Re: [PATCH] Use libbacktrace as libsanitizer's symbolizer

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 05:32:12PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:17:41AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > In file included from /tmp/x/gcc/libbacktrace/atomic.c:37: > > /tmp/x/gcc/libbacktrace/internal.h:182: error: expected declaration > > specifiers or '...' before 'o

Re: [PATCH] Use libbacktrace as libsanitizer's symbolizer

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:17:41AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > In file included from /tmp/x/gcc/libbacktrace/atomic.c:37: > /tmp/x/gcc/libbacktrace/internal.h:182: error: expected declaration > specifiers or '...' before 'off_t' > make[3]: *** [atomic.lo] Error 1 > > brgds, H-P > PS. Host

Re: [RS6000] strict alignment for little-endian

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 03:14:04PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:54:39AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > > I'd like to remove -mstrict-align for little-endian powerpc, because > > the assumption that mis-aligned accesses are massively slow isn't true > > for current powerpc

Re: [RFA/RFC patch]: Follow-up on type-demotion pass ...

On 11/18/13 15:55, Joseph S. Myers wrote: * Going just on the general description of the pass and not looking at the details: does this do any of the things that are done by shorten_binary_op or shorten_compare in c-common.c? If so, do you plan followup changes to remove as premature optimizatio

Re: [patch] gcc fstack-protector-explicit

On 11/18/13 13:05, Marcos Díaz wrote: Hi, the attached patch adds a new attribute and option flag to control when to do stack protection. The new attribute (stack_protect) affects the behavior of gcc by forcing the stack protection of the function marked with the attribute if any of the opti

Re: [PATCH] aarch64 gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c failures

On 11/18/13 11:02, Cesar Philippidis wrote: On 11/18/13, 10:01 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote: This patch addresses the failures caused by the gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c test on aarch64. The reason why this test fails is because aarch6

Re: Factor unrelated declarations out of tree.h (1/2)

On 11/18/13 11:47, Diego Novillo wrote: Thanks for all the feedback. Here is the patch with all the changes we discussed last week. OK for trunk? I'm going to need another day or so to re-do all the target builds to make sure nothing new has slipped in. It looks OK to me. We've got some more

Re: [PATCH] Use libbacktrace as libsanitizer's symbolizer

> From: Ian Lance Taylor > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:11:29 +0100 > 2013-11-18 Ian Lance Taylor > > * configure.ac: Check for support of __atomic extensions. > * internal.h: Declare or #define atomic functions for use in > backtrace code. > * atomic.c: New file. Build-

Re: [PATCH] Updated automated patch (was Re: [PATCH 3/6] Automated part of conversion of gimple types to use C++ inheritance)

On 11/18/13 13:25, David Malcolm wrote: I regenerated it and am bootstrapping now. I glanced over it and nothing major seems to have changed; just changes due to the movement of code between files. Am attaching the changed patch. Yea, there's a lot of churn right now, so this is kind-of expe

Re: [PATCH 1/6] Convert gimple types from a union to C++ inheritance

On 11/18/13 14:00, David Malcolm wrote: @@ -269,10 +269,10 @@ ggc_alloc_cleared_tree_node_stat (size_t s MEM_STAT_DECL) return (union tree_node *) ggc_internal_cleared_alloc_stat (s PASS_MEM_STAT); } -static inline union gimple_statement_d * -ggc_alloc_cleared_gimple_statement_d_stat (s

[PATCH]Handle multi-block duplicates on jump threading path

Here's the meat of the CFG/SSA graph updating code for cases where we have multiple duplicated blocks on a jump threading path. We're just supporting 2, but I believe the code could be easily extended to handle more if we were so inclined. However, the cost of this code is exponential in na

[PATCH] Fix to avoid multiple latches edges due to jump threading

If we have a joiner block and one of its outgoing edges is the latch, then we can end up with multiple latches for a loop when we duplicate the joiner. This (conservative) patch disables threading in that case. I don't have a test which fails without other changes, but the code is clearly w

