Re: C++ PATCH for c++/69657 (abs not inlined)

On 02/16/2016 02:02 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 02:00:45PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/10/2016 10:31 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/09/2016 03:29 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: This patch broke Solaris bootstrap (seen on i386-pc-solaris2.12): Fixed by pruning hidden names

Re: [PATCH] 69780 - [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align, with small alignment

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 06:04:48PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > >Formatting. = needs to be on the next line. > > There are literally dozens of examples of this style in this file > alone. In one of the two instances of this style in this patch, > moving the equals sign to the next line would

Re: [RFC] [P2] [PR tree-optimization/33562] Lowering more complex assignments.

On 02/14/2016 11:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On February 14, 2016 5:35:13 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote: On 02/12/2016 10:21 AM, Jeff Law wrote: But really we simply need a better DSE algorithm. So the way to fix DSE is to keep the existing algorithm and track the hunks of

Re: [PATCH] Fix driver handling of multiple -ftree-parallelize-loops= options (PR driver/69805)

On 16/02/16 16:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! As mentioned in the PR, %{ftree-parallelize-loops=*} expands to all -ftree-parallelize-loops= options, not just the last one. So greater_than_spec_func is actually called say for -ftree-parallelize-loops=0 -ftree-parallelize-loops=2 with -

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/69753 (DR141 broke member template lookup)

On 02/16/2016 05:38 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: Here is another testcase that every compiler I've tested (clang, icc, microsoft) accepts, but is rejected by gcc-6: class A { public: template void m_fn1(); }; A *fn1(int *); template class B : A { static int *m_fn2() {

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix pasto resulting in wrong instruction from builtins for lvxl

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 11:40 -0800, David Edelsohn wrote: >> This is okay, but how about starting with a testcase for this? > > Fair enough. Here's the revised patch with a test, which I've verified > on

Re: [6 Regession] Usage of unitialized pointer io/list_read.c (

See patch to fix this below. On 02/16/2016 11:38 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > With the following reduced test > > program test > implicit none > integer :: i, j, k, ios > integer, parameter :: big = 600 > character(kind=4,len=big) :: str1, str2 > > do i=1,big, 10 > do j = 0,

Re: [PATCH] 69780 - [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align, with small alignment

On 02/15/2016 01:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 07:16:13PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: +case BUILT_IN_ALLOCA_WITH_ALIGN: + { + /* Get the requested alignment (in bits) if it's a constant + integer expression. */ + HOST_WIDE_INT align = +

New C++ PATCH for c++/10200 et al

Clearly the DR 141 change is requiring much larger adjustments in the rest of the compiler than I'm comfortable making at this point in the GCC 6 schedule, so I'm backing out my earlier changes for 10200 and 69753 and replacing them with a more modest fix for 10200: Now we will still find

[PATCH] xtensa: fix libgcc build with --text-section-literals

Functions __muldf3_aux, __divdf3_aux, __mulsf3_aux and __divsf3_aux don't start with leaf_entry, so they need explicit .literal_position, otherwise libgcc build fails in the presence of --text-section-literals. 2016-02-17 Max Filippov libgcc/ *

Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Add __array_size keyword

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:35:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > What's right is: > > * In cases where it should return an integer constant (you've said that's > when the argument is not a VLA, as for sizeof), there should be no > diagnostic. Right. > * In cases where it should not return an

Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Add __array_size keyword

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:10:08PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > It sets it to be null - but does it diagnose conversion from integer to > > pointer without a cast (it should do so if __array_size is not evaluating > > to an integer constant

Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Add __array_size keyword

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:10:08PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > It sets it to be null - but does it diagnose conversion from integer to > pointer without a cast (it should do so if __array_size is not evaluating > to an integer constant expression, but not if it is evaluating to an > integer

Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Add __array_size keyword

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote: > > For whether arguments are evaluated, you need __array_size with arguments > > that have side effects, and then test whether those side effects occurred. > > For whether results are integer constant expressions, you can test e.g. > > whether

Re: lra-remat issues (PR68730)

... and I managed to confuse myself about which LRA issue I had approval for on gcc-5-branch, and checked it in. Sorry. If I don't hear back until tomorrow I'll revert it. Sorry, Bernd. I should be more clear too. The patch is ok for any GCC version with lra-remat.c (it includes gcc-5 and

