On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:14:27PM -0800, Wei Mi wrote:
> 2012-11-21 Wei Mi
>
> * common.opt: Change faddress-sanitizer to fsanitize=address.
> * toplev.c (process_options): Likewise.
> * gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC): Likewise.
> * testsuite/lib/asan-dg.exp
>
I rewrite the patch according to Jakub's suggestion -- add the
following option in common.opt and keep flag_asan. The patch is
attached. Ok to checkin?
fsanitize=address
Common Report Var(flag_asan)
Enable AddressSanitizer, a memory error detector
2012-11-21 Wei Mi
* common.opt: Chang
Hi,
Ping!
Siddhesh
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:52:21 +0530, Siddhesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Current HEAD fails build when --enable-languages=c, i.e. C++ is not
> being built. Attached patch fixes this.
>
> Regards,
> Siddhesh
>
> ChangeLog:
>
> 2012-11-15 Siddhesh Poyarekar
>
> * configure.
Hi,
Ping!
Siddhesh
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:05:38 +0530, Siddhesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's an updated version of the patch which warns the user if the
> removing of redundant exits results in an infinite loop. I have added
> an additional flag in struct loop called external_exits to record if
>
From: David Miller
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:20:40 -0500 (EST)
> Those seem to be the only problems that need to be resolved for this
> feature to be fully working.
FWIW, here are the changes I am using which, besides the sparc backend
bits, has some temporary workarounds for the issues I brough
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> David Miller writes:
>
>> +// Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls?
>> +// x32 (which defines __x86_64__) has __WORDSIZE == 32
>> +// but it still needs to use 64-bit syscalls.
>> +#if defined(__x86_64__) || __WORDSIZE == 64
>
> I don't t
> -Original Message-
> From: Ramana Radhakrishnan [mailto:ramana@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 6:02 AM
> To: Bin Cheng
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH ARM]Define LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT for ARM target
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:37 AM
ping, adding the m68k port maintainers
Am 15.11.2012 00:33, schrieb Matthias Klose:
> Am 14.11.2012 23:39, schrieb Joseph S. Myers:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>>> The following patch adds the multiarch definitions for m68k-linux-gnu.
>>> Tested
>>> using a Debian/Ubuntu pack
ping, adding the alpha port maintainer
Am 14.11.2012 23:29, schrieb Matthias Klose:
> The following patch adds the multiarch definitions for alpha-linux-gnu. Tested
> using a Debian/Ubuntu package build. Ok for the trunk?
>
> Matthias
>
ping, adding the s390 port maintainers
Am 14.11.2012 23:35, schrieb Matthias Klose:
> The following patch adds the multiarch definitions for s390-linux-gnu. Tested
> using a Debian/Ubuntu package build. Ok for the trunk?
>
> Matthias
>
Am 21.11.2012 03:40, schrieb David Edelsohn:
> The following patch adds the multiarch definitions for -linux-gnu. Tested
> using
> a Debian/Ubuntu package build. Ok for the trunk?
>
> Matthias
>
> 2012-11-14 Matthias Klose
>
> * config/rs6000/t-linux64: Add multiarch names in MULTILI
ping, re-sending to the port maintainers
Am 15.11.2012 11:57, schrieb Matthias Klose:
> Am 15.11.2012 09:51, schrieb Alexander Monakov:
>> The attached patch includes t-glibc instead of t-linux in config.gcc.
>
> thanks for the pointer. updated patch attached below.
The following patch adds the multiarch definitions for -linux-gnu. Tested using
a Debian/Ubuntu package build. Ok for the trunk?
Matthias
2012-11-14 Matthias Klose
* config/rs6000/t-linux64: Add multiarch names in MULTILIB_OSDIRNAMES.
* config/rs6000/t-linux: New file; defin
From: David Miller
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:59:10 -0500 (EST)
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:52:48 +0400
>
>> Please apply whatever minimal patch required to unbreak the SPARC
>> build. We will not be accepting any non-trivial patches until we
>> set up semi-automat
Am 14.11.2012 21:44, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> now testing the attached patch.