Re: [PATCH]Beginning of multi-block duplicate support in tree-ssa-threadupdate.c

On 11/18/13 15:16, Steven Bosscher wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote: This is the beginnings of multi-block duplication support in tree-ssa-threadupdate.c and is part of the general FSA optimization work. FSA, FSA, ... what does that acronym (?) stand for? FSA/FSM fini

libgo patch committed: Fix handling of FFI with empty struct

This patch from Michael Hudson-Doyle fixes libgo to correctly handle reflect.Call when passing or returning a struct with no fields. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian diff -r 76b3c32eef84 libgo/go/reflect/all_test.go --- a/libgo/go/reflect/a

libgo patch committed: Handle PPC ELF v2 in libgo test script

Ulrich Weigand pointed out that the new PPC ELF v2 ABI does not use function descriptors. The libgo testsuite script had special code to recognize function descriptors in the data section for PPC. This patch lets it also recognize functions in the text section. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite

libgo patch committed: Fix typo in configure.ac

This patch to libgo/configure.ac fixes a typo. Thanks to Roland McGrath for pointing it out. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian diff -r 9b8deb2de52b libgo/configure.ac --- a/libgo/configure.ac Fri Nov 15 09:20:05 2013 -0800 +++ b/libgo/con

RE: [PATCH GCC]Compute, cache and use cost of auto-increment rtx patterns in IVOPT

> -Original Message- > From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com] > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:05 PM > To: Bin Cheng > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH GCC]Compute, cache and use cost of auto-increment rtx > patterns in IVOPT > > On 11/04/2013 04:31 AM,

Re: Context sensitive type inheritance graph walking

Hi, it took me a while to get back to this patch (especially because I wanted to understand the issues with virtual inheritance first). Here is updated version that should reflect your comments. I will do some extra testing tomorrow and plan to commit it. Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux. H

Change warnings for unsupported alignment to errors

When implementing C11 _Alignas in , I noted that I has omitted checks that alignment was supported (which, as constraints in C11, should be errors or pedwarns rather than just plain warnings). The issues with the C11 definition of alignment

Re: Add value range support into memcpy/memset expansion

Hi, this patch fixes two issues with memcpy testcase - silences warning and updates the template as suggested by Uros in the PR. The testcase still fails on i386. This is because we end up with: ;; Function t (t, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1763, symbol_order=2) t (unsigned int c) { void * b.0_4;

Re: [PATCH] Eliminate n_basic_blocks macro (was Re: [PATCH] Avoid some unnecessary set_cfun calls)

On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 20:38 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 14:44 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 13:53 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Martin Jambor wrote: > > > > > > > > > H

Re: [PATCH] Use libbacktrace as libsanitizer's symbolizer

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Sure, but GCC itself doesn't need the thread-safe stuff, and the target > libbacktrace is built with gcc and will have __atomic_* support. > You already have there configure checks for the __sync_* builtins, just > replacing them with the

Re: Pass floating point values on powerpc64 as per ABI

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:16:26AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:27:39AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Where does it call a varargs function? > > printf Sorry that wasn't such a helpful response. Here, really: res = ((int(*)(char*, ...))(code))(format, doubleAr

Re: [PATCH] Support addsub/subadd as non-isomorphic operations for SLP vectorizer.

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Cong Hou wrote: > This patch adds the support to two non-isomorphic operations addsub and subadd for SLP vectorizer. More non-isomorphic operations can be added later, but the limitation is that

Re: Fix summary generation with fork

> Hi, > this patch fixes problem we noticed with Martin Liska where gcov_dump is > called > several times per execution of firefox (on each fork and exec). This causes > runs to be large and makes functions executed once per program to be > considered > cold. > > This patch makes us to update r

Re: Pass floating point values on powerpc64 as per ABI

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:27:39AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Alan Modra writes: > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:10:39AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> Alan Modra writes: > >> > >> > -/* The call to cls_double_va_fn is static, so have to use a > >> > normal prep_cif */ > >> > -

Re: Pass floating point values on powerpc64 as per ABI

Alan Modra writes: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:10:39AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Alan Modra writes: >> >> > - /* The call to cls_double_va_fn is static, so have to use a normal >> > prep_cif */ >> > - CHECK(ffi_prep_cif(&cif, FFI_DEFAULT_ABI, 2, &ffi_type_sint, arg_types) >> > == FFI

Re: Minor cgraph cleanups

> This fixes some minor ugliness I noticed while looking at this code. It > renames a poorly named global variable (shadowed by some function args > in the same file), replaces a cast of an integer value to a pointer, and > removes an undocumented and unused return value. > > Bootstrapped and test

Re: Pass floating point values on powerpc64 as per ABI

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:10:39AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Alan Modra writes: > > > - /* The call to cls_double_va_fn is static, so have to use a normal > > prep_cif */ > > - CHECK(ffi_prep_cif(&cif, FFI_DEFAULT_ABI, 2, &ffi_type_sint, arg_types) > > == FFI_OK); > > This breaks ia64

Re: [RFA/RFC patch]: Follow-up on type-demotion pass ...