Re: lra-remat issues (PR68730)

On 02/16/2016 04:20 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 02/15/2016 02:13 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 02/04/2016 09:27 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: After a few false starts, I came up with the patch below, which keeps track of not just the candidate insn, but also an activation insn, and chooses

Re: [PATCH] 69759 - document __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > > Presumably the C++ liaison people considered compatibility as part of the > > WG14 discussions. In any case, I see no sign that (beyond the > > "fundamental type" terminology issue) the wording in C++ is any better > > thought out than the pre-DR#445

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix pasto resulting in wrong instruction from builtins for lvxl

On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 11:40 -0800, David Edelsohn wrote: > This is okay, but how about starting with a testcase for this? Fair enough. Here's the revised patch with a test, which I've verified on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok to proceed? Thanks! Bill [gcc] 2016-02-16 Bill Schmidt

Re: [RFC] [P2] [PR tree-optimization/33562] Lowering more complex assignments.

On 02/14/2016 11:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On February 14, 2016 5:35:13 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote: On 02/12/2016 10:21 AM, Jeff Law wrote: But really we simply need a better DSE algorithm. So the way to fix DSE is to keep the existing algorithm and track the hunks of

Re: lra-remat issues (PR68730)

On 02/15/2016 02:13 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 02/04/2016 09:27 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: After a few false starts, I came up with the patch below, which keeps track of not just the candidate insn, but also an activation insn, and chooses candidates only if they are both available and

[patch, Fortran, committed] Fix PR 69742, ICE in assoc lists

Hello world, the attached patch fixes PR 69742 (a regression) by simply not attempting to do function elimination in an assoc list. Committed as obvious and simple to trunk, the other affected branches will follow shortly. Regards Thomas 2015-02-16 Thomas Koenig

Re: [AArch64] Emit square root using the Newton series

On 12/08/15 15:35, Evandro Menezes wrote: Emit square root using the Newton series 2015-12-03 Evandro Menezes gcc/ * config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h (aarch64_emit_swsqrt): Declare new function. *

Re: [PING][PATCH, PR67709 ] Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create

On 16/02/16 17:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:52:55PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: Committed both patches to 4.9 and 5 branches. In order to run testsuite/libgomp.fortran/declare-simd-4.f90 with the 4.9 branch build, I needed in addition: - r212268

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix pasto resulting in wrong instruction from builtins for lvxl

On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 11:40 -0800, David Edelsohn wrote: > This is okay, but how about starting with a testcase for this? That's fine. I'll make it generic enough that we can add to it later, then. Bill > > Thanks David > > On Feb 16, 2016 11:37 AM, "Bill Schmidt"

Re: [AArch64] Remove AARCH64_EXTRA_TUNE_RECIP_SQRT from Cortex-A57 tuning

On 02/16/16 04:28, James Greenhalgh wrote: On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:24:53AM -0600, Evandro Menezes wrote: James, There seem to be SPEC CPU2000fp validation issues on A57 when this flag is present too. Though I evaluated the algorithm with a huge random set of values, always delivering

Re: [PATCH] Move the -Wnonnull compare against NULL warning from FEs to early uninit under -Wnonnull-compare (PR c/69835)

On 02/16/2016 01:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:21:49PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: I'm already bootstrapping/regtesting following variant. 2016-02-16 Jakub Jelinek PR c/69835 * common.opt (Wnonnull-compare): New warning. *

Re: Wonly-top-basic-asm

On 16.02.2016 15:03, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> @example >> -/* Note that this code will not compile with -masm=intel */ >> -#define DebugBreak() asm("int $3") >> +/* Define macro at file scope with basic asm. */ >> +/* Add macro parameter p to eax. */ >> +asm(".macro test p\n\t" >> +"addl $\\p,

Re: [PATCH] Move the -Wnonnull compare against NULL warning from FEs to early uninit under -Wnonnull-compare (PR c/69835)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:21:49PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I'm already bootstrapping/regtesting following variant. > > 2016-02-16 Jakub Jelinek > > PR c/69835 > * common.opt (Wnonnull-compare): New warning. > * doc/invoke.texi (-Wnonnull): Remove text

