On 18 October 2013 19:09, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 06:36:44PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
> @@ -2861,6 +2861,19 @@ swap_ops_for_binary_stmt (vec ops,
> }
> }
>
> +/* Determine if stmt A is in th next list of
On 13-10-19 4:30 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Jan,
Does this seem reasonable to you?
Oops, sorry, I missed your email. (I was travelling and I am finishing a paper
now).
Thanks,
Igor
-Original Message-
From: Zamyatin, Igor
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:48 PM
To: Jan Hubicka
Subject: RE
On 13-10-18 11:26 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The following patch permits today trunk to use LRA for ppc by default.
To switch it off -mno-lra can be used.
The patch was bootstrapped on ppc64. GCC testsuite does not have
regressions too (i
Vladimir,
I found no more issue on patch itself. But ChangeLogs are missing.
Please refer to format in /include/ChangeLog, and generate yours in
your next email for
/include
/libcpp
/libiberty
Maintainers of libiberty are in TO list.
- Joey
On 10/18/2013 10:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 10/18/2013 04:50 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
This patch fixes various -fstrict-volatile-bitfields wrong-code
bugs,
including instances where bitfield values were
Greetings.
Here is a patch to correct tr2/dynamic_bitset to use __builtin_xxxll for
long long instead of the long versions.
Relevant bugs:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58804
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
Builds and *really* tests clean on x86_64-linux.
OK?
Christian Bruel wrote:
> thanks for having retested this, The tests are still not complete for
> RTL generated functions, there are cases where no str/cmp wil be
> emitted, because we can predict than the size is less than 4 and so have
> a direct fallthru into the byte at a byte loop copying.
>
On 09/27/2013 05:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 27 September 2013 05:17, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
The complex user-defined literals finally passed (n3779) with the resolution
to DR1473 allowing the suffix id to touch the quotes (Can't find it but I
put it in not too long ago).
I think it's bee
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:52 AM, bin.cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> As noted in previous messages, GCC forces offset to unsigned in middle end.
>> It also gets offset value and stores it in HOST_WIDE_INT then uses it in
>> various computation. In
This updates the list of steering committee members after Joe
stepped down a bit ago.
Committed.
Gerald
Index: steering.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/steering.html,v
retrieving revision 1.35
diff -u -3 -p -r1.35 steerin
Hi,
this ICE on valid, [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression], happens only with
-std=c++11 and is quite simple to analyze: cxx_eval_constant_expression
sees a COMPONENT_REF and forwards to cxx_eval_component_reference, but
the latter, evidently, only handles "fields" not functions (per the
comment) and an
> Unfortunately, tree-ssa-ter.c also has 2 functions
> (find_replaceable_exprs() and dump_replaceable_exprs()) which are
> exported and utilized by tree-outof-ssa.c (the file is a part of the
> out-of-ssa module). So I moved the prototypes from tree-ssa-live.h into
> a newly created tree-ssa-te
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 10/20/2013 06:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> If yesterday's patch goes in, we'll only need the scratch array for
>> HWI inputs. We can therefore shrink it to 2 HWIs.
>>
>> Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK for wide-int?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> Index: gcc/wi
On 10/20/2013 06:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
If yesterday's patch goes in, we'll only need the scratch array for
HWI inputs. We can therefore shrink it to 2 HWIs.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK for wide-int?
Thanks,
Richard
Index: gcc/wide-int.h
=
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For little endian, the permute control vector for unpacking high and low
> halves of a vector register must be reversed from the one used for big
> endian. Fixing this corrects 27 failing tests for
> powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:55:40PM +0600, Roman Gareev wrote:
> Dear gcc contributors,
>
> Recently I came across the list of "ideas for speeding up GCC"
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Speedup_areas). Among others, there was
> suggested to replace identifier hash table with other data structure.
>
>
Dear gcc contributors,
Recently I came across the list of "ideas for speeding up GCC"
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Speedup_areas). Among others, there was
suggested to replace identifier hash table with other data structure.
Please find attached a patch, that switches the resolution strategy of
a has
Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>> What I would suggest is to have a -fgnu-strict-volatile-bit-fields
>>
>> Why a new option? The -fstrict-volatile-bitfields option is already
>> GCC-specific, and I think it can do what you want anyway.
>
>As I understand Richard's comment, he proposes to
>have an o
Richard Sandiford wrote:
>When the wi:: patch went in, Kenny rightly complained that there were
>too many copy loops. This patch gets rid of an unnecessary loop in
>wi::abs and consolidates the rest into a single function. Again, it
>helps
>the ::is_sign_extended patch.
>
>Tested on x86_64-linux
Richard Sandiford wrote:
>If yesterday's patch goes in, we'll only need the scratch array for
>HWI inputs. We can therefore shrink it to 2 HWIs.
>Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK for wide-int?
>
Ok
Thanks,
Richard.
>Thanks,
>Richard
>
>
>Index: gcc/wide-int.h
>=
Richard Sandiford wrote:
>This patch just converts some functions back to template functions,
>for the benefit of the upcoming ::is_sign_extended patch. There's no
>behavioural change.
