On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:33:28AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Here, if cp_perform_integral_promotions saw that the TREE_TYPE of a
> bit-field reference was the same as the type it promotes to, it didn't do
> anything. But then decay_conversion saw that the bit-field reference was
> unchanged, a
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:56:58AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > As mentioned in the PR, the sqrt (x) < c optimization into x < c*c
> > sometimes breaks the boundary case, if c2=c*c is inexact then in some cases
> > we need to optimize it into x <= c*c rather than x < c*c. The original
> > bugr
As diagnosed in the PR.
* config/aarch64/lse.S (LDNM): Ensure STXR output does not
overlap the inputs.
---
libgcc/config/aarch64/lse.S | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libgcc/config/aarch64/lse.S b/libgcc/config/aarch64/lse.S
index a5f6673596
Tested on aarch64-linux (glibc) and aarch64-elf (installed newlib).
The existing configure claims to be generated by 2.69, but there
are changes wrt the autoconf distributed with Ubuntu 18. Nothing
that seems untoward though.
r~
* config/aarch64/lse-init.c: Include auto-target.h. Dis
Hi Mike,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 07:49:18PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> This patch reworks the prefixed and pc-relative memory matching functions.
This mostly looks fine, thanks! A few smaller things:
> (pcrel_external_address): Replace with new implementation using
> address_
On 9/11/19 1:12 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2019-08-08 16:22, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 8/8/19 4:18 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>>
>>> It is used by libgo, but it seems to be the last user.
>> Ah, yes, I should have remembered libgo. And it links via
>> ../../blahblah. Thanks for digging into it.
>
On 9/17/19 8:49 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> For SVE, we'd like the frontends to check calls to target-specific
> built-in functions in the same way that they already do for "normal"
> builtins. This patch adds a target hook for that and extends
> check_builtin_function_arguments accordingly.
>
On 9/12/19 7:33 AM, Jonas Pfeil wrote:
> A type confusion leads to illegal (and nonsensical) assembly on certain host
> architectures (e.g. ARM), where HOST_WIDE_INT (64 bit) and unsigned long (32
> bit) have different alignments. So this has printed an uninitialized
> register instead of the inten
This fixes build failure on trunk. Patch committed to all active branches.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
2019-09-20 John David Anglin
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_trampoline_init): Remove spurious extended
character.
Index: config/pa/pa.c
=
On 9/12/19 1:48 AM, Jonas Pfeil wrote:
> Yes, you are correct. Tested it and it works as intended.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonas
>
> --- a/gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.h
> @@ -695,7 +695,7 @@ do {
>
On 9/19/19 10:19 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> For PR91532, the dead store is trivially deleted if we place dse pass
> between ifcvt and vect. Would it be OK to add another instance of dse there ?
> Or should we add an ad-hoc "basic-block dse" sub-pass to ifcvt that
> will clean up the dea
This patch rewrites reference-type variables appearing in OpenACC
"private" clauses in a similar way to how such variables are handled in
reduction clauses. Otherwise, the mechanism used to privatize reference
variables is currently ill-suited to the worker-partitioning mechanism
used for AMD GCN,
GCC version of https://reviews.llvm.org/D67719
From 422827582d84e078df2a8e303d807c830a155ab5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kamil Rytarowski
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:02:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] 2019-09-20 Kamil Rytarowski
* cppbuiltin.c (define_builtin_macros_for_compilation_flags):
PR fortran/91426 reports that the following program
program main
10 continue
10 continue
end
yields:
label.f90:2:2:
2 | 10 continue
| 1
3 | 10 continue
| 2
Error: Duplicate statement label 10 at (1) and (2)
where the '1' and '2' annotating lines 2 and 3 in the source are
On 9/18/19 12:56 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This patch generalises some neg_const_int-based rtx simplifications
> so that they handle all CONST_SCALAR_INTs and also CONST_POLY_INT.
> This actually simplifies things a bit, since we no longer have
> to treat HOST_WIDE_INT_MIN specially.
>
> This
On 9/17/19 2:59 PM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> According to Bob Supnik (who is a very authoritative source on VAX),
>
>> Funny you should ask. The short answer is no. No VAX ever did
>> speculative or out of order execution.
>
> As such, marking VAX as not needing speculation barriers.