This is not a review, but: * What do you need from rtl.h? It's generally best for GIMPLE passes to avoid rtl.h where possible (and if you can avoid it, the next question is whether you can also avoid tm.h). * Going just on the general description of the pass and not looking at the details: do

Re: patch PLUGIN_HEADER_FILE event for tracing of header inclusions.

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > @@ -43,6 +44,7 @@ > TARGET_OPTF. */ > #include "tm_p.h"/* For C_COMMON_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS. */ > > + > #ifndef DOLLARS_IN_IDENTIFIERS > # define DOLLARS_IN_IDENTIFIERS true > #endif This is a spur

Re: [PATCH] Fix lto bootstrap verification failure with -freorder-blocks-and-partition

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/18/13 12:33, Teresa Johnson wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Steven Bosscher >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote: From a bb layout perspective it seems like it would be beneficial

[GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly Elemental functions) for C

Hello Everyone, Attached, please find a patch that will implement SIMD enabled functions for C targeting the gomp-4_0-branch. Here are the ChangeLog entries. Is this OK to install? gcc/c/ChangeLog 2013-11-18 Balaji V. Iyer * c-parser.c (c_parser_declaration_or_fndef): Added

Re: [PATCH]Beginning of multi-block duplicate support in tree-ssa-threadupdate.c

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > This is the beginnings of multi-block duplication support in > tree-ssa-threadupdate.c and is part of the general FSA optimization work. FSA, FSA, ... what does that acronym (?) stand for? Ciao! Steven

Fix summary generation with fork

Hi, this patch fixes problem we noticed with Martin Liska where gcov_dump is called several times per execution of firefox (on each fork and exec). This causes runs to be large and makes functions executed once per program to be considered cold. This patch makes us to update runs just once per ex

[PATCH]Beginning of multi-block duplicate support in tree-ssa-threadupdate.c

This is the beginnings of multi-block duplication support in tree-ssa-threadupdate.c and is part of the general FSA optimization work. This patch creates space in the redirection_data structure for the additional duplicated block, adds some infrastructure to duplicate a second block, updates

Re: [Patch] Fix gcc.dg/20050922-*.c

On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:09 AM, Vidya Praveen wrote: >> Ok, let it bake on trunk and then you can back port it if no one screams. > > I think it has baked long enough. Could this be approved for 4.7 and 4.8 now? Oh, that was pre-approval to back port, conditional on no fallout and no screams… If

Re: [PATCH] add auto_vec

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:03:53PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Trevor Saunders wrote: > > >This patch adds a class auto_vec which releases its internal > >storage in its destructor, but unlike stack_vec it has no built in > >storage so its reasonable to use it in objects on th

Re: [PATCH 5/6] Port various places from union access to subclass access.

On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 00:34 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/31/13 10:26, David Malcolm wrote: [...] > > diff --git a/gcc/gimple.c b/gcc/gimple.c > > index 9b1337a..e9ef8e0 100644 > > --- a/gcc/gimple.c > > +++ b/gcc/gimple.c > > @@ -641,21 +641,22 @@ static inline gimple > > gimple_build_asm_1 (

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [16/25] Tail recursion

2013/11/19 Jeff Law : > On 11/18/13 12:16, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> With current recursion elimination we will have: >> >> test (int *param1) >> { >> : >> >> : >>_7 = PHI >>bounds2 = __builtin_arg_bounds (_7) -- WRONG > > I wouldn't say it's wrong. It's conservatively correct if properly

Re: [PATCH] add auto_vec

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Trevor Saunders wrote: This patch adds a class auto_vec which releases its internal storage in its destructor, but unlike stack_vec it has no built in storage so its reasonable to use it in objects on the heap. It then replaces a bunch of vectors on the stack with stack_v

Re: [PATCH 1/6] Convert gimple types from a union to C++ inheritance

On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 14:51 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/31/13 10:26, David Malcolm wrote: > > * Makefile.in (GIMPLE_H): Add dep on is-a.h. > Not asking you, but I'd like to hope many of the *_H things in > Makefile.in should be going away... > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/g

Re: [PATCH, i386, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [21/25] Size relocation