>
>Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK for wide-int?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
>Thanks,
>Richard
>
>
>Index: gcc/gcc/w
Richard Sandiford wrote:
>At the moment there are two copies of sext_hwi and zext_hwi, one inline
>for !ENABLE_CHECKING and one out-of-line for ENABLE_CHECKING. However,
>there are several wide-int callers where it's obvious from context that
>the precision is <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, so if the
Hi Oleg,
On 10/19/2013 11:30 AM, Oleg Endo wrote:
>
>
> I've attached two test cases, tested with
> make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="sh.exp=strcmp* --target_board=sh-sim
> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}"
>
> Could you please include them?
>
> Cheers,
> Oleg
>
>
than
Another follow-up to yesterday's patch. This one implements Richard's
suggestion of having an is_sign_extended trait to optimise cases where
excess upper bits are known to be signs rather than undefined.
The uses so far are:
* make to_shwi () equivalent to slow ()
* turn eq_p into a simple loop
When the wi:: patch went in, Kenny rightly complained that there were
too many copy loops. This patch gets rid of an unnecessary loop in
wi::abs and consolidates the rest into a single function. Again, it helps
the ::is_sign_extended patch.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install?
Thanks,
Ri
If yesterday's patch goes in, we'll only need the scratch array for
HWI inputs. We can therefore shrink it to 2 HWIs.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK for wide-int?
Thanks,
Richard
Index: gcc/wide-int.h
===
--- gcc/wide-int.h
This patch just converts some functions back to template functions,
for the benefit of the upcoming ::is_sign_extended patch. There's no
behavioural change.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK for wide-int?
Thanks,
Richard
Index: gcc/gcc/wide-int.h
=
At the moment there are two copies of sext_hwi and zext_hwi, one inline
for !ENABLE_CHECKING and one out-of-line for ENABLE_CHECKING. However,
there are several wide-int callers where it's obvious from context that
the precision is <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, so if the functions are
inline for ENAB
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Ok with those changes.
Committed.
Thanks!
--
Tim Shen
a.patch
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>> >> > I suspect gen_lowpart is bad turn when reload is completed, as
>> >> > far as it can create new pseudo. gen_lowpart () may call
>> >> > gen_reg_rtx (), which contain corresponging gcc_assert ().
>> >>
>> >> False. gen_lowpart is perfe
> That's a good point. I added a check for this case - so if CONST_INT is
> passed
> we assume that mode is QI. But usually promoted value resides in a register,
> so
> we don't go over-conservative here.
Hmm, so if we use broadcast constant, then we won't end up having CONST_INT
here?
It is O
Hi Jan,
Thanks for the review, please find my answers below.
> > +/* Output "rep; mov" or "rep; stos" instruction depending on ISSETMEM
> > argument.
> > + When ISSETMEM is true, arguments SRCMEM and SRCPTR are ignored.
> > + When ISSETMEM is false, arguments VALUE and ORIG_VALUE are ignored
On 10/19/2013 11:10 PM, Christopher Jefferson wrote:
I plan to write my tests if these are accepted (although writing this
reminded me why gcc is the worst open source project for submitting
code to I have ever worked with).
Why? If you really think something is wrong and have constructive
propo
Dear All,
This patch is fairly obvious and follows a suggestion from Tobias to
use gfc_element_size. He even wrote the testcase!
Bootstrapped and regested on FC17/x86_64 - OK for trunk?
Cheers
Paul
PS In writing this, I have just noted that I need to trap ts->type ==
BT_HOLLERITH. It would b
Hi,
On 10/19/2013 11:02 PM, Christopher Jefferson wrote:
A previous fix to a performance problem in std::sort unfortunately has
lead to a crashing bug in std::nth_element.
The following minimal patch fixes the problem (there are a couple of
different ways of fixing it, this is the shortest and
On 10/19/2013 11:28 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
I see. Here's the macro version. Thanks!
Mostly Ok, but the macro is completely undocumented. Please change the
comment which says: "... more than certain number of quantifiers..." to
actually mention the macro, thus, say: "... more than
_GLIBCXX_REGEX_D
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 10/19/2013 10:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>>> On 10/19/2013 05:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Mike Stump writes:
> + // We optimize x < y, where y is 64 or fewer bits.
> + // We have to be careful to not allow comparison t
I could just have added an extra command-line option, but I went for
this instead.
Tested on mips64-linux-gnu and applied.
Richard
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/mips/mips-ps-5.c: Add alignment attributes.
* gcc.target/mips/mips-ps-7.c: Likewise.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mi
Noticed the other day that we'd never added bswap patterns for WSBH & co.
Tested on mips64-linux-gnu with --with-arch=mips64r2 and applied.
Richard
gcc/
* config/mips/mips.h (ISA_HAS_WSBH): Define.
* config/mips/mips.md (UNSPEC_WSBH, UNSPEC_DSBH, UNSPEC_DSHD): New
consta
39 matches
Mail list logo
