2013/5/23 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer :
>
> On 22 May 2013 10:08, "Paolo Bonzini" wrote:
>>
>> Il 18/05/2013 04:37, Chung-Ju Wu ha scritto:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
[...]
>> > +# Necessary to build GCC with the Graphite loop optimizations.
>> > +if [ "$GRAPHITE_LOOP_OPT" == "yes" ] ; then
>
> s/==/=/g
>
> T
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:08:40PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Another issue with delayed folding of sizeof. On the trunk, we
> should fold everything before passing it on to
> warnings_for_convert_and_check; on the branch, I'm inclined to be
> conservative and only fold SIZEOF_EXPR.
>
> Jakub,
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 04:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>>
>> The problem here is two things:
>>
>> 1. Many GCC developers still don't fully grasp the difference between
>> cfglayout mode and the older cfgrtl mode.
>
> Absolutely true. I'd actually love
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:45:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> I'm attempting to eliminate global state from the insides of gcc.
>
> gcc/tracer.c has various global variables, which are only used during
> the lifetime of the execute callback of that pass, and cleaned up at the
> end of each invo
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:30:35PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
> since 2004 (in r80564).
>
> As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
> them as const.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknow
On 05/22/2013 04:53 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
Ah, I see, it works. Then we end up with three solutions:
1) remove the pow(double,double) overload
2) add a specialization template <> pow(double,double)
3) add an extern "C" declaration to refer to the C library function
I don't have a strong prefere
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:11 PM
> To: Joseph S. Myers
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:41:44PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Mike,
>
> When you committed the patch, you did not add the new rs6000/crypto.md
> file to the repository.
Right. I remembered to add the new test, but not crypto.me. I just committed
it. I'm sorry about that.
--
Michael Meiss
Mike,
When you committed the patch, you did not add the new rs6000/crypto.md
file to the repository.
- David
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:30 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
>> This patch adds the builtins for the new ISA 2.07 crypto instruc
If we run into an error during template instantiation, we try to avoid
starting more instantiations in order to limit the error cascade. If as
a result of this we decide not to instantiate a lambda call operator, we
shouldn't try to generate a conversion operator.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
Another issue with delayed folding of sizeof. On the trunk, we should
fold everything before passing it on to warnings_for_convert_and_check;
on the branch, I'm inclined to be conservative and only fold SIZEOF_EXPR.
Jakub, do you have an opinion about whether this should go into 4.8.1 or
4.8.
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 19:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 06:30 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
> > since 2004 (in r80564).
> >
> > As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
> > them as const.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:11 PM
> To: Joseph S. Myers
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
On 05/22/2013 03:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Regarding commonality between OpenMP and Cilk, note also the new C
Parallel Language Extensions WG14 study group chaired by Clark Nelson and
aiming to propose a standard set of C extensions for parallel programming,
announced yesterday on the WG14 r
On 05/22/2013 04:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
The problem here is two things:
1. Many GCC developers still don't fully grasp the difference between
cfglayout mode and the older cfgrtl mode.
Absolutely true. I'd actually love it if someone (you?) could write up
the basics of cfglayout mode.
On 05/22/2013 06:30 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
since 2004 (in r80564).
As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
them as const.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu against r199189, a
I'm attempting to eliminate global state from the insides of gcc.
gcc/tracer.c has various global variables, which are only used during
the lifetime of the execute callback of that pass, and cleaned up at the
end of each invocation of the pass.
The attached patch introduces a class to hold the st
The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
since 2004 (in r80564).
As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
them as const.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu against r199189, and
has the same test results as an unpatched bo
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
>
>This ICE reported here happens because the array storing the
> function versions that should be processed is not indexed correctly.
> This patch fixes this. This only happe
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:12:14PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 22 May 2013 16:36:52 David Edelsohn wrote:
> >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:05:47AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>> Why does cross need the functions in libgcc a
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
This ICE reported here happens because the array storing the
function versions that should be processed is not indexed correctly.