Hello! > Here is a patch to add size relocation and instruction to obtain object's > size in i386 target. +(define_insn "move_size_reloc_" + [(set (match_operand:SWI48 0 "register_operand" "=r") +(match_operand: 1 "size_relocation" "Z"))] + "" +{ + return "mov{}\t{%1, %0|%0, %1}"; Pl

[PATCH] add auto_vec

From: Trevor Saunders HI, This patch adds a class auto_vec which releases its internal storage in its destructor, but unlike stack_vec it has no built in storage so its reasonable to use it in objects on the heap. It then replaces a bunch of vectors on the stack with stack_vec if the initial

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [16/25] Tail recursion

On 11/18/13 12:16, Ilya Enkovich wrote: With current recursion elimination we will have: test (int *param1) { : : _7 = PHI bounds2 = __builtin_arg_bounds (_7) -- WRONG I wouldn't say it's wrong. It's conservatively correct if properly implemented. Why precisely do you consider this wr

Re: (g)fortran support for MPX (was: Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [8/25] Languages support)

2013/11/18 Tobias Burnus : > Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> The issue is that users do not get what expect. I do not want someone >> having mixed codes get instrumentation for his Java/Fortran/Ada >> functions which slows them down and does nothing useful. What is the >> point to allow checks of pointe

Re: [PATCH] Generate a label for the split cold function while using -freorder-blocks-and-partition

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote: >>> I have modified my original patch to use clone_function_name to >>> generate the cold part label and attached it. >> >> Is this patch fine for commit? > > > Yup, OK. Seems there'

Re: [RFC] libgcov.c re-factoring and offline profile-tool

gcov-dump tool does raw dump of profile data. In the long run, we should have only one gcov profile manipulation tool, so it might be better to incorporate gcov-dump into gcov-tool and get rid of 'gcov-dump'. David On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Rong Xu wrote: > Hi, all > > This is the new pa

Re: [PATCH] Support addsub/subadd as non-isomorphic operations for SLP vectorizer.

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Cong Hou wrote: >>> This patch adds the support to two non-isomorphic operations addsub >>> and subadd for SLP vectorizer. More non-isomorphic operations can be >>> added later, but the limitation is that operations on even/odd >>> elements should still be isomorp

Re: [PATCH] Fix lto bootstrap verification failure with -freorder-blocks-and-partition

On 11/18/13 12:33, Teresa Johnson wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote: From a bb layout perspective it seems like it would be beneficial to do compgotos before layout. Was the current position just to try to redu

Re: [PATCH] Support addsub/subadd as non-isomorphic operations for SLP vectorizer.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 15/11/13 02:06, Cong Hou wrote: >> Hi >> >> This patch adds the support to two non-isomorphic operations addsub >> and subadd for SLP vectorizer. More non-isomorphic operations can be >> added later, but the limitation is that operatio

Re: [PATCH] Support addsub/subadd as non-isomorphic operations for SLP vectorizer.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Hello! > >> This patch adds the support to two non-isomorphic operations addsub >> and subadd for SLP vectorizer. More non-isomorphic operations can be >> added later, but the limitation is that operations on even/odd >> elements should still b

Re: [PATCH] Generate a label for the split cold function while using -freorder-blocks-and-partition

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote: >> I have modified my original patch to use clone_function_name to >> generate the cold part label and attached it. > > Is this patch fine for commit? Yup, OK. Seems there's no better way :-) Ciao! Steven

Re: [PATCH, PR 57363] IBM long double: adding qNaN and number raises inexact exception

On 18-11-2013 18:10, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >> 2013-11-15 Adhemerval Zanella * >> libgcc/config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble.c (__gcc_qadd): Fix add of normal number >> and qNaN to not raise an inexact exception. * >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr57363.c: New file: chec

Re: [PATCH] Use libbacktrace as libsanitizer's symbolizer

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:26:58AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > >> 3) I wonder if libbacktrace couldn't be updated to use __atomic_* builtins, > >>then it could avoid t

Re: [PATCH] Support addsub/subadd as non-isomorphic operations for SLP vectorizer.

