OK for trunk and backports to branch 6 and 5?
2016-05-17 10:42 GMT+02:00 Kuba Sejdak :
> ---
> ChangeLog| 6 ++
> MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> configure| 6 ++
> configure.ac | 6 ++
> gcc/ChangeLog| 6 ++
> gcc/con
> Hi,
> this patch fixes ICE while building Firefox (and probably xalancbmk, too)
> with -O3 -flto. I originally tested the whole patchset on several bigger apps
> including the inline heuristics change which teach it that thunks are very
> cheap.
> Mainline doesn't contain it that makes us to in
I noticed this late last year, now is the proper time to change it.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2016-05-18 Richard Biener
* passes.def: Put late dse and cd_dce in canonical order.
Index: gcc/passes.def
=
On Tue, 17 May 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > The following fixes a latent issue in loop distribution catched by
> > the fake edge placement adjustment.
> >
> > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
> >
> > Richard.
>
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/17/2016 03:04 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> After supporting all vcond/vcondu patterns in AArch64 backend, now we can
>> vectorize VEC_COND_EXPR with different type in comparison operands and value
>> operands on AArch64. GCC uses vect_
The following fixes an oversight with the last change.
Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied as obvious.
Richard.
2016-05-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71168
* tree-loop-distribution.c (distribute_loop): Move *destroy_p
initialization earlier.
On 17 May 2016 at 14:27, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:09:31AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>> AArch64 support vector multiply by element for V2DF, V2SF, V4SF, V2SI,
>> V4SI, V4HI, V8HI.
>>
>> All above are well supported by "*aarch64_mul3_elt" pattern and
>> "*aarch64_mul3_elt_
On 17 May 2016 at 14:42, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 17/05/16 13:40, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/05/16 13:20, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:09:26AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
The support of vfma_n_f64, vfms_n_f32, vfmsq_n_f32, vfmsq_n_f64 are
mis
On 18/05/16 09:25, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 17 May 2016 at 14:42, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 17/05/16 13:40, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 17/05/16 13:20, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:09:26AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
The support of vfma_n_f64, vfms_n_f32, vfmsq_n_f32, vfmsq
>>> Please move the whole thing under the else { } case of the ops.length
>>> == 0, ops.length == 1 test chain
>>> as you did for the actual emit of the negate.
>>>
>>
>> I see your point. However, when we remove the (-1) from the ops list, that
>> intern can result in ops.length becoming 1. Theref
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Tejas Belagod
wrote:
>
> We do have plans to fix pre-ACLE behavior of fp16 to conform to current ACLE
> spec, but can't say when exactly.
Matthew, could you please take a look at this while you are in this area ?
thanks,
Ramana
>
> Thanks,
> Tejas.
Hello Jakub,
On 13 May 19:14, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is either AVX2 or for EVEX AVX512BW (& AVX512VL) instruction,
> thus the patch adds it as a separate alternative guarded with avx512bw
> isa attribute.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> 2
On 13 May 19:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> vpmulhrsw is AVX512BW & AVX512VL insn, so we shouldn't enable it just
> when AVX512VL is on.
>
> Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for
> trunk?
>
> 2016-05-13 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * config/i386/sse.md (*
On 13 May 19:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> vpshufb is AVX512BW & AVX512VL insn, so we shouldn't allow it for
> AVX512VL only.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> 2016-05-13 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * config/i386/sse.md (_pshufb3): Use
> cons
On 13 May 19:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> vpalignr is AVX512BW & VL, so we shouldn't enable it just for VL.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> 2016-05-13 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * config/i386/sse.md (_palignr): Use
> constraint x instead
On 13 May 19:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> These insns are either AVX512VL or AVX512VL & BW, this patch allows using
> XMM16+ where possible.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> 2016-05-13 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * config/i386/sse.md (pbroadcast_
Hello,
On 05 May 15:47, Petr Murzin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The attached patch fixes sse-14.c to compile with -masm=intel.