This patch fixes this. This only happens when some versions cannot be
dispatched because a dispatcher for t
On 05/19/2013 08:59 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Some ports have
> CFG-aware machine-reorg passes but verify_flow_info fails after the
> machine-reorg pass because the port emits insns between basic blocks,
> e.g. for const pools. What's missing is a way for verify_flow_info to
> be tolerant of suc
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>>> But to be honest, I still don't really understand why we emit a
>>> barrier at all if we're in cfglayout mode. They're i
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard Henderson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:18 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkpl
On 05/22/2013 02:25 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Yes, they are both the same. A while back, I found a couple corner cases
> where the TREE_TYPE of the array notations inside __sec_reduce functions
> that was getting changed. This is a storage location that will be untouched
> so that I can get the o
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Matt Burgess
wrote:
>
> 2013-05-22 Matt Burgess
>
> other/PR56780
> * libiberty/configure.ac: Move test for --enable-install-libiberty
> outside of the 'with_target_subdir' test so that it actually gets run.
> Add output messages to
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> But to be honest, I still don't really understand why we emit a
>> barrier at all if we're in cfglayout mode. They're ignored, they're
>> going to be overlooked if someone looks for
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> So if we can represent array notation as an OpenMP SIMD loop and re-use the
> OpenMP code generation, that's a significant win. I realize the OpenMP SIMD
> stuff is still in-progress, but from a design standpoint we'd like to separate
> out the front-end iss
Hi Ian,
Thanks for the review. Here's v2, which I think addresses both of your
comments.
Kind Regards,
Matt.
2013-05-22 Matt Burgess
other/PR56780
* libiberty/configure.ac: Move test for --enable-install-libiberty
outside of the 'with_target_subdir' test so that it ac
A rather simple patch found while testing the draft finalization patch.
For a "class(...), allocatable, intent(out)" dummy argument, the actual
argument has to be deallocated. That worked for scalar polymorphic vars,
but not for polymorphic arrays.
Build and regtested on x86-64-gnu-linux.
OK
On 05/22/2013 03:17 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Ah, the crazy stuff one can do after machine reorg. It's the Wild West
of GCC :-)
I still look at that hook as the contribution I most wish I'd never
made. The abuses are, umm, amazing.
jeff
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On 2013-05-22 08:18, Iyer
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> That is only partially true. Currently the transition is already de
>> facto going on: Just look at how many back ends use
>> compute_bb_for_insn to re-initialize the BLOCK_FOR_INSN pointers right
>> after pass_free_cfg (it's usually the fir
Revised patch included below. The spacing of my pasted in patch text
looks funky again, let me know if you want the patch as an attachment
instead.
I addressed all of Steven's comments, except for the suggestion to use
gcc_assert
instead of error() in verify_hot_cold_block_grouping() to keep this
OK.
Jason
Hi,
Again sorry for such a delay. Paolo subtly ping'ed me on DR39
(c++/13590), and I remember that this bug (c++/54537) was blocking the
patch I wrote last year for DR39.
2012/11/15 Jason Merrill :
[...]
> I was only thinking of the primary signature; putting
>
> extern "C" double pow (double, do
This is the final set of patches that I have available right now. We will be
doing additional patches over the summer.
The primary thing in this patch is to add support for load fusion in the
power8. Power8 has two types of fusion:
addi ,,
lxvd2x ,,
and:
addis ,,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Matt Burgess
wrote:
>
> 2013-04-03 Matt Burgess
>
> other/PR56780
> * libiberty/configure.ac:
> Move test for --enable-install-libiberty outside of the
> 'with_target_subdir' test so that it actually gets run.
> Add output messages t
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:10 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> I've been writing some automation around testing gcc patches, and kept
> running into ChangeLog conflicts, so I wrote the following to make it
> easier.
>
> The attached one-liner wraps "git show" into a form that omits changes
> to ChangeLog
I've been writing some automation around testing gcc patches, and kept
running into ChangeLog conflicts, so I wrote the following to make it
easier.
The attached one-liner wraps "git show" into a form that omits changes
to ChangeLog files, for use when generating patches from a git repo,
so that y
On 22 May 2013 16:36:52 David Edelsohn wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:05:47AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Why does cross need the functions in libgcc and not provided by the linker?
>
> Only the ppc64 linker provides save/restore func
On 05/22/2013 01:13 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hi Jeff, Yes, converting the array notation expansion to #pragma simd
(or #pragma omp simd) trees will be beneficial performance wise. But,
it will require semi-significant re-write and this can destabilize a
currently stable implementation. IMHO, fo
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> With one Fortran file, I get the following assembler errors:
>
> /tmp/cc28epKK.s:2075: Error: junk `@1.2304+16' after expression
>
> That's due to the way a temporary variable is generated. While that variable
> is local to the procedure, the
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:20 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez';
> 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subje
Hi Tobias,
I have now changed the mangling, see attached patch. (The test file uses
finalization - hence, I do not include it into the patch. I will include
it in the FINAL patch.)