>
>
>
This fails at m32 because the scan-asm is looking for an absence
of "ret”. Darwin is generating the correct code for the function
but the picbase thunk has a 'ret' insn. Fixed by making the test
use -mdynamic-no-pic for m32.
tested on x86_64-darwin16, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (m32/m64)
applied to mai
On 9/20/19 11:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On September 20, 2019 5:38:38 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law
> wrote:
>> At the register allocation BOF during the Cauldron someone (I
>> forget who) raised the question of when/how do we get rid of
>> reload.
>>
>> The first step in that process is to drop su
I think the m68k-*-uclinuxoldabi* and vax-*-vms* cases need to move up to
the top of that case statement (duplicating the "not supported" error), to
keep that error even in the --enable-obsolete case.
I see tile* targets are referenced in the diff context. They were
obsoleted in GCC 8 (and hav
On September 20, 2019 5:38:38 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>At the register allocation BOF during the Cauldron someone (I forget
>who) raised the question of when/how do we get rid of reload.
>
>The first step in that process is to drop support for cc0. cc0 is a
>horribly antiquated mechanism fo
Hello,
I'm nearing the point where I think the hardware-asan patch series could
go in and would appreciate some feedback on what features need to be
implemented before it could be put into trunk.
(The RFC can be found at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg00387.html, the only
change to
I have now committed this patch also to the OG9 (openacc-gcc-9) branch.
Thanks for the reviews of the trunk patch!
Tobias
On 9/20/19 5:47 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi all,
This patch does two things:
(A) For OpenACC, only, it fixes the is-variable check. That check
missed to reject module na
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:47:59PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> (A) For OpenACC, only, it fixes the is-variable check. That check missed
> to reject module names (as noted in the PR) but as my testing showed, it
> also wrongly rejected function-result variables. (i.e. where the
> return-value v
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:47:59PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> This patch does two things:
>
> (A) For OpenACC, only, it fixes the is-variable check. That check missed to
> reject module names (as noted in the PR) but as my testing showed, it also
> wrongly rejected function-result variables. (i
Hi all,
This patch does two things:
(A) For OpenACC, only, it fixes the is-variable check. That check missed
to reject module names (as noted in the PR) but as my testing showed, it
also wrongly rejected function-result variables. (i.e. where the
return-value variable has the same name as the
On 09/17/2019 12:50 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
If an insn requires two operands to be tied, and the input operand dies
in the insn, IRA acts as though there were a copy from the input to the
output with the same execution frequency as the insn. Allocating the
same register to the input and the
At the register allocation BOF during the Cauldron someone (I forget
who) raised the question of when/how do we get rid of reload.
The first step in that process is to drop support for cc0. cc0 is a
horribly antiquated mechanism for describing how to handle condition
codes. It has numerous limit
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 14:51, Matthew Malcomson
wrote:
>
> On 19/09/19 16:14, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >
> > On 9/19/19 4:13 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 14:08, Christophe Lyon
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 17/09/2019 13:38, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> >> > > Hi Christophe,
>
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Yuliang Wang wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your comments and tips. fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg performs
the reverse transformation to this patch in certain situations:
/* Transform `a + (b ? x : y)' into `b ? (a + x) : (a + y)'.
... */
static tree
fold_binary_o
> I'd keep the target list alphabetical. Can do so when the Solaris patch
> goes in.
>
> Here's what I've successfully tested last night on both
> i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, shamelessly stolen from
> the Linux counterparts. If it is acceptable, I'd add *-*-solaris2.* to
> the
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your comments and tips. fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg performs
the reverse transformation to this patch in certain situations:
/* Transform `a + (b ? x : y)' into `b ? (a + x) : (a + y)'.
... */
static tree
fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg (location_t loc,
..
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 11:41, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:33 PM Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> assemble_real used GEN_INT to create integers directly from the
> >> longs returned by real_to_target. assemble_integer then went on
> >>
Hi Olivier,
>> On 19 Sep 2019, at 18:40, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
Given that the test cannot compile on anything but *-*-linux* and
*-*-mingw*, I'd rather restrict the test to those two (or more targets
that decide to implement the missing interface).
>
>> Works for me as well.
> [
Hi Iain,
>> On 19 Sep 2019, at 15:51, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>
>
On 18 Sep 2019, at 09:39, Pierre-Marie de Rodat
wrote:
>>>
gcc/testsuite/
* gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: New testcase.