> Bootstrapped. No regressions detected.
>
> Please have a look. Is it ok for trunk?
>
> 2016-05-05 Petr Murzin
>
> gcc/
> * config/i386/sse.md: Use proper operand m
The PR is about a case where tree-call-cdce.c causes two abnormal
PHIs for the same variable to be live at the same time, leading to
a coalescing failure. It seemed like getting rid of these kinds of
input would be generally useful, so I added a utility to tree-dfa.c.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
On 17 May 2016 at 20:21, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> The following fixes a latent issue in loop distribution catched by
>> the fake edge placement adjustment.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>
On 2016/5/17 5:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:56:42PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> I assume that bumping GOMP_VERSION in include/gomp-constants.h would be
>> enough?
>
> I think so.
>
> Jakub
>
How is this patch? I have added a comment to remind to adjust the
On 18/05/16 09:25, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Unfortunately, the guard is not correct :(
The float64_t type is not available on arm, so the new
declarations/definitions in arm-neon-ref.h
need a guard.
Since this patch was checked-in, all the advsimd intrinsics tests fail
to compile
on arm:
In fi
Hi, Bernd
2016-05-13 20:33 GMT+08:00 Bernd Schmidt :
> On 05/05/2016 08:03 AM, Shiva Chen wrote:
>>
>>
>> - /* We do not handle setting only part of the register. */
>> - if (DF_REF_FLAGS (adef) & DF_REF_READ_WRITE)
>> -return GRD_INVALID;
>> -
> This isn't right, at least not without other
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:40:33PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2016/5/17 5:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:56:42PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >> I assume that bumping GOMP_VERSION in include/gomp-constants.h would be
> >> enough?
> >
> > I think so.
> >
> >
On 18 May 2016 at 11:44, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 18/05/16 09:25, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, the guard is not correct :(
>>
>> The float64_t type is not available on arm, so the new
>> declarations/definitions in arm-neon-ref.h
>> need a guard.
>>
>> Since this patch was chec
On 05/18/2016 10:38 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote:
> Is this Still OK. Bootstrap and regression testing on ARM, AARCH64 and
> x86-64 didn’t have any new regressions.
>
> Thanks,
> Kugan
Hello.
I see various ICE after your commit r236356:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71170
Mar
Hello.
Following patch add support for IPA ICF, where we miss support for
a proper DECL_PT_UID update in situations where we merge variables.
Patch can bootstrap and no new regression is introduced for x86_64-linux-gnu.
Ready for trunk?
Thanks,
Martin
>From 35ec4381940677e9491f28b7d83c8b0fbbc45d
Hi Thomas,
On 17/05/16 11:10, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
Ping?
*** gcc/ChangeLog ***
2015-11-06 Thomas Preud'homme
* config/arm/arm-protos.h: Reindent FL_FOR_* macro definitions.
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h
index
63235cb63acf3e676fac5b61e
Hi,
Revision 236200 checks wrong pointer for invariant expression, which
accidentally clears all depends_on information. This causes wrong cost and bad
code generation, for example, gcc.target/arm/pr42505.c on thumb1 targets. This
patch fixes the issue.
Test result checked for gcc.target/arm/p
The PHI movement penalty is bogously biased by adding the cost of moving
the condition - but the condition is computed unconditionally and thus
its cost should be added to the PHI cost.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
This patch is required to avoid regressing with
Hi Thomas,
On 17/05/16 11:11, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
Ping?
*** gcc/ChangeLog ***
2015-11-09 Thomas Preud'homme
* config/arm/arm.h (TARGET_USE_MOVT): Check MOVT/MOVW availability
with TARGET_HAVE_MOVT.
(TARGET_HAVE_MOVT): Define.
* config/arm/arm.c (con
The following patch moves LIM before PRE to allow it to cleanup CSE
(and copyprop) opportunities LIM exposes. It also moves the DCE done
in loop before the loop pipeline as otherwise it is no longer executed
uncoditionally at this point (since we have the no_loop pipeline).