Build and regtested on x86-64-gnu-linux.
OK for the trunk?
OK (obvious really).
Thanks for the patch!
Fix typo in assignment email address, to make gcc match GNU site:
https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legal-Matters
It would be awesome if now GCC assigments were magically less work.
-benjamin2013-05-22 Benjamin Kosnik
* htdocs/contribute.html: Use ass...@gnu.org, match
Pre-remark: This patch does *not* enable finalization or polymorphic
deallocation.
* * *
Dear all,
The attached patch is a bit boring and invasive, but it paves the way to
FINAL support.
Changes of technical kind:
* Changed ABI for CLASS's virtual table (due to _final) - and, hence, it
bu
Hi,
avoiding this ICE on invalid seems just matter of setting up the
parser->type_definition_forbidden_message string.
Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
///
/cp
2013-05-22 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/57352
* parser.c (cp_parser_conversion_type_id): Set up
Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> If -fprofile-use is specified, but no .gcda file is found, reset all
>> the flags back to the values they would have had if -fprofile-use was
>> not specified. Since the code path where -fprofile-use is on and
>> .gcda files are not found is not a well tested pass, this wil
On 2013-05-22 08:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
The overall function names are same, but the components inside it function
differs greatly from C and C++. For example, in C++ I can't use
build_modify_expr, but build_x_modify_expr. Also, I need to handle
overloaded function types, and that requires fur
On 05/22/2013 02:54 AM, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> From what I understand, using define_subst would mean creating a
> define_subst for every pattern that can be "predicable"? There are at least
> 600 predicable patterns in the arm backend, so that would be infeasible.
No, define_subst works across p
I unfortunately have not had time to keep up with gccgo, so I'm adding a
note that GCC 4.8.1 does not yet implement Go 1.1. Committed to the web
site.
Ian
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.htm
This patch adds support for the byte, half-word, and quad-word atomic memory
operations that were added in ISA 2.07 (i.e. power8). Like the other patches,
this passes bootstrap and had no regressions in make check. Is it ok to commit
this patch after the previous 6 patches have been applied?
[gc
> If -fprofile-use is specified, but no .gcda file is found, reset all
> the flags back to the values they would have had if -fprofile-use was
> not specified. Since the code path where -fprofile-use is on and
> .gcda files are not found is not a well tested pass, this will
> increase the robustne
Sure, will update the patch for that.
Dehao
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ struct locus_descrim_hasher : typed_free_remove inline hashval_t
> locus_descrim_hasher::hash (const value_type *item)
> {
> - return item->locus;
> + return LOCATION_LINE
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ struct locus_descrim_hasher : typed_free_remove locus;
+ return LOCATION_LINE (item->locus);
}
/* Equality function for the locus-to-discriminator map. A and B
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ locus_descrim_hasher::hash (const value_type *item
inline bool
locus_descrim_hasher::equal (
On 17 May 2013 19:20, Ian Bolton wrote:
> The MOVK instruction is currently not used when operand 2 is
> more than 16 bits, which leads to sub-optimal code.
>
> This patch improves those situations by removing the check and
> instead masking down to 16 bits within the new "X" format specifier
> I
Hi,
I have not intended aggregate jump functions to work with bit-fields
but apparently forgot to include the test to ignore them. PR 57347
testcase gives a good example why they need to be avoided. If we ever
decide to optimize for them too (and not just in IPA land), they
should be lowered ear
On 05/22/2013 09:37 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Furthermore, do you want to generate just normal loop out of it, or
shouldn't we generate a #pragma omp simd loop out of it instead?
Haven't read the spec if array notation guarantees lack of
forward/backward loop dependencies and what are the restr
Looks ok to me in general.
1) the parameter name is not ideal -- it is not callonce.
2) it might be better to extend the callonce parameter into
-ftest-coverage option such as -ftest-coverage=exec_once?
3) need documentation in invoke.texi
4) watch out for long lines.
cc Teresa.
David
On Tue, Ma
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:30 AM
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On 2013-
Hi Jakub,
Please see my response below.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:15 AM
> To: Richard Henderson
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject:
Hi,
This fixes PR target/57340 a fallout from my PR target/19599 patch.