I tried your method and it works well for doubles. But for float, there is an issue. For the following gimple code: c1 = a - b; c2 = a + b; c = VEC_PERM It needs two instructions to implement the VEC_PERM operation in SSE2-4, one of which should be using shufps which is represented by t

Re: [PATCH, PR 57363] IBM long double: adding qNaN and number raises inexact exception

Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > 2013-11-15 Adhemerval Zanella > > * libgcc/config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble.c (__gcc_qadd): Fix add > of normal number and qNaN to not raise an inexact exception. > * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr57363.c: New file: check for > PR#57363. This

[PATCH, rs6000] Fix order of TDmode in FPRs in little-endian mode

Hello, when loading a TDmode value into floating-point registers, they need to go into a register pair with the even register holding the most significant word and the odd register holding the least significant word, because this is what the instruction set expects. This hold for both big-endian

[patch] gcc fstack-protector-explicit

Hi, the attached patch adds a new attribute and option flag to control when to do stack protection. The new attribute (stack_protect) affects the behavior of gcc by forcing the stack protection of the function marked with the attribute if any of the options -fstack-protector, -fstack-protector-

Re: [PATCH] Generate a label for the split cold function while using -freorder-blocks-and-partition

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: > Is there a format for compiler-defined labels that would not be able > to clash with other user-generated labels? My understanding is that the "." in the generated

(g)fortran support for MPX (was: Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [8/25] Languages support)

Ilya Enkovich wrote: The issue is that users do not get what expect. I do not want someone having mixed codes get instrumentation for his Java/Fortran/Ada functions which slows them down and does nothing useful. What is the point to allow checks of pointer bounds for language with no pointers?

[RFA/RFC patch]: Follow-up on type-demotion pass ...

Hello, this is the second approach of the patch I've sent some months ago. I think we saw that there was no other approach shown, so I will continue on that ... The idea of this pass is to introduce a statement "normalization" and "denormalization". The "normalization" happens in forward-propa

Re: [PATCH] Fix lto bootstrap verification failure with -freorder-blocks-and-partition

> 2013-11-18 Teresa Johnson > > * gcc/cfgrtl.c (cfg_layout_initialize): Assert if we > try to go into cfglayout after bb reordering. > * gcc/passes.def: Move compgotos before bb reordering > since it goes into cfglayout. This seems resonable to me, but I can't a

Re: [PATCH, PR 57363] IBM long double: adding qNaN and number raises inexact exception

On 15-11-2013 19:54, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Should this be qNaN instead of sNaN here? Yes, indeed. > > Also, since you already have a test case, I think it would be good to add it > to the GCC test suite ... > > Otherwise, this looks reasonable to me (but I cannot approve the patch): > > Bye, >

Re: [PATCH] Fix lto bootstrap verification failure with -freorder-blocks-and-partition

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote: >> From a bb layout perspective it seems like it would be beneficial to >> do compgotos before layout. Was the current position just to try to >> reduce compile time by keeping the bloc

Re: Enale -fno-fat-lto-objects by default

> >ltobootstrapped/regtested ppc64-linux, OK? > > Ok with... Thanks! > > Fullstop removed. Can you update changes.html with lto changes? I sent first update this afternoon. Will remember to add the fat-lto-objects, too. Honza > > Thanks, > Richard. > > >! } > >if ((opts->x_flag_lto_partit

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [16/25] Tail recursion

2013/11/18 Jeff Law : > On 11/18/13 11:10, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> >> In SSA we are not allowed to have PARAM_DECL as call arg. > > Right. > > > > The problem >> >> in this optimization is that when we replace a tail call with jump, we >> replace default SSA name of input parameter with PHI no

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting

2013/11/18 Jeff Law : > On 11/18/13 11:27, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> >> How does pointer passed to regular function differ from pointer passed >> to splitted function? How do I know then which pointer is to be passed >> with bounds and wchich one is not? Moreover current ABI does not allow >> to p

Re: [PATCH 4/6] Implement is_a_helper <>::test specializations for various gimple types

On 11/18/13 11:54, David Malcolm wrote: On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 00:37 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: On 10/31/13 10:26, David Malcolm wrote: * gimple.h (is_a_helper ::test): New. (is_a_helper ::test): New. (is_a_helper ::test): New. (is_a_helper ::test): New. OK with the

[PATCH] Cleaning up comments and indention fix in tree-ssa-threadupdate.c

Just some preparatory work. Just comments and an indention fix. Installed on the trunk. diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c index e819d65..eb733b2 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c @@ -73,19 +73,16 @@ along with GCC;

Re: Enale -fno-fat-lto-objects by default

> On 2013.11.18 at 19:04 +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > Hi, > > this patch switches the default for fat-lto-objects as was documented for a > > while. > > -ffat-lto-objects doubles compilation time and often makes users to not > > notice that > > LTO was not used at all (because they forgot to use

Re: [PATCH 4/6] Implement is_a_helper <>::test specializations for various gimple types

On 11/18/2013 01:54 PM, David Malcolm wrote: On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 00:37 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: On 10/31/13 10:26, David Malcolm wrote: * gimple.h (is_a_helper ::test): New. (is_a_helper ::test): New. (is_a_helper ::test): New. (is_a_helper ::test): New. OK with

patch PLUGIN_HEADER_FILE event for tracing of header inclusions.