Re: [6 Regession] Usage of unitialized pointer io/list_read.c (

With the following reduced test program test implicit none integer :: i, j, k, ios integer, parameter :: big = 600 character(kind=4,len=big) :: str1, str2 do i=1,big, 10 do j = 0, 9 k = i + j str2(k:k) = char(65+j) end do end do open(15, status='scratch',

[PATCH, rs6000] Fix pasto resulting in wrong instruction from builtins for lvxl

Hi, During the little-endian vector modification work in 2014, I accidentally introduced an error that Uli Weigand noticed this week. This results in wrong code being generated for the __builtin_altivec_lvxl and vec_lvxl interfaces; an "lvx" instruction is generated instead of an "lvxl"

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/69657 (abs not inlined)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 02:00:45PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 02/10/2016 10:31 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: > >On 02/09/2016 03:29 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > >>This patch broke Solaris bootstrap (seen on i386-pc-solaris2.12): > > > >Fixed by pruning hidden names from the lookup result in more

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/69657 (abs not inlined)

On 02/10/2016 10:31 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/09/2016 03:29 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: This patch broke Solaris bootstrap (seen on i386-pc-solaris2.12): Fixed by pruning hidden names from the lookup result in more places. ...and this broke some dubious code in LLVM. Fixed thus. Tested

Re: [PATCH] 69759 - document __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align

Presumably the C++ liaison people considered compatibility as part of the WG14 discussions. In any case, I see no sign that (beyond the "fundamental type" terminology issue) the wording in C++ is any better thought out than the pre-DR#445 C wording. The C++ wording matches the pre-DR 445 C

Re: [PATCH PR69052]Check if loop inv can be propagated into mem ref with additional addr expr canonicalization

From: Jeff Law Sent: 11 February 2016 23:26 To: Bin.Cheng Cc: Bin Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd Subject: Re: [PATCH PR69052]Check if loop inv can be propagated into mem ref with additional addr expr canonicalization >> On 02/11/2016

Re: [PATCH] Move the -Wnonnull compare against NULL warning from FEs to early uninit under -Wnonnull-compare (PR c/69835)

On 02/16/2016 11:21 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:12:27AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: Not sure if it matters but wouldn't walking over function parameters and their default def SSA names immediate uses be cheaper than matching all conditions? Esp. as nonnull_arg_p walks over

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/69753 (DR141 broke member template lookup)

On 02/16/2016 09:32 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: clang also rejects the case where A::FromWebContents is overloaded with a static member function and non-static one, and gcc now accepts this case. This is a clang bug. Jason

Re: [PATCH] Move the -Wnonnull compare against NULL warning from FEs to early uninit under -Wnonnull-compare (PR c/69835)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:12:27AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > >Not sure if it matters but wouldn't walking over function parameters > >and their default def SSA names immediate uses be cheaper than > >matching all conditions? Esp. as nonnull_arg_p walks over all > >DECL_ARGUMENTS (up to the

Re: [PATCH] Move the -Wnonnull compare against NULL warning from FEs to early uninit under -Wnonnull-compare (PR c/69835)

On 02/16/2016 08:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! As has been reported today on gcc@, the new -Wnonnull warning addition warns even about nonnull parameters that were changed (or could be changed) in the function. IMHO the nonnull attribute only

[Ada] Fix debug info glitches for character indexes

This is another regression in the debug info, this time introduced on the mainline by my patch toggling the signedness of Character in Ada. Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline. 2016-02-16 Eric Botcazou * gcc-interface/gigi.h

Re: [6 Regession] Usage of unitialized pointer io/list_read.c (

On 02/16/2016 05:17 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > Hi Jerry, > >> Thanks for review. Committed to trunk r233436. > > The test gfortran.dg/read_bang4.f90 fails on x86_64-apple-darwin15: > > a.out(15552,0x7fff7b2e3000) malloc: *** error for object 0x7fb472804c00: > pointer being freed was not

[Ada] Define LANG_HOOKS_ENUM_UNDERLYING_BASE_TYPE

The fix for PR debug/16063 slightly disturbed the debug info in Ada by adding bogus base types to enumeration types; the latter are base types in Ada. Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline and 5 branch. 2016-02-16 Eric Botcazou *