Unfortunately this didn't show up in the testing I did and I'm sorry
about the breakage.
The problem here is that we choose r3 as a padding register with
indirect tailcalls that could use r3 for this purpose. Ofcourse th
On 2013-05-21 23:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Furthermore, do you want to generate just normal loop out of it, or
shouldn't we generate a #pragma omp simd loop out of it instead?
Haven't read the spec if array notation guarantees lack of forward/backward
loop dependencies and what are the restriction
On 22 May 2013 16:18, Ian Bolton wrote:
> The test file scalar_intrinsics.c (in gcc.target/aarch64)
> is currently compile-only.
>
> If you attempt to make it run, as opposed to just generate
> assembler, you can't because it won't assemble.
>
> There are two issues causing trouble here:
>
> 1) Us
> "Shakthi" == Shakthi Kannan writes:
Shakthi> Is the following patch okay for trunk?
I still think it needs a test case.
I also don't recall -- did you check to see if the column number that is
emitted is actually correct?
You may want to change the Subject line of your note, as well.
The
This caused:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57372
A fix is forthcoming - this is a dup of PR57340.
Ramana
--
Roman
The test file scalar_intrinsics.c (in gcc.target/aarch64)
is currently compile-only.
If you attempt to make it run, as opposed to just generate
assembler, you can't because it won't assemble.
There are two issues causing trouble here:
1) Use of invalid instruction "mov d0, d1".
It should be "
Hello Richard,
Thank you for reviewing my code. Please see my responses below.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:57 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'g
Hi,
earlier this week I asked on IRC whether we could have non-top-level
BIT_FIELD_REFs and Richi said that we could. However, when I later
looked at SRA code, quite apparently it is not designed to handle
non-top-level BIT_FIELD_REFs, IMAGPART_EXPRs or REALPART_EXPRs. So in
order to test whethe
On 2013-05-22 05:32 , Evgeniy Stepanov wrote:
OK to merge to google/4_7 and google/4_8?
Yes. Patches coming from trunk or other release branches need no
further approval for backporting. You just need to make sure you don't
introduce any regressions, of course.
Diego.
Sounds reasonable. The patch is updated, bootstrapped and passed all
regression test.
Dehao
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 6:50
Jonathan Wakely writes:
>> All of them have the same root cause:
>>
>> Excess errors:
>> Undefined first referenced
>> symbol in file
>> nanosleep /var/tmp//ccQhmiwd.o (symbol belongs to implicit dependency
>> /lib/librt.so.1)
>> ld: fatal: symbo
On 22 May 2013 15:05, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jonathan Wakely writes:
>
>> This alters the configure script to enable C++11 thread library
>> features based on targets that are known to support the features,
>> rather than based on link tests which are disabled by default. With
>> Glibc 2.17 this en
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:05:47AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Why does cross need the functions in libgcc and not provided by the linker?
>
> Only the ppc64 linker provides save/restore functions magically.
Okay, then the patch is okay.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:05:47AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Why does cross need the functions in libgcc and not provided by the linker?
Only the ppc64 linker provides save/restore functions magically.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:57:34AM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 02:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >Maybe the idea was to increase the alignment of the struct (without
> >affecting it's layout) when that increases the alignment of a contained
> >array member. Like for
> >
> >struc
With one Fortran file, I get the following assembler errors:
/tmp/cc28epKK.s:2075: Error: junk `@1.2304+16' after expression
That's due to the way a temporary variable is generated. While that
variable is local to the procedure, the name somehow escapes into the
assembler file. The dump looks
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> This alters the configure script to enable C++11 thread library
> features based on targets that are known to support the features,
> rather than based on link tests which are disabled by default. With
> Glibc 2.17 this enables a nanosecond resolution std::system_clock
Why does cross need the functions in libgcc and not provided by the linker?
- David
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:40:22AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> I don't believe those functions should be provided by libgcc, at least
>> not by shared lib
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 02:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:57 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Increasing the alignment of arrays within structs and unions would be
>>> nice, but that probably will change the ABI.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:40:22AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> I don't believe those functions should be provided by libgcc, at least
> not by shared libgcc.so, as explained by Alan.
David, I think t-savresfgpr satifies that requirement.
# These can't end up in shared libgcc
LIB2ADD_ST += \
..