>
>> + when 1 is passed,
>> + - the multiarch path specified with
>> +
Am 20.11.2012 21:34, schrieb Matthew Gretton-Dann:
> All,
>
> This patch backports Matthais Klose's arm*-*-linux-gnueabihf triplet
> support patch of 2012-10-15 to 4.7.
>
> The backport was not clean as 4.8 has obsoleted various arm*-*-*
> triplets which are valid in 4.7.
>
> I have tested this
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2012-11-20 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * Makefile.in (tree-if-conv.o): Depend on $(TARGET_H), $(EXPR_H)
> and $(OPTABS_H).
> * config/i386/sse.md (maskload, maskstore): New expanders.
(etc., new patterns, but nothing for md.texi)
Missing docum
> Actually the ChangeLog is correct, what was incorrect was the svn commit
> message. Is there a way to change the commit message retroactively?
Probably, but I wouldn't bother about that.
--
Eric Botcazou
David Miller writes:
> +// Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls?
> +// x32 (which defines __x86_64__) has __WORDSIZE == 32
> +// but it still needs to use 64-bit syscalls.
> +#if defined(__x86_64__) || __WORDSIZE == 64
I don't think it is a good idea to use a glibc-internal macro. How
about _
Oh, and while you are there please add 2012 to the copyright years.
Ramana
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The following patch adds the multiarch definitions for arm-linux-gnu. Tested
> using a Debian/Ubuntu package build. Ok for the trunk?
>
> Matthias
>
On 11/20/12 16:23, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The problem here is that the SLSR pass is promoting a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR
to a PLUS_EXPR. Since pointer arithmetic is invalid in
{PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR's, the gimple verifier chokes on the invalid statement.
Fixed by maintaining the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR when approp
On 11/20/2012 02:14 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Doesn't this save us, since the bottom frame in the backtrace will always
> be an ASAN functionand the frame we're interested in will always be higher
> in the backtrace?
>
> I guess I'm wondering, in this specific use case, do you think using
> the C
> The problem here is that the SLSR pass is promoting a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR
> to a PLUS_EXPR. Since pointer arithmetic is invalid in
> {PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR's, the gimple verifier chokes on the invalid statement.
>
> Fixed by maintaining the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR when appropriate.
>
> OK for trunk?
The C
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 12:36 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> BP will only equal the CFA on some targets. It really depends on how the
> target sets up the stack frame.
Are you talking about leaf routines like on ppc64 where we don't
decrement the stack pointer? If so, that's not a concern here
> gcc/
> * stor-layout.c (bit_field_mode_iterator::next_mode): Fix signedness.
This looks fine to me.
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi,
when I tested aggregate IPA-CP on SCCs, I did not notice that IPA-CP
confused itself on the testcase and did not work as intended. That
will be fixed by the next patch, this one fixes function
cgraph_edge_brings_all_agg_vals_for_node which did not work on edges
IPA-CP clones and ICEd when it
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch defines LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT for ARM target and prefers
> short circuit for armv6-m and Thumb2+Os.
>
> I tested the patch on arm-none-eabi on armv6-m/Thumb2 for both Os/O2. The
> patch introduces new fails on ARMv6-m:
>
>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The following patch adds the multiarch definitions for arm-linux-gnu. Tested
> using a Debian/Ubuntu package build. Ok for the trunk?
Ok.
Ramana
>
> Matthias
>
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 04:35:45PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > >
> > >> >> Ah, yes. This one was amusing. When
The following patch fixes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55396
The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x886/x86-64.
Committed as rev. 193678.
2012-11-20 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/55396
* lra-constraints.c (get_reload_reg): Change class
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> I thought everybody can look into my head. Well, if you can't
> due to my aluminium hat, here it is electronically :)
Thanks. Looks fine with the appropriate ChangeLog entry.
Diego.
