On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 06:47:17PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>
> > I should mention, however, that for us to use ranges like this,
> > the FSF asked us to add a note explaining that the copyright years
> > could be abbreviated into a range. See gdb/
With the locality value received in the instruction pattern, I think it would
be safe to handle them in prefetch instruction.
This helps especially AArch64 has prefetch instructions that can handle this
locality.
+(define_insn "prefetch"
+ [(prefetch (match_operand:DI 0 "address_operand" "r")
+
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:12 PM, bin.cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch is to fix regression reported in PR60280 by removing forward loop
>> headers/latches in cfg cleanup if possible. Several tests are broken by
>> this change since cfg cleanup i
Avoided top-posting and resending.
+ /* temporal locality */
+ return (INTVAL(operands[1])) ? \"prfm\\tPSTL1KEEP, [%0, #0]\" :
+\"prfm\\tPLDL1KEEP, [%0, #0]\"; }"
+ [(set_attr "type" "prefetch")]
+)
+
With the locality value received in the instruction pattern, I think it would
be safe to ha
From: tschwinge
gcc/
* gimple.def (GIMPLE_OACC_KERNELS): New code.
* doc/gimple.texi: Document it.
* gimple.h (gimple_has_substatements, CASE_GIMPLE_OMP)
(is_gimple_omp_oacc_specifically): Handle it.
(gimple_statement_oacc_kernels): New struct.
From: tschwinge
gcc/c-family/
* c-pragma.c (oacc_pragmas): Add "kernels".
* c-pragma.h (enum pragma_kind): Add PRAGMA_OACC_KERNELS.
gcc/c/
* c-parser.c (OACC_KERNELS_CLAUSE_MASK): New macro definition.
(c_parser_oacc_kernels): New function.
Ganesh,
On 28 Feb 2014, at 10:13 , Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh
wrote:
> I also have attached a patch that implements the following.
> * Prefetch with immediate offset in the range 0 to 32760 (multiple of 8).
> Added a predicate for this.
> * Prefetch with immediate offset - in the range
Hi,
This defines TARGET_FLAGS_REGNUM for AArch64 to be CC_REGNUM. Noticed
this turns on the cmpelim pass after reload and in a few examples and a
couple of benchmarks I noticed a number of comparisons getting deleted.
A similar patch for AArch32 is being tested.
Tested cross with aarch64-no
On 26/02/14 02:25, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Just like most of the targets out there we should define
> TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE to have better PCH support.
>
> OK? Built and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
> * config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPT
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:12 PM, bin.cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch is to fix regression reported in PR60280 by removing forward loop
>>> headers/latches in cfg cleanup if possible.
On 25/02/14 18:15, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 09:02 AM, Alex Velenko wrote:
+(define_expand "aarch64_reinterpretdf"
+ [(match_operand:DF 0 "register_operand" "")
+ (match_operand:VD_RE 1 "register_operand" "")]
+ "TARGET_SIMD"
+{
+ aarch64_simd_reinterpret (operands[0], operands
Hi,
On 02/27/2014 08:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 02/25/2014 05:03 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
here we ICE exactly as we did in c++/53756: the only difference is the
use of decltype(auto) instead of auto. Now, if we compare is_cxx_auto to
is_auto (the front-end helper), evidently there is an inc
于 2014年02月28日 15:58, lin zuojian 写道:
> Hi Bernd,
> I agree you with the mode problem.
>
> And I have not change the stack alignment.What I change is the virtual
> register base's alignment.
> Realignment must be make in !STRICT_ALIGNMENT machine,or emitting the
> efficient code is impossible.
Sorry
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
> Ping. OK for trunk and 4.8?
Ok if no regressions.
Ramana
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joey Ye [mailto:joey...@arm.com]
>> Sent: 21 February 2014 19:32
>> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: [patch] [arm] Fix PR60169 - thumb1 far
Hello,
This is relatively obvious patch which eliminates comparision
of inifinities for exp2 AVX-512 test and properly comparing floats
for avx512f-sqrtps-2.c.
Tests pass.
Is it ok for trunk?
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/i386/avx512er-vexp2ps-2.c: Decrease exponent
argument to avo
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
> This patch is a mirror copy from approved patch in glibc:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-02/msg00741.html
>
> OK to trunk, 4.8 and 4.7?
OK everywhere.
Ramana
>
> ChangeLog.libgcc:
>
> * config/arm/sfp-machine.h (_FP_NANFRAC_H,
> _F
This narrows down the effect of the PR60280 fix (removing more
forwarder blocks during cfg-cleanup when loops are present) to
only remove forwarders how loop_optimizer_init would create
them. It also fixes the loop latch updating in remove_forwarder_block
(though that doesn't have any immediate e
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hello,
> This is relatively obvious patch which eliminates comparision
> of inifinities for exp2 AVX-512 test and properly comparing floats
> for avx512f-sqrtps-2.c.