On 05/22/2013 02:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:57 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Increasing the alignment of arrays within structs and unions would be
nice, but that probably will change the ABI. I think that they best we
may be able to do is increase the alignment if the a
I don't believe those functions should be provided by libgcc, at least
not by shared libgcc.so, as explained by Alan.
- David
On 22 May 2013 12:47, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch adds support to AdvSIMD CLZ instruction and adds tests for the
> same.
> Regression test done for aarch64-none-elf with no issues.
>
> OK?
>
> Regards
> VP
>
> ---
>
> gcc/ChangeLog
>
> 2013-05-22 Vidya Praveen
>
> * conf
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:49:47PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Jakub, what should we do about the 4.8 branch? Wait until 4.8.1 is
>> released or apply now? This is a regression from 4.7.
>
> You can apply it now.
Done, thanks.
Rainer
--
-
A rather obvious patch.
Committed to the trunk as Rev. 199196 after build+regtesting on
x86-64-gnu-linux.
I will backport the patch to 4.9 in a while.
Tobias
2013-05-22 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/57364
* resolve.c (get_temp_from_expr): Commit created sym.
2013-05-22 Tobias Burnus
PR
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:49:47PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jakub, what should we do about the 4.8 branch? Wait until 4.8.1 is
> released or apply now? This is a regression from 4.7.
You can apply it now.
Jakub
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:49:44PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22 May 2013 12:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > If now() can be perhaps with worse precision emulated in configurations not
> > built against glibc 2.17, perhaps best solution would be to
> > add now()@@GLIBCXX_3.4.18 into 4.8.1
On 22 May 2013 12:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22 May 2013 12:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> If now() can be perhaps with worse precision emulated in configurations not
>> built against glibc 2.17, perhaps best solution would be to
>> add now()@@GLIBCXX_3.4.18 into 4.8.1 (and change all 3.4.18 s
On 05/22/2013 01:49 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 May 2013 12:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
If now() can be perhaps with worse precision emulated in configurations not
built against glibc 2.17, perhaps best solution would be to
add now()@@GLIBCXX_3.4.18 into 4.8.1 (and change all 3.4.18 symbols to
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> This patch avoids movdqu/movdqa when SSE2 is disabled. Although
>>> -mno-sse2 is bordering on ABI violation for 64bit targets, the patch
>>> is simple enough to fix movti_internal_rex64 pattern.
>>
>> If the TImode attr variant isn't valid
On 05/22/13 11:31, Christian Bruel wrote:
Hello,
arm_dwarf_register_span converts regno to a dbx register number while
building the PARALLEL rtx. But since
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01131.html this information
is centralized in DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER that will be called when
proc
Anthony Green writes:
> Rainer - sorry, I've been travelling and falling behind on email.
> This patch is fine. Please commit it to GCC. I'll put it in the
> libffi git tree.
No worries, I just saw your vacation note. I've commited to mainline
now.
Jakub, what should we do about the 4.8 bran
On 22 May 2013 12:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> If now() can be perhaps with worse precision emulated in configurations not
> built against glibc 2.17, perhaps best solution would be to
> add now()@@GLIBCXX_3.4.18 into 4.8.1 (and change all 3.4.18 symbols to
> 3.4.19) and have now()@GLIBCXX_3.4.17 (
Hello,
This patch adds support to AdvSIMD CLZ instruction and adds tests for the same.
Regression test done for aarch64-none-elf with no issues.
OK?
Regards
VP
---
gcc/ChangeLog
2013-05-22 Vidya Praveen
* config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (clzv4si2): Support for CLZ
instruc
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:42:45AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22 May 2013 11:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 22 May 2013 11:30, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >> .. put an abort or something in the dummy implementations, to make sure
> >> people don't try to run an executable built with headers w
Le 21/05/2013 20:05, Tobias Burnus a écrit :
> That's a follow-up the just committed patch - which came too late in
> some cases.
>
> Build and regtested on x86-64-gnu-linux.
> OK for the trunk?
>
OK, thanks
Mikael
On 05/22/2013 12:40 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 May 2013 11:30, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. put an abort or something in the dummy implementations, to make sure
people don't try to run an executable built with headers which have the
clock available linked at run time to a .so which doesn't, rea
Quoting Eric Botcazou :
The problem was that we had some optimzations added to the
reload_cse_move2add pass that would attempt transformations with
multi-hard-register registers, without keeping track of the validity of the
values in all hard registers involved.
That's not clear to me: for exa
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