>>>
>>> This new test fails everywhere on Darwin, which doesn’t have an
>>> imp
Plus simplification in get_initial_def_for_reduction, avoiding some
of the + 0 adjustments I've seen created.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Richard.
2019-09-20 Richard Biener
* tree-vect-loop.c (get_initial_def_for_reduction): Simplify,
avoi
On 19/09/19 16:14, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 9/19/19 4:13 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 14:08, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 17/09/2019 13:38, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> > > Hi Christophe,
>> > >
>> > > Can you explain this in more detail - it doesn't make sense
Hello Iain & Rainer,
> On 19 Sep 2019, at 18:40, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>>> Given that the test cannot compile on anything but *-*-linux* and
>>> *-*-mingw*, I'd rather restrict the test to those two (or more targets
>>> that decide to implement the missing interface).
> Works for me as well.
[
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:28 AM Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>
> On 06.09.19 12:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:11 AM Andreas Krebbel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> since this caused a critical performance regression in the OpenJ9 byte
> >> code interpreter after
> >> mig
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:09 AM Yuliang Wang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> ifcvt transforms the following conditional operation reduction pattern:
>
> if ( condition )
> a = a OP b;
> else
> a = a OP c;
>
> Into:
>
> a_1 = a OP b;
> a_2 = a OP c;
> a = condition ? a_1 : a_2;
>
> Where OP i
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:32 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:43 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:32 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:43 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:30 PM Richard Biener
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
This patch fix PR target/91635, back port to gcc-9-branch from trunk,
committed :)
From 430008a798822a0b6894308c841e77a5adc920d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kito
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:41:51 +
Subject: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix more splitters accidentally calling gen_reg_rtx.
PR target/91683
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > It shouldn't be neccessary.
> >>
> >> SVE is the counter-example :-) But the fix is simpler than the code
> >> you removed, so it's still a net win.
Hi Richard,
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > It shouldn't be neccessary.
>>
>> SVE is the counter-example :-) But the fix is simpler than the code
>> you removed, so it's still a net win.
>
> Yeah, I meant it shouldn't be necessary to swap operand
The following makes sure pattern detection also works with
"non-canonical" order of operands in reduction stmts.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, verified it
fixes the powerpc FAIL, applied.
Richard.
2019-09-20 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91821
*
This is a regression present on the mainline and 9 branch: the compiler (LRA)
generates an instruction using unaligned double FP registers. This has been a
known weakness since the switch to LRA because there is no longer an explicit
constraint for aligned double FP registers.
Bootstrapped/reg
On 06.09.19 12:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:11 AM Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> since this caused a critical performance regression in the OpenJ9 byte code
>> interpreter after
>> migrating from GCC 4.8 to GCC 7 I would like to backport this patch also to
>> GCC
This gets rid of a bogus error issued by the C compiler on a type definition
at file scope when there is a preceding external declaration in a local scope
for the same symbol (but the error is still issued if the preceding external
declaration is also at file scope).
Bootstrapped/regtested on x
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:32 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:43 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:30 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Boostrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
The following restores the for_reduction parameter.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2019-09-20 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91822
* tree-vectorizer.h (vectorizable_condition): Restore for_reduction
parameter.
* t
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:43 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:30 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Boostrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> > >
> > > OK?
> >
> > OK.
>
> Hm, something is not working correctly
On 9/19/19 7:44 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 9/19/19 2:40 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Index: gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
===
--- gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp (revision 275699)
+++ gcc/testsuite/lib/target-su
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:43 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:30 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >
> > Boostrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> >
> > OK?
>
> OK.
Hm, something is not working correctly here. For the testcase, I get:
main:
vmovq %xmm0, %xm
Hi,
ifcvt transforms the following conditional operation reduction pattern:
if ( condition )
a = a OP b;
else
a = a OP c;
Into:
a_1 = a OP b;
a_2 = a OP c;
a = condition ? a_1 : a_2;
Where OP is one of { plus minus mult min max and ior eor }.
This patch further optimizes the
On 9/19/19 4:57 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:01:59 +0200
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:22 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> After I spent quite some time with PR91758, I would like
>>> to see a debug counter in store merging for t
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> On 9/19/19 1:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:45:54AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> The following fixes an old vectorizer issue with realignment support
> >> (thus only powerpc is affected) and BB vectoriz
56 matches
Mail list logo