>
> Tests pass.
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> * gcc.t
> Joseph, do you know why implicitly adding years to the claimed
> copyright years is a problem? I'm guessing the file needs to be
> published somewhere for each year claimed.
IANAL, but from 2 discussions with copyright-clerk:
1. We start claiming copyright the year the file as committed
Committed to branch dmalcolm/jit:
gcc/jit/
* libgccjit.h (gcc_jit_block_get_function): New.
* libgccjit.map (gcc_jit_block_get_function): New.
* libgccjit++.h (gccjit::block::get_function): New method.
* libgccjit.c (gcc_jit_block_get_function): New.
---
gcc/jit/Ch
OK, thanks.
Jason
OK.
Jason
2014-02-20 22:27 GMT+04:00 Bernd Schmidt :
> * Functions and variables now go into different tables, otherwise
>intermixing between them could be a problem that causes tables to
>go out of sync between host and target (imagine one big table being
>generated by ptx lto1/mkoffload, and m
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:12 PM, bin.cheng wrote:
Hi,
This patch is to fix regression reported in PR60280 by removi
On 02/28/2014 05:09 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
2014-02-20 22:27 GMT+04:00 Bernd Schmidt :
* Functions and variables now go into different tables, otherwise
intermixing between them could be a problem that causes tables to
go out of sync between host and target (imagine one big table being
On 02/17/2014 11:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> 2014-02-17 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR middle-end/60175
> * function.c (expand_function_end): Don't emit
> clobber_return_register sequence if clobber_after is a B
I added a news item for GSoC2014. I also realized that POWER8 support
had not been added to the News announcements, so I inserted an item.
Thanks, David
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving
>>> Here's the new patch. The only changes from the earlier patch are in
>>> handle_missing_profiles, where we now get the counts off of the entry
>>> and call stmt bbs, and in tree_profiling, where we call
>>> handle_missing_profiles earlier and I have removed the outlined cgraph
>>> rebuilding co
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:12 PM, bin.cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> Th
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:25 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb
Hi,
The attached patch fixes a bug in ./src/aarch64/sysv.S:ffi_closure_SYSV
where stack unwinding information was not generated correctly. The
change has been reviewed, approved and merged into the stand-alone
libffi release tree**.
OK for the trunk?
Thanks,
Yufeng
** http://github.com/at
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > Joseph, do you know why implicitly adding years to the claimed
> > copyright years is a problem? I'm guessing the file needs to be
> > published somewhere for each year claimed.
>
> IANAL, but from 2 discussions with copyright-clerk:
>
> 1. We st
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:42 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:25 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Fe
On 02/28/2014 04:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK.
Thanks. I'm going to commit as obvious the additional lambda.c hunk
below, which removes another now redundant STRIP_TEMPLATE use.
Thanks,
Paolo.
/cp
2014-02-28 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58610
* cp-tree.h (DE
On 13 February 2014 16:03, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch rewrites the vst4_lane intrinsics in terms of RTL builtins.
>
> Tested on aarch64-none-elf with no issues.
>
> OK to queue for Stage 1?
OK for stage 1
/Marcus
> * config/rl78/rl78-real.md (cbranchsi4_real_signed): Add
> anti-cacnonical alternatives.
> (negandhi3_real): New pattern.
> * config/rl78/rl78-virt.md (negandhi3_virt): New pattern.
These are fine, although I don't know why gcc would require a negandhi3
pattern...
Hi,
Thanks. Here is the updated patch.
2014-02-26 Tobias Grosser
Mircea Namolaru
PR tree-optimization/58028
* graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (set_cloog_options): Don't remove scalar
dimensions.
Index: gcc/graphite-clast-to-gimple.c
=
Multiple large C++ projects (KDE and libreoffice, at least) have been
breaking when GCC speculatively devirtualizes a call to an
implicitly-declared virtual destructor, because this leads to references
to base destructors and vtables that might be hidden in another DSO.
This patch avoids this p
> Multiple large C++ projects (KDE and libreoffice, at least) have
> been breaking when GCC speculatively devirtualizes a call to an
> implicitly-declared virtual destructor, because this leads to
> references to base destructors and vtables that might be hidden in
> another DSO. This patch avoids
2014-02-27 19:25 GMT+01:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 02/23/2014 02:36 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> * cp/method.c (walk_field_subobs): improve the diagnostic
>> locations for both REFERENCE_TYPEs and non-static const members.
>
>
> It's important to have the error location be the place whe
On 02/28/2014 03:56 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
I think we can safely test here DECL_ARTIFICIAL && (DECL_EXTERNAL ||
DECL_COMDAT). If the dtor is going to be output anyway, we are safe to use it.