Hello All After http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00360.html & http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00361.html & http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00347.html I am proposing the following patch ## patch Index: gcc/plugin.def

Re: [PATCH] Implement -fsanitize=null + new sanopt pass

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Marek Polacek wrote: > 2013-11-18 Marek Polacek > > * doc/invoke.texi: Extend -fsanitize=undefined documentation. OK. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: Enale -fno-fat-lto-objects by default

Jan Hubicka wrote: >Hi, >this patch switches the default for fat-lto-objects as was documented >for a while. >-ffat-lto-objects doubles compilation time and often makes users to not >notice that >LTO was not used at all (because they forgot to use gcc-ar/gcc-nm >plugins). > >Sadly I had to add -ff

Re: [PATCH 4/6] Implement is_a_helper <>::test specializations for various gimple types

On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 00:37 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/31/13 10:26, David Malcolm wrote: > > * gimple.h (is_a_helper ::test): New. > > (is_a_helper ::test): New. > > (is_a_helper ::test): New. > > (is_a_helper ::test): New. > OK with the usual conditions. Check with Andrew as t

Re: [PATCH] pr59160

On 11/18/13 10:23, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on *-apple-darwin* because it has no malloc.h header. Tested on x86_64-apple-darwin13. OK? Note that although I have the FSF papers signed, I don't have write access. If approved, someone will ha

Re: Enale -fno-fat-lto-objects by default

On 2013.11.18 at 19:04 +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > this patch switches the default for fat-lto-objects as was documented for a > while. > -ffat-lto-objects doubles compilation time and often makes users to not > notice that > LTO was not used at all (because they forgot to use gcc-ar/gcc-nm

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [15/25] IPA Propagation

2013/11/18 Martin Jambor : > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 02:28:58PM +0400, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here is a patch to disable propagation of bounded values. >> > > Why do ypu need to do this? If the problem is that IPA-CP can remove > parameter it knows is a constant, which somehow confuses

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting

On 11/18/13 11:27, Ilya Enkovich wrote: How does pointer passed to regular function differ from pointer passed to splitted function? How do I know then which pointer is to be passed with bounds and wchich one is not? Moreover current ABI does not allow to pass bounds with no pointer or pass boun

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [16/25] Tail recursion

On 11/18/13 11:10, Ilya Enkovich wrote: In SSA we are not allowed to have PARAM_DECL as call arg. Right. The problem in this optimization is that when we replace a tail call with jump, we replace default SSA name of input parameter with PHI node holding taking original param and call's arg

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting

2013/11/18 Jeff Law : > On 11/18/13 11:17, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> 2013/11/18 Jeff Law : >>> >>> On 11/18/13 03:22, Ilya Enkovich wrote: Hi, Here is a patch to disable splitting when bounds transfer is required for splitted function. Thanks, Ilya

Re: [PATCH] Use libbacktrace as libsanitizer's symbolizer

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> 3) I wonder if libbacktrace couldn't be updated to use __atomic_* builtins, >>then it could avoid the ugliness to emulate atomic loads and stores. > > I think that would be fi

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [15/25] IPA Propagation

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 02:28:58PM +0400, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a patch to disable propagation of bounded values. > Why do ypu need to do this? If the problem is that IPA-CP can remove parameter it knows is a constant, which somehow confuses how you pass bounds, then it is much

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting

On 11/18/13 11:17, Ilya Enkovich wrote: 2013/11/18 Jeff Law : On 11/18/13 03:22, Ilya Enkovich wrote: Hi, Here is a patch to disable splitting when bounds transfer is required for splitted function. Thanks, Ilya -- 2013-11-13 Ilya Enkovich * ipa-split.c: Include tree-chkp.h.