The patch requires so
On 18/05/16 02:06, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016, Matthew Wahab wrote:
In some tests, there are unavoidable differences in precision when calculating
the actual and the expected results of an FP16 operation. A new support function
CHECK_FP_BIAS is used so that these tests can check fo
The following adjusts get_alias_set beahvior when applied to
union accesses to use the union alias-set rather than alias-set
zero. This is in line with behavior from the alias oracle
which (bogously) circumvents alias-set zero with looking at
the alias-sets of the base object. Thus for
union U
Committed.
Richard.
2016-05-18 Richard Biener
* lto-streamer.h (LTO_major_version): Bump to 6.
Index: gcc/lto-streamer.h
===
--- gcc/lto-streamer.h (revision 236373)
+++ gcc/lto-streamer.h (working copy)
@@ -128,7 +12
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The PR is about a case where tree-call-cdce.c causes two abnormal
> PHIs for the same variable to be live at the same time, leading to
> a coalescing failure. It seemed like getting rid of these kinds of
> input would be generally usefu
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Following patch add support for IPA ICF, where we miss support for
> a proper DECL_PT_UID update in situations where we merge variables.
>
> Patch can bootstrap and no new regression is introduced for x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
> Ready fo
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
Please move the whole thing under the else { } case of the ops.length
== 0, ops.length == 1 test chain
as you did for the actual emit of the negate.
>>>
>>> I see your point. However, when we remove the (-1) from t
Hi Thomas,
This looks mostly good with a few nits inline.
Please repost with the comments addressed.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 17/05/16 11:13, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
Ping?
*** gcc/ChangeLog ***
2015-11-13 Thomas Preud'homme
* config/arm/arm.h (TARGET_HAVE_MOVT): Include ARMv8-M as hav
Hi Martin,
>
> I see various ICE after your commit r236356:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71170
Sorry for the breakage. Looking into it.
Thanks,
Kugan
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> > The following fixes a latent issue in loop distribution catched by
>> > the fake edge placement adjustment.
>> >
>> > Bootstrapped an
Hi!
Ping.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:45:13 +0200, I wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Mon, 02 May 2016 11:54:27 +0200, I wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:43:41 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:43:43PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > > commit 3b521f3e35fdb4b320e95b5f6a82b8d89399
Hi!
Ping.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:44:14 +0200, I wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Tue, 03 May 2016 11:34:39 +0200, I wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:01:09 +0200, I wrote:
> > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:36:03 +0200, I wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
On Wed, 18 May 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 May 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The following fixes a latent issue in loop distribution catched by
> >> > the fake e
On 05/17/2016 04:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:38:27PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi Jakub,
thanks for backporting this! Do you have any plans to apply this patch to
GCC 5 and 6 branches? AFAIK people hit on this ASan + newer Glibc bug by
using GCC 5.3.1 on Fedora 23
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 07:08:52PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> FWIW, the problem after subversion id 236136 shows up when the trunk compiler
> is built with the host compiler (4.3.4).
That compiler is almost seven years old. It would be interesting to find
out what the oldest compiler that *
On 05/18/2016 01:24 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ok.
>
> Richard.
Thanks, I'll install the same patch to GCC 6 branch after
finishing of tests, ok?
Martin
Hello!
The issue here is a misaligned stack with some old(er) 32bit x86
glibcs, where dl_iterate_phdr callback gets called with misaligned
stack.
Attached patch makes phdr_callback in libbacktrace resistant to this
ABI violation.
2016-05-18 Uros Bizjak
* elf.c (phdr_callback) [__i386__]:
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 05/18/2016 01:24 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Ok.
>>
>> Richard.
>
> Thanks, I'll install the same patch to GCC 6 branch after
> finishing of tests, ok?
Ok.
Richard.