Re: [6 Regession] Usage of unitialized pointer io/list_read.c (

On 02/16/2016 12:06 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 15 February 2016 at 23:16, Janne Blomqvist > wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Jerry DeLisle >> wrote: >>> The title of the PR should be "Mishandling of namelist comments" or >>>

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR69801

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:39:10AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr69801.c > > === > > *** gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr69801.c (revision 0) > > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr69801.c (working copy) > >

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR69801

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. > > Richard. > > 2016-02-16 Richard Biener > > PR middle-end/69801 > * fold-const.c (operand_equal_p): For COND_EXPR

RFC: Fix ARMv3 support

Hi Richard, Hi Ramana, The ARM backend has some problems compiling for the old ARMv3 architecture. See: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254 for an example of this. v3 is very old now, and I am not sure how much interest there is in continuing to support it, but I am

Re: [PATCH] 69759 - document __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/16/2016 08:54 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > > > Max_align_t need not impact efficiency. In C, the malloc alignment > > > also need not have an impact on the type since aligned_alloc returns > > >

Re: [wwwdocs] Describe behavior of -flifetime-dse in class constructors

On 02/16/2016 07:55 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hello. As I finally hunted issue in Firefox that was responsible for start-up segfault, I would like to describe a new behavior of the compiler that emits clobbers to class constructors (w/ -flifetime-dse). As also Richi spotted quite similar issue

Re: [PING][PATCH, PR67709 ] Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:52:55PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > Committed both patches to 4.9 and 5 branches. > > In order to run testsuite/libgomp.fortran/declare-simd-4.f90 with the 4.9 > branch build, I needed in addition: > - r212268 > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=212268 >

Re: [PING][PATCH, PR67709 ] Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create

On 16/02/16 12:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:10:29PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >On 16/02/16 11:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > >>>AFAIU, it's not a release regression given that: > >>>- this has failed since

Re: [PATCH] 69759 - document __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align

On 02/16/2016 08:54 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: Max_align_t need not impact efficiency. In C, the malloc alignment also need not have an impact on the type since aligned_alloc returns storage that is (or can be) more strictly aligned. As per the DR#445

[gomp4] Fix PR64748

Hi, The attached patch is a backport of the fix for PR64748. Thanks, Jim ChangeLog entries Backport from trunk: PR c/64748 gcc/cp/ * parser.c (cp_parser_oacc_data_clause_deviceptr): Remove checking. * semantics.c (finish_omp_clauses): Add

Re: [PATCH] 69759 - document __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > Max_align_t need not impact efficiency. In C, the malloc alignment > also need not have an impact on the type since aligned_alloc returns > storage that is (or can be) more strictly aligned. As per the DR#445 resolution, malloc must return memory

Re: [RFC] [P2] [PR tree-optimization/33562] Lowering more complex assignments.

On 02/14/2016 11:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On February 14, 2016 5:35:13 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote: On 02/12/2016 10:21 AM, Jeff Law wrote: But really we simply need a better DSE algorithm. So the way to fix DSE is to keep the existing algorithm and track the hunks of

Re: [PATCH] 69759 - document __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align

On 02/16/2016 06:44 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: That said, I think it's worth pointing out that max_align_t has nothing to do with standard C types. The intent of the type is to expose a type with the strictest alignment supported by an implementation for

Re: Fix c/69522, memory management issue in c-parser

On 02/16/2016 07:21 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 02/08/2016 05:30 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/29/2016 04:40 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: c/ PR c/69522 * c-parser.c (c_parser_braced_init): New arg outer_obstack. All callers changed. If nested_p is true, use it to call

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR69801

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. > > Richard. > > 2016-02-16 Richard Biener > > PR middle-end/69801 > * fold-const.c (operand_equal_p): For COND_EXPR zero operand

Re: [PATCH] Move the -Wnonnull compare against NULL warning from FEs to early uninit under -Wnonnull-compare (PR c/69835)

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > As has been reported today on gcc@, the new -Wnonnull warning addition > warns even about nonnull parameters that were changed (or could be changed) > in the function. IMHO the nonnull attribute only talks about the value of > the parameter

