Re: [PATCH] Fix RTL sharing bug in loop-doloop.c (PR target/79080)

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 08:23:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > I think it is not as bad. I think the problem is only when you > > force_operand 1) after expansion 2) with complicated expression. > > I think if you force_operand just with something that appears in some insn, > > it is very

Re: [PATCH] PR79079 Fix __builtin_mul_overflow code gen for !TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION target

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 02:42:08PM +0800, Kito Cheng wrote: > 2017-01-16 Kito Cheng > Kuan-Lin Chen > > PR target/PR79079 > * gcc/internal-fn.c (expand_mul_overflow): Use convert_modes instead > of >

Re: [PATCH] Fix RTL sharing bug in loop-doloop.c (PR target/79080)

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 09:16:11PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > The force_operand on complex count expression in doloop_modify can invoke > > > various expander routines that are assuming there is rtl unsharing after > > > them (which is the case for

[PATCH] PR79079 Fix __builtin_mul_overflow code gen for !TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION target

expand function on __builtin_mul_overflow is missing gen a truncdisi2 after muldi3 since it's just call gen_lowpart and it's not consider TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION == false, This patch has been run gcc testsuite for mips64, x86-64 and riscv64/riscv32, fix mips64 and riscv64 for

Re: PR79066, non-PIC code generated for powerpc glibc with -fpic

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 09:19:52AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 12:08:39AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > > Have you checked if/what this changes for some bigger code? > > > > Well, the bootstrap was all langs (minus ada due to not having ada > > installed) and ppc32

Re: [PATCH v5] add -fprolog-pad=N,M option

On 01/13/2017 05:19 AM, Torsten Duwe wrote: Changes since v4: hopefully addressed all of Sandra's requests and suggestions concerning the documentation snippets, thanks for the feedback. If it still isn't clear, feel free to rephrase -- I'm a programmer, not a technical writer. Thanks, this

Re: [driver, doc] Support escaping special characters in specs

On 01/13/2017 05:59 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi @@ -26391,6 +26391,13 @@ be as many clauses as you need. This ma @end table +The switch matching text @code{S} in a %@{@code{S}@},

Re: libgo patch committed: Update to Go1.8rc1

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > In file included from ../../../libgo/runtime/runtime.h:113:0, > from ../../../libgo/runtime/go-libmain.c:15: > ./runtime.inc:650:8: error: redefinition of 'struct siginfo' > struct siginfo { >

Re: libgo patch committed: Update to Go1.8rc1

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Andreas Schwab writes: > > Same on Solaris. However, before I even get there, I hit > > make[4]: *** No rule to make target 'golang_org/x/net/lif/lif.lo', needed by > 'libgo.la'. Stop.

Re: [PATCH] Fix RTL sharing bug in loop-doloop.c (PR target/79080)

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 09:16:11PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > The force_operand on complex count expression in doloop_modify can invoke > > various expander routines that are assuming there is rtl unsharing after > > them (which is the case for expansion). When later optimizations invoke > > the

[PATCH, i386] Avoid call to recog in ix86_legitimate_combined_insn

Hello! Attached patch removes now unneeded call to recog in ix86_legitimate_combined_insn. Thanks Alan for his guidance! 2017-01-15 Uros Bizjak * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_legitimate_combined_insn): Do not call recog here. Assert that INSN_CODE (insn) is

Re: libgo patch committed: Update to Go1.8rc1

Andreas Schwab writes: > In file included from ../../../libgo/runtime/runtime.h:113:0, > from ../../../libgo/runtime/go-libmain.c:15: > ./runtime.inc:650:8: error: redefinition of 'struct siginfo' > struct siginfo { > ^~~ > In file included

Re: [v3 PATCH] PR libstdc++/78389

On 15 January 2017 at 19:22, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Hmm, and yeah, your test uses a different throw-after number, so I > should change the tests to do the same. :) In other words, like in the attached patch. diff --git

Re: [v3 PATCH] PR libstdc++/78389

On 15 January 2017 at 19:07, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 15 January 2017 at 19:01, Ville Voutilainen > wrote: >> On 15 January 2017 at 18:42, Tim Song wrote: >>> On rereading the patch today, the size

Re: [v3 PATCH] PR libstdc++/78389

On 15 January 2017 at 19:01, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 15 January 2017 at 18:42, Tim Song wrote: >> On rereading the patch today, the size calculation for merge() appears >> to be backwards. [__first2, __last2) consists of the nodes not >>

Re: [v3 PATCH] PR libstdc++/78389

On 15 January 2017 at 18:42, Tim Song wrote: > On rereading the patch today, the size calculation for merge() appears > to be backwards. [__first2, __last2) consists of the nodes not > transferred into *this, so the new size of __x should be __dist while > this->size()

Re: [v3 PATCH] PR libstdc++/78389

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Update patch with splices for __carry added. Hopefully this resolves > the remaining concerns that we had. On rereading the patch today, the size calculation for merge() appears to be backwards. [__first2,

New Swedish PO file for 'gcc' (version 7.1-b20170101)

Hello, gentle maintainer. This is a message from the Translation Project robot. A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at: http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po (This file, 'gcc-7.1-b20170101.sv.po',

Re: libgo patch committed: Update to Go1.8rc1

In file included from ../../../libgo/runtime/runtime.h:113:0, from ../../../libgo/runtime/go-libmain.c:15: ./runtime.inc:650:8: error: redefinition of 'struct siginfo' struct siginfo { ^~~ In file included from /usr/include/signal.h:79:0, from

[PATCH][PR tree-optimization/79090] Fix two minor DSE bugs

At one time I know I had the max_size == size test in valid_ao_ref_for_dse. But it got lost at some point. This is what caused the Ada failure. Technically it'd be OK for the potentially dead store to have a variable size as long as the later stores covered the entire range of the