> Martin
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 06:45:49PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> As I mentioned in the last message, my previous patch had some problems that
> showed up on big endian systems, using RELOAD (one of the tests that failed
> was
> the vshuf-v32qi.c test in the testsuite). Little endian and IRA di
Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Yeah ;) I'm currently bootstrapping/testing the patch that makes it possible
> to
> write all this in match.pd.
So what was the conclusion? Improving match.pd to be able to handle more cases
like this seems like a nice thing.
Wilco
On 05/17/16 17:30, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
On 05/17/2016 02:22 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Good eyes, thanks! I thought I had to create a new insn, but I got away
with an expand. I attached the updated patch.
Cesar
gcc.sum
Tests that now fail, but worked before:
nvptx-none-run: gcc.c-tortur
Uros Bizjak writes:
> 2016-05-18 Uros Bizjak
>
> * elf.c (phdr_callback) [__i386__]: Add
> __attribute__((__force_align_arg_pointer__)).
This is OK.
Thanks.
Ian
On 13 May 2016 at 15:51, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 11:55:42AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 4 May 2016 at 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Christophe,
>> >
>> >
>> > On 02/05/16 12:50, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I've noticed a "regres
Status
==
The GCC 5 branch is currently open for regression and documentation fixes.
I plan to do a release candidate of GCC 5.4 at the end of next week
followed by a release at the beginning of June.
This is a good time to look through your assigned bugs looking for
patches you might want
> We have a good place in the middle-end to apply such rules which
> is component_uses_parent_alias_set_from - this is where I move
> the logic that is duplicated in various frontends.
>
> The Java and Ada frontends do not allow union type punning (LTO does),
> so this patch may eventually pessimi
On 18/05/16 09:17, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 17 May 2016 at 14:27, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:09:31AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
AArch64 support vector multiply by element for V2DF, V2SF, V4SF, V2SI,
V4SI, V4HI, V8HI.
All above are well supported by "*aarch64_mul3_elt"
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> Yeah ;) I'm currently bootstrapping/testing the patch that makes it
>> possible to
>> write all this in match.pd.
>
> So what was the conclusion? Improving match.pd to be able to handle more cases
> like this se
On 18/05/16 01:51, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016, Matthew Wahab wrote:
In most cases the instructions are added using non-standard pattern
names. This is to force operations on __fp16 values to be done, by
conversion, using the single-precision instructions. The exceptions are
the pre
On Wednesday 18 May 2016 11:30:43 Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 17/05/16 11:10, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> > Ping?
> >
> > *** gcc/ChangeLog ***
> >
> > 2015-11-06 Thomas Preud'homme
> >
> > * config/arm/arm-protos.h: Reindent FL_FOR_* macro definitions.
> >
> > diff --
On 18/05/16 14:45, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
On Wednesday 18 May 2016 11:30:43 Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 17/05/16 11:10, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
Ping?
*** gcc/ChangeLog ***
2015-11-06 Thomas Preud'homme
* config/arm/arm-protos.h: Reindent FL_FOR_* macro definitions.
On 05/17/2016 05:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 17/05/2016 20:15, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
simplify a bit the logic per the below.
Here's a well-formed variant that was accepted by 4.5
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 07:15:10AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 06:45:49PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > As I mentioned in the last message, my previous patch had some problems that
> > showed up on big endian systems, using RELOAD (one of the tests that failed
>
Hi,
On 18/05/2016 16:08, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 05:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 17/05/2016 20:15, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
simplify a bit the logic per the below.
Here'
On 05/17/2016 06:02 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
This bug is introduced by my commit r236181 where the inner rtx of
SUBREG haven't been checked while it should as "in_class_p" only
works with REG, and SUBREG_REG is actually not always REG. If REG_P
check failed, then we should fall back to normal code
On 05/18/2016 10:22 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 18/05/2016 16:08, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 05:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 17/05/2016 20:15, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
s
On 18/05/16 09:41, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Tejas Belagod
wrote:
We do have plans to fix pre-ACLE behavior of fp16 to conform to current ACLE
spec, but can't say when exactly.