We already skipped DECL_EXTERNAL decls, and artificial members are
always DECL_COMDAT, but I'll add th
On 02/28/2014 04:03 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
The first two lines are fine in my opinion. The third line should
actually be split into an error + an inform. By doing that, I think we
also need to reformulate the error message like this:
testsuite/g++.dg/init/pr44086.C:4:8: error: 'struct A' needs i
Committed to branch dmalcolm/jit:
gcc/jit/
* libgccjit.h (gcc_jit_context_new_cast): New.
* libgccjit.map (gcc_jit_context_new_cast): New.
* libgccjit++.h (gccjit::context::new_cast): New method.
* libgccjit.c (gcc_jit_context_new_cast): New.
* internal-api
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 17:25 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 17:11 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > With this commit, the API changes to using basic blocks instead: blocks
> > are created within functions, and statements are added to blocks, rather
> > than to functi
On 02/28/2014 05:21 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 02/28/2014 05:09 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
Unfortunately I don't fully understand this configure magic... When a
user specifies 2 or 3 accelerators during configuration with
--enable-accelerators, will several different accel-gccs be built?
No - the
2014-02-28 22:27 GMT+01:00 Jason Merrill :
> Let's change the C++11 diagnostic to match the C++98 diagnostic. So,
> "uninitialized const member in %q#T" + "%qD should be initialized".
OK.
>> Incidentally, while moving the diagnostic concerning the uninitialized
>> field from an error to an infor
2014-02-28 22:52 GMT+01:00 Fabien Chêne :
>>> Incidentally, while moving the diagnostic concerning the uninitialized
>>> field from an error to an inform, I realized that the syntactic sugar
>>> %q#D is no longer honored an is treated as %qD, is it expected ?
>>
>>
>> No, how do you mean?
>
> I mus
On 28 Feb 17:21, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> It would help to see the code you have on the libgomp side, I don't
> believe that's been posted yet?
It was posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01777.html
And below is the updated version.
---
libgomp/libgomp.map |1 +
libgomp/ta
This patch removes the size limit for loop unroll/peel when the loop
is truly hot. This makes the implementation easily maintanable between
FDO and AutoFDO.
Bootstrapped and loadtest perf show neutral impact.
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/loop-unroll.c
Looks good to me.
Thanks, Teresa
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> This patch removes the size limit for loop unroll/peel when the loop
> is truly hot. This makes the implementation easily maintanable between
> FDO and AutoFDO.
>
> Bootstrapped and loadtest perf show neutral im
Hello,
this is a stage 1 patch, and I'll ping it then, but if you have comments
now...
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2014-02-28 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/57742
gcc/
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_malloc_memset): New function.
(simplify_bui
On 02/28/2014 05:04 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
I guess my mistake comes from the fact that %q#D is not present in the
c++98 diagnostic. Shall we homogeneise that as well ?
In favor of %q#D ?
OK.
Jason
Committed to branch dmalcolm/jit:
gcc/jit/
* libgccjit.c (gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op): Check that the
operands have the same type.
(gcc_jit_context_new_comparison): Likewise.
---
gcc/jit/ChangeLog.jit | 6 ++
gcc/jit/libgccjit.c | 18 ++
2 files c
Hi,
We've encountered a rare bug that occurs when attempting to reload for
an unaligned store in DImode. For an unaligned store, using stfd gets
preference over std since stfd doesn't have an alignment restriction and
therefore the "m" constraint matches. However, when there is not a
register av
Hi,
Hal Finkel requested that we define a constraint for representing
individual CR bits. We agreed to reserve "wc" for this purpose to
maintain compatibility with LLVM. This patch documents that use.
A pro-forma regstrap is in progress. Assuming no problems, is this ok
for trunk?
Thanks,
Bil
I'd like to ask for permission to backport the following two LIBITM bug
fixes to the FSF 4.8 branch. Although these are not technically fixing
regressions, they do fix the libitm.c/reentrant.c testsuite failure on
s390 and powerpc (or at least it will when we finally get our power8
code backported
I went ahead and checked in my patch so that the regression is fixed
over the weekend.
Jason
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hal Finkel requested that we define a constraint for representing
> individual CR bits. We agreed to reserve "wc" for this purpose to
> maintain compatibility with LLVM. This patch documents that use.
>
> A pro-forma regstrap is in p
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've encountered a rare bug that occurs when attempting to reload for
> an unaligned store in DImode. For an unaligned store, using stfd gets
> preference over std since stfd doesn't have an alignment restriction and
> therefore the
Hello Uroš,
On 28 Feb 13:55, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Kirill Yukhin
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > This is relatively obvious patch which eliminates comparision
> > of inifinities for exp2 AVX-512 test and properly comparing floats
> > for avx512f-sqrtps-2.c.
> >
> > Tests p
60 matches
Mail list logo