[PATCH] Move the -Wnonnull compare against NULL warning from FEs to early uninit under -Wnonnull-compare (PR c/69835)

Hi! As has been reported today on gcc@, the new -Wnonnull warning addition warns even about nonnull parameters that were changed (or could be changed) in the function. IMHO the nonnull attribute only talks about the value of the parameter upon entry to the function, if you assign something else

Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Add __array_size keyword

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:51:43PM +, Stuart Brady wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:05:36PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 03:16:49AM +, Stuart Brady wrote: > > > For a hypothetical change to the C standard itself, I think one might use > > > the name

[PATCH] Fix driver handling of multiple -ftree-parallelize-loops= options (PR driver/69805)

Hi! As mentioned in the PR, %{ftree-parallelize-loops=*} expands to all -ftree-parallelize-loops= options, not just the last one. So greater_than_spec_func is actually called say for -ftree-parallelize-loops=0 -ftree-parallelize-loops=2 with - ftree-parallelize-loops=0 - ftree-parallelize-loops=2

Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Add __array_size keyword

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:11:54PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote: > > > So in other words, adapting all of the sizeof tests would be appropriate, > > and sizeof tests for non-array types would change from expected passes to > > expected failures? > > It's

Re: [wwwdocs] Describe behavior of -flifetime-dse in class constructors

On 16/02/16 14:55, Martin Liška wrote: Hello. As I finally hunted issue in Firefox that was responsible for start-up segfault, I would like to describe a new behavior of the compiler that emits clobbers to class constructors (w/ -flifetime-dse). As also Richi spotted quite similar issue in

[PATCH] Fix PR69776 more

So there's the same issue left in DOM and an "optimization" in the alias machinery fails to honor the overridden alias-sets. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2016-02-16 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/69776 *

[wwwdocs] Describe behavior of -flifetime-dse in class constructors

Hello. As I finally hunted issue in Firefox that was responsible for start-up segfault, I would like to describe a new behavior of the compiler that emits clobbers to class constructors (w/ -flifetime-dse). As also Richi spotted quite similar issue in openjade package, I think it worth for

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/69753 (DR141 broke member template lookup)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.02.15 at 16:13 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: >> When we stopped finding function templates with unqualified lookup due to >> the DR141 fix, that exposed bugs in our lookup within the object expression >>

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Skip gcc.target/aarch64/assembler_arch_1.c if assembler does not support it

On 16 February 2016 at 10:53, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:27:00AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As Christophe reported at: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00784.html >> >> The test

Re: Fix c/69522, memory management issue in c-parser

On 02/08/2016 05:30 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 01/29/2016 04:40 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: c/ PR c/69522 * c-parser.c (c_parser_braced_init): New arg outer_obstack. All callers changed. If nested_p is true, use it to call finish_implicit_inits. * c-tree.h

RE: [PATCH] [ARC] Add single/double IEEE precission FPU support.

Thanks Joern, Committed: r233451 > -Original Message- > From: Joern Wolfgang Rennecke [mailto:g...@amylaar.uk] > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 12:42 AM > To: Claudiu Zissulescu; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: francois.bed...@synopsys.com; jeremy.benn...@embecosm.com > Subject: Re:

Re: Wonly-top-basic-asm

> @example > -/* Note that this code will not compile with -masm=intel */ > -#define DebugBreak() asm("int $3") > +/* Define macro at file scope with basic asm. */ > +/* Add macro parameter p to eax. */ > +asm(".macro test p\n\t" > +"addl $\\p, %eax\n\t" > +".endm"); > + > +/* Use macro

Re: [PATCH] 69759 - document __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > That said, I think it's worth pointing out that max_align_t has > nothing to do with standard C types. The intent of the type is > to expose a type with the strictest alignment supported by > an implementation for an object of any type and with any

Re: RFC: [Patch, PR Bug 60818] - ICE in validate_condition_mode on powerpc*-linux-gnu* ]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:00:58PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > What's wrong is the rs6000 backend asserting that (gtu (reg:CC)) can't > happen, because obviously it does. Rather than trying to fix combine, > (where the ICE happens on attempting to validate the insn!), I think > the rs6000 backend

