MIPS16)
> ...
> }
>
> (i.e. always using the passed-in tp, which is safe with your 1/6 patch)
On 2012/7/13 02:37 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> +void
>> > +default_expand_builtin_set_thread_pointer (rtx val ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>> > +{
>> > + sorry ("__builtin_set_thread_pointer() not available for this target");
>> > +}
> Function names should be quoted by %< %>. But maybe we can save the
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:18:54 +0200
> if (CALL_P (insn))
> {
> if (RTL_CONST_OR_PURE_CALL_P (insn))
> /* Pure functions can read from memory. Const functions can
> read from arguments that the ABI has forced onto the stack.
On 2012/7/13 09:28 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Core parts adding the new hooks. BUILT_IN_THREAD_POINTER and
>> BUILT_IN_SET_THREAD_POINTER are different hooks, as some targets only
>> implement one of them (thread pointer read).
>
> sorry seems a
This patch adds __int256 to the front-ends. We follow the __int128 code fairly
closely...
So, an outstanding question would be, how do I get the mangle codes allocated
for the type? I just choose two unused codes, for now. All in all, the patch
was pretty straight forward.
We have another p
This implies:
1. This patch does not fix the inline stack issue completely, because
expression still does not carry block info correctly.
2. It's not easily possible to check the correctness of the inline
stack info by grepping the assembly.
I'd suggest:
1. Remove this unittest for now.
2. Integr
On Jul 11, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Core parts adding the new hooks. BUILT_IN_THREAD_POINTER and
> BUILT_IN_SET_THREAD_POINTER are different hooks, as some targets only
> implement one of them (thread pointer read).
sorry seems a little overly dramatic. I would have thought that
These patches fix the typedef11.C and friend13/15.C failures. Each
fixes a latent bug in the compiler.
1) We shouldn't do access control checking for typedefs used in the body
of a function when the declaration is instantiated; we should wait until
the body is instantiated.
2) We shouldn't
And here's a fix for the access7 failure, to be applied on top of your
patch.
I notice that your patch changes the behavior of C++98/03 mode as well,
which seems wrong to me; I think this is a big enough change that we
should limit it to C++11 mode.
Jason
commit f60b940ab6bcbad60632ba085fa0
PR c++/53531
* testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic135.C: New.
As suggested in the PR comments this adds a test to ensure this doesn't regress.
OK for trunk?
commit 2fa33c6b4e5533b7d87ba559b43bb06e501e9851
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Thu Jul 12 23:37:40 2012 +0100
PR c++/
Hi Mikael, dear all,
Mikael Morin wrote:
PPS: The offset handling in gfortran is really complicated. I wonder
whether we have to (or at least should) change it for the new array
descriptor.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "really complicated". There are
not many simple things in gfortran
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 01:02:34 +0200
PR rtl-optimization/53176
> * rtlanal.c (rtx_cost): Adjust default cost for X with a
> UNITS_PER_WORD factor for all X according to the size of
> its mode, not just for SUBREGs with untieable modes.
>
Mikael Morin wrote:
I don't see how I could. The scalarizer's purpose is translating array
statements like foo(:,:) = bar(:,:), where the rank at least is supposed
known, so that we know how many nested loops we have to generate. If
the number of loops is known at runtime only, hem, I don't see
On 06/07/2012 23:13, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> In case it's not, then everything is fine I guess, though I prefer
>> avoiding polluting the scalarizer with assumed rank stuff ;-).
>
> It still will get worse, see above. Though, I wouldn't mind if you could
> modify the scalarizer.
I don't see how
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Jia Liu wrote:
> May you
> give me more comment? I wanna fix it.
Sorry, I'll leave that to the lm32 maintainer, I just wasnted to
clear a misunderstanding regarding TARGET_LEGITIMATE_CONSTANT_P.
brgds, H-P
Steven Bosscher writes:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Bernd Schmidt
> wrote>> We're moving a load across a call since we don't recognize calls as
>> memory-clobbering.
>>
>> Bootstrapping and testing now on 4.7 x86_64-linux, ok everywhere?
>
> Maybe:
> + if (CALL_P (insn)
> + &
Chung-Lin Tang writes:
> @@ -2851,11 +2851,12 @@ mips_call_tls_get_addr (rtx sym, enum mips_symbol_
> /* Return a pseudo register that contains the current thread pointer. */
>
> static rtx
> -mips_get_tp (void)
> +mips_get_tp (rtx target)
> {
> - rtx tp, fn;
> + rtx fn;
> + rtx tp = (tar
On 28/06/2012 09:34, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> This patch generates inline code for C_F_POINTER with an array argument.
> One reason is that GCC didn't handle SHAPE= arguments which were
> noncontiguous.
>
> However, the real motivation is the fortran-dev branch with the new
> array-descriptor: C_F_P
Hi Chung-Lin,
Chung-Lin Tang writes:
> Core parts adding the new hooks. BUILT_IN_THREAD_POINTER and
> BUILT_IN_SET_THREAD_POINTER are different hooks, as some targets only
> implement one of them (thread pointer read).
Thanks a lot for doing this. It looks great to me, although I can't
approve
Steven Bosscher wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>>> Richi, could you please have a look at jump threading, and see if
>>> first_pass_instance can be remove?
>
>Ping? :-)
>
>
>>> Bootstrapped&tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
>>
>> This was propos
Hello!
2012-07-12 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/i386.md (QImode and HImode cmove splitters): Merge
QImode and HImode splitters. Use ix86_comparison_operator.
Explicitly match FLAGS_REG.
(DFmode cmove splitter): Explicitly match FLAGS_REG.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>> Richi, could you please have a look at jump threading, and see if
>> first_pass_instance can be remove?