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting

2013/11/18 Jeff Law : > On 11/18/13 03:22, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Here is a patch to disable splitting when bounds transfer is required for >> splitted function. >> >> Thanks, >> Ilya >> -- >> 2013-11-13 Ilya Enkovich >> >> * ipa-split.c: Include tree-chkp.h. >> (co

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [19/25] Strchr

2013/11/18 Jeff Law : > On 11/18/13 03:58, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Here is a patch to replace BUILT_IN_CHKP_BNDRET with assignment when >> optimizing strchr. >> >> Thanks, >> Ilya >> -- >> 2013-11-13 Ilya Enkovich >> >> * tree-ssa-strlen.c: Include tree-chkp.h. >> (h

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [16/25] Tail recursion

2013/11/18 Jeff Law : > On 11/18/13 03:37, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Here is a patch to disable tail recursion transformation when bounds are >> passed by call. The reason is BUILT_IN_CHKP_ARG_BND which should always get >> default SSA_NAME of PARM_DECL as an argument. >> >> Thanks, >>

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting

On 11/18/13 03:22, Ilya Enkovich wrote: Hi, Here is a patch to disable splitting when bounds transfer is required for splitted function. Thanks, Ilya -- 2013-11-13 Ilya Enkovich * ipa-split.c: Include tree-chkp.h. (consider_split): Do not split when splitted part ne

[PATCH, i386]: Some more ix86_decompose_address fixes

Hello! Attached patch moves remaining non-structural checks from ix86_decompose_address to ix86_legitimate_address_p. The patch also introduces ix86_validate_address_register to remove some code duplication. 2013-11-18 Uros Bizjak * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_decompose_address): Use REG_P

Enale -fno-fat-lto-objects by default

Hi, this patch switches the default for fat-lto-objects as was documented for a while. -ffat-lto-objects doubles compilation time and often makes users to not notice that LTO was not used at all (because they forgot to use gcc-ar/gcc-nm plugins). Sadly I had to add -ffat-lto-objects to bootstrap

Re: [PATCH] aarch64 gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c failures

On 11/18/13, 10:01 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Cesar Philippidis > wrote: >> This patch addresses the failures caused by the >> gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c test on aarch64. The reason why this >> test fails is because aarch64 does not trap on integer division

Re: [PATCH] aarch64 gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c failures

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > This patch addresses the failures caused by the > gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c test on aarch64. The reason why this > test fails is because aarch64 does not trap on integer division by zero. > > Is this OK for trunk? If so, please c

[PATCH] aarch64 gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c failures

This patch addresses the failures caused by the gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c test on aarch64. The reason why this test fails is because aarch64 does not trap on integer division by zero. Is this OK for trunk? If so, please commit it because I do not have an svn account. Thanks, Cesar

Re: [PATCH] Implement -fsanitize=null + new sanopt pass

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:58:36PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > +@item @option{-fsanitize=shift} > > + > > +This option enables checking that the result of a shift operation is > > +not undefined. Note that what exactly is considered undefined di

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [19/25] Strchr

On 11/18/13 03:58, Ilya Enkovich wrote: Hi, Here is a patch to replace BUILT_IN_CHKP_BNDRET with assignment when optimizing strchr. Thanks, Ilya -- 2013-11-13 Ilya Enkovich * tree-ssa-strlen.c: Include tree-chkp.h. (handle_builtin_strchr): Remove retbnd call when st

[PATCH] pr59043

Adjust the following tests to take into account the change of "Length of Public Names Info" to "Pub Info Length" in revision 203936. Tested on x86_64-apple-darwin13. OK? Dominique 2013-11-18 Dominique d'Humieres PR testsuite/59043 * g++.dg/pubtypes.C: Adjust the regular expres

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [16/25] Tail recursion

On 11/18/13 03:37, Ilya Enkovich wrote: Hi, Here is a patch to disable tail recursion transformation when bounds are passed by call. The reason is BUILT_IN_CHKP_ARG_BND which should always get default SSA_NAME of PARM_DECL as an argument. Thanks, Ilya -- 2013-11-15 Ilya Enkovich

Re: Add value range support into memcpy/memset expansion

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:19 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> Hi, >>> this is version I comitted. It also adds a testcase and enables the support >>> in i386 backend. >>> >>> Honza >>> >>> * d

Re: Add value range support into memcpy/memset expansion

> > I opened: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59175 Thanks, seems I mixed up the testcase file. Will fix that soon. Honza > > -- > H.J.

  1   2   3   >