On 11/20/2012 12:54 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> gcc/
> * optabs.c (get_traditional_extraction_insn): Check the field mode
> against the given mode. Only check the structure mode for register
> insertions and extractions.
OK.
Thanks for the quick attention.
r~
[ Sorry, flubbed the gcc-patches address the first time. ]
libsanitizer/
* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc
(SANITIZER_LINUX_USES_64BIT_SYSCALLS): Define.
(internal_mmap): Use it.
(internal_filesize): Likewise.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@1
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 11/20/2012 11:24 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 11/20/2012 09:29 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Gah. How about this patch, currently bootstrapping on x86_64-linux-gnu
>>> as a sanity check? The last instance seems glaringly obvious in
>>> hindsight :-(
>>>
>>
On 11/20/2012 12:16 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> +uptr Unwind_GetBP(struct _Unwind_Context *ctx) {
> + return _Unwind_GetCFA(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +struct Unwind_Trace_Info {
> + StackTrace *stack;
> + uptr bp;
> +};
> +
> _Unwind_Reason_Code Unwind_Trace(struct _Unwind_Context *ctx,
> void *para
All,
This patch backports Matthais Klose's arm*-*-linux-gnueabihf triplet
support patch of 2012-10-15 to 4.7.
The backport was not clean as 4.8 has obsoleted various arm*-*-*
triplets which are valid in 4.7.
I have tested this cross with arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and
arm-none-linux-gnueabi.
One
Hi!
This is an attempt to avoid some further -Wreturn-type false positives,
by adding a langhook for block_may_fallthru and thus allowing it to handle
selected FE specific trees (like EXPR_STMT or THROW_EXPR) and handling also
TARGET_EXPR. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 23:24 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > diff -urpN -X /home/bergner/cvs/dontdiff
> > gcc-fsf-mainline-kcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_stacktrace.h
> > gcc-fsf-mainline-asan/libsanitizer/sanitizer_com
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > 2012-11-20 Diego Novillo
> >
> > PR middle-end/55398
> > * vec.h (class vec_prefix): Make every field public.
> > Rename field alloc_ to alloc_PRIVATE_.
> > Rename field num_ to num_PRIVATE_.
>
On 11/20/2012 11:24 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 09:29 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Gah. How about this patch, currently bootstrapping on x86_64-linux-gnu
>> as a sanity check? The last instance seems glaringly obvious in
>> hindsight :-(
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> gcc/
>> * e
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:52:48 +0400
> Please apply whatever minimal patch required to unbreak the SPARC
> build. We will not be accepting any non-trivial patches until we
> set up semi-automated way to pull the upstream sources.
Will do.
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Mikael Pettersson writes:
>> John David Anglin writes:
>> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >
>> > >HOST_WIDE_INT start = bitpos_ - (bitpos_ % unit);
>> > >if (bitregion_start_ && start < bitregion_start_)
>> > > break;
>>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:19:51 +0400
>
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Konstantin Serebryany
>>> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:02:36 +0400
>>>
I really need your help to re
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2012-11-20 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * vec.h (class vec_prefix): Change into struct.
> Rename field alloc_PRIVATE_ back to alloc_.
> Rename field num_PRIVATE_ to num_.
> Update all users.
> (class vec): Ren
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:19:51 +0400
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Konstantin Serebryany
>> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:02:36 +0400
>>
>>> I really need your help to resolve this mess.
>>
>> I thought it was abundantly clear that the
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:27:06AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > 2012-11-20 Diego Novillo
> >
> > PR middle-end/55398
> > * vec.h (class vec_prefix): Make every field public.
> > Rename field alloc_ to alloc_PRIVATE_.
> >
On 11/20/2012 09:29 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Gah. How about this patch, currently bootstrapping on x86_64-linux-gnu
> as a sanity check? The last instance seems glaringly obvious in
> hindsight :-(
>
> Richard
>
>
> gcc/
> * expmed.c (store_bit_field_1): Use adjust_bitfield_address
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 18:18 +0400, Evgeniy Stepanov wrote:
>
>> I wonder if under some conditions we may get a different number of
>> extra frames (inlining comes to mind). What do you think of removing
>> any number of frames that belong to
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:02:36 +0400
>
>> I really need your help to resolve this mess.