Matthew, could you please take a look at this while you are in this area ?
Ok
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:57 PM, kugan wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>>
>> maybe instert_stmt_after will help here, I don't think you got the
>> insertion
>> logic correct, thus insert_stmt_after (mul_stmt, def_stmt) which I think
>> misses GIMPLE_NOP handling. At least
>>
>> + if (SSA_NAME_VAR (op)
On 18/05/16 15:33, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> On 18/05/16 09:41, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Tejas Belagod
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We do have plans to fix pre-ACLE behavior of fp16 to conform to current ACLE
>>> spec, but can't say when exactly.
>>
>> Matthew, could yo
On 05/17/2016 04:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this ICE during error recovery exposes a rather more general weakness:
we should never call cp_lexer_peek_nth_token (*, 2) when a previous
cp_lexer_peek_token returns CPP_EOF.
Hmm, that seems fragile, I would expect it to keep returning EOF.
But you
Hi,
On 18/05/2016 16:39, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this ICE during error recovery exposes a rather more general weakness:
we should never call cp_lexer_peek_nth_token (*, 2) when a previous
cp_lexer_peek_token returns CPP_EOF.
Hmm, that seems fragile, I
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On May 13, 2016 6:02:27 PM GMT+02:00, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
As PR69848 reported, GCC vectorizer now generates comp
On 05/18/2016 11:05 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 18/05/2016 16:39, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this ICE during error recovery exposes a rather more general weakness:
we should never call cp_lexer_peek_nth_token (*, 2) when a previous
cp_lexer_peek_token retu
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> AArch64 follows IEEE-754 but ARM (AArch32) adds restrictions like
> flush-to-zero that could affect the outcome of a calculation.
The result of a float computation on two values immediately promoted from
fp16 cannot be within the subnormal range for fl
On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 17:05 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 18/05/2016 16:39, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 05/17/2016 04:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > > this ICE during error recovery exposes a rather more general
> > > weakness:
> > > we should never call cp_lexer_peek_nth_token (*, 2)
Hi Richard,
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 5:40 PM
> To: Kumar, Venkataramanan
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Patch V2] Fix SLP PR58135.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Kumar, Venkataramana
Hi,
On 18/05/2016 17:17, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/18/2016 11:05 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 18/05/2016 16:39, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this ICE during error recovery exposes a rather more general weakness:
we should never call cp_lexer_peek_nth_token
Hi,
this issue should be easy to fix. Broken code like:
void foo ()
{
decltype (auto) a = foo;
}
triggers the gcc_assert in digest_init_r:
/* Come here only for aggregates: records, arrays, unions, complex
numbers
and vectors. */
gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Matthew Wahab wrote:
> On 18/05/16 09:41, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Tejas Belagod
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We do have plans to fix pre-ACLE behavior of fp16 to conform to current
> > > ACLE
> > > spec, but can't say when exactly.
> >
Hi,
This patch resolves PR71148 by releasing dominance info before
cleanup_cfg calls to avoid attempts to fixup invalid dominance
info.
Dominance info handling in cleanup_cfg looks weird though. It
tries to fix it but can invalidate it at the same time (PR71084).
We should probably do something
Hi,
Attached an updated patch (rebased + added .texi docs).
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote:
> The configuration file changes and misc. updates required
> by the BRIG frontend.
>
> Also, added include/hsa-interface.h which is hsa.h taken from libgomp
> and will be share
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for the comments. Updated&rebased patch attached. Hopefully I
didn't miss any diags.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> This patch has many improperly formatted diagnostic messages (e.g.
> starting with capital letters, ending with '.' or failing to use %q
Hi Joseph,
Updated diffstat below:
Makefile.def | 3 +
Makefile.in | 489 +
configure | 1 +
configure.ac | 1 +
gcc/brig/Make-lang
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 06:53:51AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 07:08:52PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > FWIW, the problem after subversion id 236136 shows up when the trunk
> > compiler
> > is built with the host compiler (4.3.4).