Re: [6 Regession] Usage of unitialized pointer io/list_read.c (

Hi Jerry, > Thanks for review. Committed to trunk r233436. The test gfortran.dg/read_bang4.f90 fails on x86_64-apple-darwin15: a.out(15552,0x7fff7b2e3000) malloc: *** error for object 0x7fb472804c00: pointer being freed was not allocated *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug

Re: [PATCH, PR69532]: Simple changes to effective target in two tests from *_ok -> *_hw

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:47 AM, David Sherwood wrote: > Hi, > > I have a fix for bugzilla defect 69532, which is a simple change to > a couple of arm tests to check for effective target arm_v8_neon_hw > instead of arm_v8_neon_ok. > > Tested: > arm-none-eabi: No

[PATCH, PR69532]: Simple changes to effective target in two tests from *_ok -> *_hw

Hi, I have a fix for bugzilla defect 69532, which is a simple change to a couple of arm tests to check for effective target arm_v8_neon_hw instead of arm_v8_neon_ok. Tested: arm-none-eabi: No regressions in arm.exp testsuite. Good to go? David Sherwood. ChangeLog: 2016-02-16  David Sherwood 

Re: [PING][PATCH, PR67709 ] Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:10:29PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 16/02/16 11:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > >>>AFAIU, it's not a release regression given that: > >>>- this has failed since 4.9.0, and > >>>- the test-case is not

Re: [PING][PATCH, PR67709 ] Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create

On 16/02/16 11:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >AFAIU, it's not a release regression given that: >- this has failed since 4.9.0, and >- the test-case is not supported in 4.8, >so we're not required to fix it in 4.9 and 5 branches. > >But,

Re: [PATCH] Fix up vectorization of multiplication with bool cast to integer (PR tree-optimization/69820)

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:06:53AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > Hmm, I think it works in general, but I suspect that the pattern has > > to use the original def but for out analysis we have to look at the > > pattern. > > > > So another fix would

[PATCH] Fixup PR69291 fix

Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2016-02-16 Richard Biener PR rtl-optimization/69291 * ifcvt.c (noce_try_store_flag_constants): Re-instantiate noce_operand_ok check. Index: gcc/ifcvt.c

Re: [PATCH, ARM] stop changing signedness in PROMOTE_MODE

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 04/02/16 08:58, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Jim Wilson wrote: >>> >>> This is my suggested fix for PR 65932, which is a linux kernel >>>

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/69753 (DR141 broke member template lookup)

On 2016.02.15 at 16:13 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > When we stopped finding function templates with unqualified lookup due to > the DR141 fix, that exposed bugs in our lookup within the object expression > scope; an object-expression of the current instantiation does not make the > expression

Re: [PATCH] Fix up vectorization of multiplication with bool cast to integer (PR tree-optimization/69820)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:06:53AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > Hmm, I think it works in general, but I suspect that the pattern has > to use the original def but for out analysis we have to look at the > pattern. > > So another fix would be to simply fail if there was a pattern detected. That

Re: [AArch64] Remove AARCH64_EXTRA_TUNE_RECIP_SQRT from Cortex-A57 tuning

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:24:53AM -0600, Evandro Menezes wrote: > On 02/15/16 04:50, James Greenhalgh wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:57:10AM +, James Greenhalgh wrote: > >>On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:00:01PM +, James Greenhalgh wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:20:46AM +,

Re: [Patch, regex, libstdc++/69794] Unify special character parsing

On 15/02/16 20:41 -0800, Tim Shen wrote: PR libstdc++/69794 * include/bits/regex_scanner.h: Add different special character sets for grep and egrep regex. * include/bits/regex_scanner.tcc: Use _M_spec_char more unifiedly. s/unifiedly/uniformly/ OK for trunk and

Re: [PATCH] Fix up vectorization of multiplication with bool cast to integer (PR tree-optimization/69820)

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:58:37AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > > > > Hmm, most places calling type_conversion_p already check for the > > pattern case and only accept a very

Re: [PING][PATCH, PR67709 ] Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > AFAIU, it's not a release regression given that: > - this has failed since 4.9.0, and > - the test-case is not supported in 4.8, > so we're not required to fix it in 4.9 and 5 branches. > > But, the test-case does fail in 5 and 4.9