>
> I thought it was abundantly clear that the burdon falls upon the ASAN
> folks, since they are the ones who care about
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:02:36 +0400
> I really need your help to resolve this mess.
I thought it was abundantly clear that the burdon falls upon the ASAN
folks, since they are the ones who care about the external dependency.
Nobody else inside of the GCC community
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 18:18 +0400, Evgeniy Stepanov wrote:
> I wonder if under some conditions we may get a different number of
> extra frames (inlining comes to mind). What do you think of removing
> any number of frames that belong to the runtime library - we have
> memory layout info for that?
>> I assume we are just waiting for someone to commit this to the GCC src,
One possible value of 'someone' is kcc (me), but I *may* not be able
to do it until ~ Monday.
Other possible values of 'someone' are wmi and dvyukov
>> correct? David (Miller), were you going to do that? I'd like that
>>
Evgeniy, my change broke the ARM Android runs:
sanitizer_common/sanitizer_stacktrace.cc:147 "((size > count)) != (0)"
(0x0, 0x0)
Could you please take a look?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 17:52 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20
From: Peter Bergner
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:08:00 -0600
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 13:00 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> > From: Konstantin Serebryany
>> > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:41:03 +0400
>> >
>> >> Ok. Will this work?
>> >>
>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> The following patch fixes
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19398
>>
>> Uros, there is i386.md part for which I need an approval. Without this
>> change, GCC will still generate the same code even if LRA uses an
>> alternative
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 17:52 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Doing a quick peruse through your LLVM commit, I see you grabbed the
> > PopStackFrames() addition, but the asan_linux.cc changes do not include
> > the call to PopStackFrame
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 13:00 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Konstantin Serebryany
> > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:41:03 +0400
> >
> >> Ok. Will this work?
> >>
> >> // Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls?
> >> // x32 (which de
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:46:06AM -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> The problem here is that the SLSR pass is promoting a
> POINTER_PLUS_EXPR to a PLUS_EXPR. Since pointer arithmetic is
> invalid in {PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR's, the gimple verifier chokes on the
> invalid statement.
>
> Fixed by maintaining
On 20.11.12 17:27, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> 2012-11-20 Diego Novillo
>>
>> PR middle-end/55398
>> * vec.h (class vec_prefix): Make every field public.
>> Rename field alloc_ to alloc_PRIVATE_.
>> Rename field num_ to num
The problem here is that the SLSR pass is promoting a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR
to a PLUS_EXPR. Since pointer arithmetic is invalid in
{PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR's, the gimple verifier chokes on the invalid statement.
Fixed by maintaining the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR when appropriate.
OK for trunk?
commit ae7b615a11
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 11/20/2012 08:55 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> but what kind of bitfield memory were we trying to
>> create in the ICE case? The idea was that "adjust_object" is only ever
>> true for bitfield adjustments. We should then either be using an
>> integer or field mod
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2012-11/msg00279.html points out a
may-be-used-uninitialized warning, turned into an error, when building
libbacktrace. The warning is incorrect: the value is initialized. The
warning will no longer turn into an error. But it is easy enough to
force an initia
The get_pointer_alignment function can indicate that it does not know
what the alignment should be, and it always fills in worst-case values
for that case. We should not use these worst-case values to "optimize"
the interface of a function.
At minimum I think something like the following would be
On 11/20/2012 08:55 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> but what kind of bitfield memory were we trying to
> create in the ICE case? The idea was that "adjust_object" is only ever
> true for bitfield adjustments. We should then either be using an
> integer or field mode whose size is picked up by:
>
Richard Henderson writes:
> This assert looks to me like a "can this ever happen" sort of check.
> It quite apparently can.
