Re: [PATCH] libgcc: m68k: avoid TEXTRELs in shared library (PR 86224)

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 08:47:33PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Jul 28 2018, sly...@inbox.ru wrote: > > > From: Sergei Trofimovich > > > > Cc: Ian Lance Taylor > > Cc: Jeff Law > > Cc: Andreas Schwab > > Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich > > --- > > libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S | 19 +++

[wwwdocs, committed] Update Nios II info

When I was looking at what needed to be done to the web page information for the new C-SKY port, I noticed that the Nios II had some problems too; there was no link to the processor documentation, and the entry in the backend table was obsolete (the port now uses LRA, and there is simulator sup

[PATCH v2] libgcc: m68k: avoid TEXTRELs in shared library (PR 86224)

From: Sergei Trofimovich Cc: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Jeff Law Cc: Andreas Schwab Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich --- libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S b/libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S index 325a7c17d9b..d5240d4aa55 1

Re: [PATCH] libgcc: m68k: avoid TEXTRELs in shared library (PR 86224)

On Jul 28 2018, sly...@inbox.ru wrote: > From: Sergei Trofimovich > > Cc: Ian Lance Taylor > Cc: Jeff Law > Cc: Andreas Schwab > Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich > --- > libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S | 19 ++- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR80477 - [OOP] Polymorphic function result generates memory leak

Hi! > great that you managed to solve this one! The patch looks very good to > me, but I'm afraid two details may be missing: > > 1) If the type has allocatable components, those need to be freed first. > … PR86481? Cheers Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR80477 - [OOP] Polymorphic function result generates memory leak

Hi Paul, 2018-07-28 9:32 GMT+02:00 Paul Richard Thomas : > Several attempts, including mine, were made to fix this bug since it > was posted. They were all attacking the wrong place. Instead of > providing the free of the class _data as part of the call to > 'add_a_type' it should be included in t

[PATCH] libgcc: m68k: avoid TEXTRELs in shared library (PR 86224)

From: Sergei Trofimovich Cc: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Jeff Law Cc: Andreas Schwab Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich --- libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S | 19 ++- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S b/libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.

Re: [PATCH 3/5] C++: clean up cp_printer

OK. On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 8:02 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > This makes it easier to compare cp_printer with gcc_cxxdiag_char_table > in c-format.c. > > No functional change intended. > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > * error.c (cp_printer): In the leading comment, move "%H" and "I" > into a

[PATCH v2 08/10] testsuite: Mark that PRU has one-cycle jumps

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c: XFAIL on pru. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-33.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-34.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-35.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-36.c: Ditto.

[PATCH v2 02/10] Initial TI PRU libgcc port

The floating point support has been borrowed from C6X libgcc port to help with TI PRU toolchain ABI compatibility. libgcc/ChangeLog: 2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov * config.host: Add PRU target. * config/pru/asri.c: New file. * config/pru/eqd.c: New file. * config

[PATCH v2 10/10] testsuite: Mark testsuite that PRU has different calling convention

For variadic functions, the last named and all anonymous arguments are passed on stack. Regular functions pass arguments in registers. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov * gcc.dg/builtin-apply2.c: Skip for PRU. * gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/builtin-apply-2.c: D

[PATCH v2 09/10] testsuite: Mark that PRU uses all function pointer bits

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov * g++.old-deja/g++.abi/ptrmem.C: Add PRU to list. Signed-off-by: Dimitar Dimitrov --- gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.abi/ptrmem.C | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.a

[PATCH v2 06/10] testsuite: Remove PRU from test cases requiring hosted environment

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov * gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c: Define DO_TEST to 0 for PRU. * gcc.dg/20020312-2.c: No PIC register for PRU. Signed-off-by: Dimitar Dimitrov --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c | 3 +++ gcc/testsuite

[PATCH v2 03/10] testsuite: Add PRU tests

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov * gcc.target/pru/abi-arg-struct.c: New test. * gcc.target/pru/ashiftrt.c: New test. * gcc.target/pru/builtins-1.c: New test. * gcc.target/pru/builtins-error.c: New test. * gcc.target/pru/clearbit.c: Ne

[PATCH v2 07/10] testsuite: Define PRU stack usage

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov * gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c: Define PRU stack usage. Signed-off-by: Dimitar Dimitrov --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c b/gcc/testsuite

[PATCH v2 00/10] New backend for the TI PRU processor

Hi, This patch series adds support for the TI PRU I/O processor to GCC. All comments from v1 [1] should be addressed in this second patch revision. Test results can be downloaded from here: http://dinux.eu/gnupru/testresults/20180727-e6562f4b/ I'm working to bringup a testbot sending results t

[PATCH v2 05/10] testsuite: Add check for unsupported TI ABI PRU features to testsuite

Not all C language features are supported when -mabi=ti option is used for PRU target. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov * lib/gcc-dg.exp: Filter unsupported features in PRU's TI ABI mode. * lib/target-utils.exp: Ditto. * lib/target-supports.exp (che

[PATCH v2 04/10] testsuite: Add check for overflowed IMEM region to testsuite

PRU architecture supports maximum 256k program memory (IMEM). Some GCC test cases manage to produce executables bigger than that. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2018-07-27 Dimitar Dimitrov * lib/gcc-dg.exp: Bail on region overflow for tiny targets. * lib/target-utils.exp: Ditto.

[PATCH v2] libitm: sh: avoid absolute relocation in shared library (PR 86712)

From: Sergei Trofimovich Cc: Andreas Schwab Cc: Torvald Riegel Cc: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Oleg Endo Cc: Kaz Kojima Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich --- libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S b/libitm/config/sh/s

Re: [PATCH] libitm: sh: avoid absolute relocation in shared library (PR 86712)

On Jul 28 2018, "slyfox.inbox.ru via gcc-patches" wrote: > diff --git a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S b/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S > index 043f36749be..80a810d8360 100644 > --- a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S > +++ b/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ _ITM_beginTransaction: > #else > cfi_def_cf

[PATCH] libitm: sh: avoid absolute relocation in shared library (PR 86712)

From: Sergei Trofimovich Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich --- libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S b/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S index 043f36749be..80a810d8360 100644 --- a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S +++ b/libitm/confi

Re: [PATCH 10/11] x86 - add speculation_barrier pattern

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > This patch adds a speculation barrier for x86, based on my > understanding of the required mitigation for that CPU, which is to use > an lfence instruction. > > This patch needs some review by an x86 expert and if adjustments are > need

Re: [patch] improve internals documentation for nested function descriptors

> This is precisely what I found so confusing about the original text. To > me, "custom" implies that the back end is *customized* to have its own > descriptor implementation to conform to target-specific ABI standards, > not that it uses a generic implementation in common code. To me, "custom" s

[Patch, fortran] PR80477 - [OOP] Polymorphic function result generates memory leak

Several attempts, including mine, were made to fix this bug since it was posted. They were all attacking the wrong place. Instead of providing the free of the class _data as part of the call to 'add_a_type' it should be included in the post block of the argument processing in the call to 'assign_a_

Re: [PATCH] Fix DJGPP LTO with debug

On 07/27/2018 11:51 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Richard Biener writes: DJ, did you ever run the testsuite with a configuration that has LTO enabled? I don't see any djgpp results posted to gcc-testresults. Quick googling doesn't yield anything useful with regarding on how to do actual testing with a