Ping? :-)
>> Bootstrapped&tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
>
> This was proposed before and I did not like that,
On 06/15/2012 04:27 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
FAIL: g++.dg/template/access7.C -std=c++98 (test for errors, line 8)
FAIL: g++.dg/template/access7.C -std=c++98 (test for errors, line 12)
FAIL: g++.dg/template/access7.C -std=c++98 (test for warnings, line 17)
FAIL: g++.dg/template/access7.C -std=c++9
Hello!
> A test is added. Is it ok?
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> 2012-07-08 Dehao Chen
>
> * gcc.dg/debug_info_inline.c: New test.
This test fails on alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu [1] and other non-x86
targets [2] too:
FAIL: gcc.dg/debug_info_inline.c scan-assembler loc 1 19 0\\n.*\\
Hi Hans,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Jia Liu wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When I build lm32-elf-gcc, it failed at libgcc configure due to
>> lm32-elf-cc1 segment fault when compile conftest.c:
>>
>> void bar ();
>> void clean (int *);
>> void foo
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The global variable first_pass_instance exists to hack jump threading,
> see tree-pass.h:
>
> /* Set to true if the pass is called the first time during compilation of the
>current function. Note that using this information
Hello,
The global variable first_pass_instance exists to hack jump threading,
see tree-pass.h:
/* Set to true if the pass is called the first time during compilation of the
current function. Note that using this information in the optimization
passes is considered not to be clean, and it s
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 07/07/2012 11:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> I must say, I am surprised that gfortran.h includes coretypes.h. The
>> idea always was to try and keep the front end and the back end as much
>> separated as possible, and including coret
sorry about the two messages. i mis spelled the gcc-patches on the first
try.
you are on the right track with the example but combine will not get
this unless everything is in the same bb.
the whole point of having a separate pass for doing extension
elimination is that it needs to be done ove
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2012-07-12 Vasiliy Fofanov
* vms_data.ads: Add VMS qualifiers for -gnatn1/2 switches.
Index: vms_data.ads
===
--- vms_data.ads(revision 189431)
+++ vms_data.ads
This change refines the source coverage obligation information emitted
for SELECT statements to allow structural coverage analysis of code
that use tasking.
The following compilation must produce the indicated SCOs.
procedure Sel is
task Opmaster is
entry Compute_And (A, B : Boolean; Resu
This patch completely changes the way restrictions information is
generated in the ALI file. Instead of using a positional notation
that is sensitive to the addition of new restrictions, it uses a
named notation, that avoids this dependency. If a new restriction
is added, and an incompatible versio
The optimization of the expansion of protected procedure for the lock-free
implementation brings the following changes:
- Several renamings in order to match GCC built-in function wordings.
- Expected_Comp declaration moved to the the declarations list of the procedure
- GCC built-in operation__syn
It is possible to have the same library project in different aggregated
projects, so in different project tree.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2012-07-12 Pascal Obry
* prj-nmsc.adb (Check_Library_Attributes): Allow the same library
project in different proje
When gnatmake is invoked with --subdirs=, but without -P, the binder
generated files and the executable are put by default in the specified
subdirectory.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2012-07-12 Vincent Celier
* make.adb (Binding_Phase): If --subdirs was used, but
To meet MINSIGSTKSZ requirement.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2012-07-12 Tristan Gingold
* s-osinte-hpux.ads: Increase alternate stack size on hpux.
Index: s-osinte-hpux.ads
===
--- s-osinte-hpux.ads
This change moves the GNAT runtime package GNAT.Byte_Swapping under System
(with a renaming under GNAT for compatibility) so that the unit can be
used from expanded code at a later point.
No visible behaviour change (simple code reorganization), no test.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed o
On some targets, there is a catch-all handler to catch unhandled exceptions.
This patch adjust the personality routine to report them as unhandled.
Behavior not changed.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2012-07-12 Tristan Gingold
* raise-gcc.c: Do not include unwind-d
*ping*
On 06/28/2012 09:34 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
This patch generates inline code for C_F_POINTER with an array
argument. One reason is that GCC didn't handle SHAPE= arguments which
were noncontiguous.
Actually, I just messed up my test case and didn't properly read the
libgfortran/intrin
On 12 July 2012 07:52, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> ARM parts, no further notes.
>
ARM parts are ok, modulo approval for generic parts and no
regressions with testing on arm-linux-gnueabi.
Thanks,
Ramana
> Thanks,
> Chung-Lin
>
> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_builtins): Remove
> ARM_BUILT
On 07/07/2012 11:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
I must say, I am surprised that gfortran.h includes coretypes.h. The
idea always was to try and keep the front end and the back end as much
separated as possible, and including coretypes.h in the most important
front-end header doesn't fit in that pi
Kenneth,
I see I replied to your original message that had the wrong CC, I'm now CC-ing
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org.
Thanks,
- Tom
On 12/07/12 11:05, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 12/07/12 03:39, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> I have a problem with the approach that you have taken here. I believe
Dimitrios Apostolou writes:
> @@ -3849,6 +3850,32 @@ sprint_ul_rev (char *s, unsigned long va
>return i;
> }
>
> +/* Write a signed HOST_WIDE_INT as decimal to a file, fast. */
> +
> +void
> +fprint_w (FILE *f, HOST_WIDE_INT value)
> +{
> + /* python says: len(str(2**64)) == 20 */
> + ch
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> GCC calls free_after_parsing in rest_of_clean_state.
> That's way too late, it can be done in free_lang_data_in_cgraph instead.
But that's only called with -flto ... I think it should be called in
cgraph_finalize_function instea
44 matches
Mail list logo