>
> Although I'm a bit curious about the reasons we got to this point
> in the 55403 instance (unaligned TCmode memory, extracting a TFmode
> value), it's clear that one coul
On 28/10/12 21:45, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 23/10/12 23:36, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Will you also add an announcement of this to the news page (home page)
and to gcc-4.8/changes.html?
I'm sure we can... :-)
You have to. :-) Please.
Gerald
Sorry
Folks, Parallel builds contain a race due to a missing dependency
between gengtype-lex.o and $(BCONFIG_H).
This was introduced by the commit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg00926.html
.. which injects an include of bconfig.h into the top of
gengtype-lex.c but does not make both of
This assert looks to me like a "can this ever happen" sort of check.
It quite apparently can.
Although I'm a bit curious about the reasons we got to this point
in the 55403 instance (unaligned TCmode memory, extracting a TFmode
value), it's clear that one could intentionally write such a thing,
ra
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> 2012-11-20 Diego Novillo
>
> PR middle-end/55398
> * vec.h (class vec_prefix): Make every field public.
> Rename field alloc_ to alloc_PRIVATE_.
> Rename field num_ to num_PRIVATE_.
> Update all users.
> (class ve
The AIX assembler prefers "la" mnemonic and syntax over "addi" for cmodel=large.
Bootstrapped on powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.0.0 and powerpc64-linux.
David
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (largetoc_low): Revert.
(largetoc_low_aix): New.
Index: rs6000.md
Found while changing code in vec.h and doing incremental builds.
Committed.
2012-11-20 Diego Novillo
* Makefile.in (tlink.o): Add dependency on VEC_H.
---
gcc/ChangeLog |4
gcc/Makefile.in |2 +-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/Chang
This fixes PR 55398 by making vec<> a true POD. I thought we could get
away with having private fields, but we can't. We fail to pass vec<>
instances through varargs.
The patch makes every field public and mangles the field names in the
hope that no future patch will try to make use of them dire
On 11/20/2012 02:25 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2012-11-20 Kai Tietz
>
> PR target/55268
> * i386.c (ix86_mangle_decl_assembler_name): Use
> SUBTARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME if defined.
> * cygming.h (TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME): Rename
> to SUBTARGET_MANGLE_DE
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=168369&view=rev
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov
wrote:
> Ok, fine.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Evgen
Ok, fine.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012
Cilk Plus branch was merged with trunk at revision 193607. Committed as
revision 193665.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
Hi,
tested x86_64-linux, committed mainline and 4_7-branch.
Thanks,
Paolo.
2012-11-20 Paolo Carlini
PR libstdc++/55413
* include/bits/hashtable.h (_Hashtable<>::_M_rehash_aux): Initialize
__bbegin_bkt and __prev_bkt to avoid uninitialized war
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Peter Bergner
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:07 +040
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Peter Bergner
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:07 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> >> I've applied your patch (with minor
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > I have tested the patch pretty extensively:
> >
> > - Regular bootstraps on x86_64, ppc, ia64, sparc and hppa.
> > - Bootstraps with --enable-checking=release
> > - Bootstraps with --enable-checking=gc,gcac
> > - B
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:07 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> I've applied your patch (with minor style and comment changes) upstream:
>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=168356
>> I did not have any way to test it t
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:07 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> I've applied your patch (with minor style and comment changes) upstream:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=168356
> I did not have any way to test it though. Also, gmail does something
> horrible with patches in
Am 20.11.2012 13:47, schrieb Marcus Shawcroft:
> Thanks Matthias,
>
>> +ARM_EB = $(if $(findstring TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN_DEFAULT=1, $(tm_defines)),eb)
>> +ifeq (,$(ARM_EB))
>> +MULTIARCH_DIRNAME = $(call if_multiarch,aarch64-linux-gnu)
>> +endif
>
> Can we use the name of the architecture, ARM -> AAR
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:42:46AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> * testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr55238.c: New test.
>
> Does this PR rely on hidden visibility? The new testcase uses
> attribute visibility hidden, but does not check DejaGNU
> dg-require-visibility and fails on AIX.