>
> That compiler is almost se
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Make new functions make_split_prologue_seq, make_prologue_seq, and
> make_epilogue_seq.
>
> Tested as in the previous patch; is this okay for trunk?
>
>
> Segher
>
>
> 2016-05-16 Segher Boessenkool
>
> * function.c (make_split
Hi,
when compiling with -fsanitize=address we define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__
macros, but we don't do this for -fsanitize=thread and
-fsanitize=undefined. Perhaps we should be more symmetric here and
define corresponding __SANITIZE_THREAD__ and __SANITIZE_UNDEFINED__
macros respectively?
I adde
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 08:33:53PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> when compiling with -fsanitize=address we define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__
> macros, but we don't do this for -fsanitize=thread and -fsanitize=undefined.
> Perhaps we should be more symmetric here and define corresponding
> __SANITIZE_TH
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 08:33:53PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>> when compiling with -fsanitize=address we define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__
>> macros, but we don't do this for -fsanitize=thread and -fsanitize=undefined.
>> Perhaps we should be
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when compiling with -fsanitize=address we define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__
> macros, but we don't do this for -fsanitize=thread and -fsanitize=undefined.
> Perhaps we should be more symmetric here and define corresponding
> __SANITIZE_TH
On 05/13/2016 03:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 02/16/2016 07:49 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
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 an
On 18/05/16 20:39, Yuri Gribov wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
Hi,
when compiling with -fsanitize=address we define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__
macros, but we don't do this for -fsanitize=thread and -fsanitize=undefined.
Perhaps we should be more symmetric here and defi
On 05/17/2016 06:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The following patch addresses PR71104 which shows verify-SSA ICEs
after gimplify-into-SSA. The issue is that for returns-twice calls
we gimplify register uses in the LHS before the actual call which leads to
p.0_1 = p;
_2 = vfork ();
*p.0_1 =
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:17:32AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > Make new functions make_split_prologue_seq, make_prologue_seq, and
> > make_epilogue_seq.
> >
> > Tested as in the previous patch; is this okay for trunk?
> >
> >
> > Segher
Ping...
On 07.05.2016 11:54 Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Ping..
>
> For this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg02069.html
>
> Thanks
> Bernd.
>
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:17:32AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>> > Make new functions make_split_prologue_seq, make_prologue_seq, and
>> > make_epilogue_seq.
>> >
>> > Tested
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:17:32AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool
>>> wrote:
>>> > Make new functions make_split_prologue_seq, make_p
Hi all,
The following patch regression tested on x86-64. The ICE is from an attempt to
free a bad expression after a MATCH_ERROR is returned. I have not been able to
identify an exact cause, there being numerous matchers involved attempting to
match the logical expression.
Regardless, it is an e
Unlike some of my patches, this is a fairly simple patch to add support for the
VNEGW and VNEGD instructions that were added in ISA 3.0. Note, ISA 3.0 does
not provide negation for V16QImode/V8HImode, just V4SImode/V2DImode.
I discovered that when we added ISA 2.07 support for V2DImode, we didn't
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:20:29AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> > * function.c (make_split_prologue_seq, make_prologue_seq,
> >> > make_epilogue_seq): New functions, factored out from...
> >> > (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Here.
> >>
> >> It breaks x86:
> >
> > Are yo
On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 19:59 +0300, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Thanks for the comments. Updated&rebased patch attached. Hopefully I
> didn't miss any diags.
It looks like the attachment doesn't contain the patch; on unzipping I
just see a 27 byte file reading "The BRIG frontend it
Hello!
Alpha assembler requires that matching "lda $29,0($29)
!gpdisp!NNN" always follow "ldah $29,0($26)!gpdisp!NNN".
However, when the compiler inserts trap insn, it (correctly) figures
out that $29 is unused, and removes "lda" from insn stream. Since ldah
is defined as unspec_volatile,
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