Re: [PING][PATCH, PR67709 ] Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create

On 16/02/16 03:22, Jan Hubicka wrote: On 08/02/16 13:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: [ The pass before pass_omp_simd_clone is pass_dispatcher_calls. It has a function create_target_clone, similar to simd_clone_create, with a node.defition

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Skip gcc.target/aarch64/assembler_arch_1.c if assembler does not support it

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:27:00AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > As Christophe reported at: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00784.html > > The test gcc.target/aarch64/assembler_arch_1.c fails to assemble on older > assemblers that don't support the LSE architecture

[PATCH][AArch64] Skip gcc.target/aarch64/assembler_arch_1.c if assembler does not support it

Hi all, As Christophe reported at: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00784.html The test gcc.target/aarch64/assembler_arch_1.c fails to assemble on older assemblers that don't support the LSE architecture extension. I'd really like to keep the test an assemble test rather than

Re: [PATCH] Fix up vectorization of multiplication with bool cast to integer (PR tree-optimization/69820)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:58:37AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > > Hmm, most places calling type_conversion_p already check for the > pattern case and only accept a very specific or fail. > > Only widen_mul/sum don't do

Re: [PATCH] Fix reassoc ICE (PR tree-optimization/69802)

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > The following patch fixes an ICE where one of the range tests > is SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT of a bool/_Bool or unsigned : 1 bitfield. > In that case, we don't know where to put the adjusted range test. > The patch for this uncommon case gives up,

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR69771, bogus CONST_INT during shift expansion

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:05:55AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:43:22PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On February 15, 2016 7:15:35 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek > > > wrote: > > > >On Mon, Feb 15,

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR69771, bogus CONST_INT during shift expansion

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:43:22PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On February 15, 2016 7:15:35 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek > > wrote: > > >On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:58:45PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > >> We could also

[PATCH] Fix half of PR69586

While investigating PR69586 I noticed we fail to register asserts for the seen condition. This is fixed by the below patch. I'm still thinking on how to improve BIT_AND_EXPR handling to catch the missed jump-threading. Boootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard.

Re: [PATCH] Fix up vectorization of multiplication with bool cast to integer (PR tree-optimization/69820)

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > The following testcase is miscompiled, because we first > create a pattern stmt for _5 = (int) _3; where _3 is bool, > but then recognize the following multiply as widening multiply, ignore > there the previous pattern stmt and thus instead of

Re: [AArch64] Remove AARCH64_EXTRA_TUNE_RECIP_SQRT from Cortex-A57 tuning

On 11 January 2016 at 12:04, James Greenhalgh wrote: > 2015-12-11 James Greenhalgh > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (cortexa57_tunings): Remove > AARCH64_EXTRA_TUNE_RECIP_SQRT. > OK /Marcus

Re: [Patch AArch64] Restrict 16-bit sqrdml{sa}h instructions to FP_LO_REGS

On 26 January 2016 at 16:04, James Greenhalgh wrote: > 2016-01-25 James Greenhalgh > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.md > (arch64_sqrdmlh_lane): Fix register > constraints for operand 3. > (aarch64_sqrdmlh_laneq):

Re: [Patch AArch64] GCC 6 regression in vector performance. - Fix vector initialization to happen with lane load instructions.

On 20 January 2016 at 15:22, James Greenhalgh wrote: > gcc/ > > 2016-01-20 James Greenhalgh > Ramana Radhakrishnan > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_expand_vector_init): Refactor, >

Re: [Patch AArch64] Use software sqrt expansion always for -mlow-precision-recip-sqrt

On 11 January 2016 at 11:53, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > --- > 2015-12-10 James Greenhalgh > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (use_rsqrt_p): Always use software > reciprocal sqrt for -mlow-precision-recip-sqrt. > OK /Marcus

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR69291, RTL if-conversion bug

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > >> On 02/10/2016 02:50 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >> > > >> > > On 02/10/2016 02:35 PM, Richard Biener

[PATCH] Fix PR69801

Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2016-02-16 Richard Biener PR middle-end/69801 * fold-const.c (operand_equal_p): For COND_EXPR zero operand mask OEP_ADDRESS_OF. * gcc.dg/pr69801.c: New testcase.

  1   2   >