No, a
Hi Guys,
I am applying this patch to fix up a few issues with the RX backend.
With this patch applied there are 355 fewer gcc testsuite regressions.
Cheers
Nick
gcc/ChangeLog
2012-11-20 Nick Clifton
* config/rx/rx.c (rx_function_arg_boundary): When using the RX ABI
alig
Hi Guys,
I am applying the patch below to fix various small problems with the
V850 backend. With this patch applied there are 454 fewer unexpected
failures in the gcc testsuite for a v850-elf toolchain.
Cheers
Nick
gcc/ChangeLog
2012-11-20 Nick Clifton
* config/v850/v850.c (
Hello!
2012-11-20 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_call): Emit CLOBBERs in VOIDmode.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32}, committed to mainline.
Uros.
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
--- config/i386/i386.c (re
Thanks Matthias,
> +ARM_EB = $(if $(findstring TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN_DEFAULT=1, $(tm_defines)),eb)
> +ifeq (,$(ARM_EB))
> +MULTIARCH_DIRNAME = $(call if_multiarch,aarch64-linux-gnu)
> +endif
Can we use the name of the architecture, ARM -> AARCH64
Please can we have big endian wired up?
+else
+MULTI
On 18 November 2012 16:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
> currently doxygen complains about unknown xml/html tags. this patch
> properly(?)
> escapes these. Maybe this is a change in doxygen 1.8, it didn't seem to be
> necessary in the past. Ok for the trunk?
(Added gcc-patches to the CC list)
OK, than
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:14:43PM +0400, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> As example of missed vectorization with chain of conditions I can
> propose to to look at 462.libquantum.
That is roughly:
struct T
{
float __complex__ t1;
unsigned long long t2;
};
struct S
{
int s1;
struct T *s2;
};
voi
Hi,
> OK for mainline SVN, if bootstrapped and regression tested appropriately.
Checked in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-11/msg00603.html
Thanks, K
Mikael Pettersson writes:
> John David Anglin writes:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> > >HOST_WIDE_INT start = bitpos_ - (bitpos_ % unit);
> > >if (bitregion_start_ && start < bitregion_start_)
> > > break;
> > > - if (bitregion_end_ &&
On 20/11/12 10:25, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This is the updated version of the patch. It defines the predicable
attribute for the equivalent abssi2 and neg_abssi2 patterns in thumb2.md.
The previous version (with the changes only to arm.md) has been okayed but
not applied and this patch supe
Hi all,
This is the updated version of the patch. It defines the predicable
attribute for the equivalent abssi2 and neg_abssi2 patterns in thumb2.md.
The previous version (with the changes only to arm.md) has been okayed but
not applied and this patch supersedes it.
The previous version is:
http://
Hi,
This patch fixes a regression introduced by rev. 193204 for all 32-bit
Windows targets.
It corrects the wrong assumption in i386.c to be able to simply
undefine TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME
there without keeping care to call sub-target specific hook. This
destroyed name-decoration for
st
On 19/11/12 17:51, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch updates the arm_abssi2 and arm_neg_abssi2 patterns in the ARM
machine description.
We define the predicable attribute based on the alternative. When the
patterns were introduced it was not possible to do that.
Now the second alternative
Done: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=168358&view=rev
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Konstantin Serebryany
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:41:03 +0400
>
>> Ok. Will this work?
>>
>> // Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls?
>> // x32 (which defines __x86_64__)
John David Anglin writes:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> >HOST_WIDE_INT start = bitpos_ - (bitpos_ % unit);
> >if (bitregion_start_ && start < bitregion_start_)
> >break;
> > - if (bitregion_end_ && start + unit > bitregion_end_ + 1)
> > +
From: Konstantin Serebryany
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:41:03 +0400
> Ok. Will this work?
>
> // Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls?
> // x32 (which defines __x86_64__) has __WORDSIZE == 32
> // but it still needs to use 64-bit syscalls.
> #if defined(__x86_64__) || __WORDSIZE == 64
> # define
99 matches
Mail list logo
