[PATCH, Fortran] [PR libfortran/101310] Bind(c): Fix bugs in CFI_section

2021-07-17 Thread Sandra Loosemore
This patch fixes bugs I observed in tests for the CFI_section function -- it turns out both the function and test cases had bugs. :-( The bugs in CFI_section itself had to do with incorrect computation of the base address for the result descriptor, plus an ordering problem that caused it not

[PATCH v5] : Add pragma GCC target("general-regs-only")

2021-07-17 Thread H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:30 AM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:52 PM Richard Biener > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:22 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 01:23:20PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches > > > wrote: > > >

[PATCH] ix86: Enable the GPR only instructions for -mgeneral-regs-only

2021-07-17 Thread H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
For -mgeneral-regs-only, enable the GPR only instructions which are enabled implicitly by SSE ISAs unless they have been disabled explicitly. gcc/ PR target/101492 * common/config/i386/i386-common.c (ix86_handle_option): For -mgeneral-regs-only, enable the GPR only

Re: [PATCH libatomic/arm] avoid warning on constant addresses (PR 101379)

2021-07-17 Thread Andrew Stubbs
On 16/07/2021 18:42, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Of course, we may simply re-work the libgomp/GCN code -- but don't we first need to answer the question whether the current code is actually "bad"? Aren't we going to get a lot of similar reports from kernel/embedded/other low-level software

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 101453: ICE with optimize and large integer constant

2021-07-17 Thread Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 2:31 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:35:25AM -0700, apinski--- via Gcc-patches wrote: > > --- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c > > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c > > @@ -5799,7 +5799,7 @@ parse_optimize_options (tree args, bool attr_p) > > > >

Re: [PATCH] c++: Reject ordered comparison of null pointers [PR99701]

2021-07-17 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 7/16/21 6:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 05:36:13PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: When implementing DR 1512 in r11-467 I neglected to reject ordered comparison of two null pointers, like nullptr < nullptr. This patch fixes that omission.

Re: [PATCH] c++: Allow constexpr references to non-static vars [PR100976]

2021-07-17 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 7/16/21 1:44 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:53:05PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: On 7/15/21 5:14 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: The combination of DR 2481 and DR 2126 should allow us to do void f() { constexpr const int = 42; static_assert(r == 42); }

Re: [PATCH] c++: implement C++17 hardware interference size

2021-07-17 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 6:55 AM Matthias Kretz wrote: > On Saturday, 17 July 2021 15:32:42 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Jul 2021, 09:15 Matthias Kretz, wrote: > > > If somebody writes a library with `keep_apart` in the public API/ABI > then > > > you're right. > > > > Yes, it's

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 101453: ICE with optimize and large integer constant

2021-07-17 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi! On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:35:25AM -0700, apinski--- via Gcc-patches wrote: > --- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c > @@ -5799,7 +5799,7 @@ parse_optimize_options (tree args, bool attr_p) > >if (TREE_CODE (value) == INTEGER_CST) > { > - char

Re: [PATCH 0/13] v2 warning control by group and location (PR 74765)

2021-07-17 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
Hi Martin! On Fri, 2021-06-04 15:27:04 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > This is a revised patch series to add warning control by group and > location, updated based on feedback on the initial series. [...] My automated checking (in this case: Using Debian's "gcc-snapshot" package) indicates that

[PATCH] [AARCH64] Fix PR 101205: csinv does not have an zero_extend version

2021-07-17 Thread apinski--- via Gcc-patches
From: Andrew Pinski So the problem is even though there was a csneg with a zero_extend in the front, there was not one for csinv. This fixes it by extending that pattern. OK? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no regressions. gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/101205 *

[PATCH] [AARCH64] Fix PR 101205: csinv does not have an zero_extend version

2021-07-17 Thread apinski--- via Gcc-patches
From: Andrew Pinski So the problem is even though there was a csneg with a zero_extend in the front, there was not one for csinv. This fixes it by extending that pattern. OK? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no regressions. gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/101205 *

[PATCH 2/2] debug: Allow means for targets to opt out of CTF/BTF support

2021-07-17 Thread Indu Bhagat via Gcc-patches
CTF/BTF debug formats can be safely enabled for all ELF-based targets by default in GCC. CTF/BTF debug formats now adopt a similar approach as taken for DWARF debug format via the DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO. - By default, CTF/BTF formats can be enabled for all ELF-based targets. - By default,

[PATCH 1/2] debug: Add new function ctf_debuginfo_p

2021-07-17 Thread Indu Bhagat via Gcc-patches
gcc/Changelog: * flags.h (ctf_debuginfo_p): New function declaration. * opts.c (ctf_debuginfo_p): New function definition. --- gcc/flags.h | 4 gcc/opts.c | 8 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/flags.h b/gcc/flags.h index 85fd228..afedef0 100644

[PATCH 0/2] Allow means for targets to opt out of CTF/BTF

2021-07-17 Thread Indu Bhagat via Gcc-patches
Hello, Thanks for your feedback on the previous RFC version of this proposal. This patch set is a refined and tested version of the same. - Added changes to tm.texi.in and regenerated tm.texi. - Updated the dejagnu files for redundant checks on AIX platform. Bootstrapped and reg tested on

Re: [PATCH] c++: implement C++17 hardware interference size

2021-07-17 Thread Matthias Kretz
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 15:32:42 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2021, 09:15 Matthias Kretz, wrote: > > If somebody writes a library with `keep_apart` in the public API/ABI then > > you're right. > > Yes, it's fine if those constants don't affect anything across module >

Re: [PATCH] c++: implement C++17 hardware interference size

2021-07-17 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On Sat, 17 Jul 2021, 09:15 Matthias Kretz, wrote: > On Friday, 16 July 2021 21:58:36 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:26, Matthias Kretz wrote: > > > On Friday, 16 July 2021 18:54:30 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 16:33, Jason Merrill wrote:

Re: [PATCH] c++: implement C++17 hardware interference size

2021-07-17 Thread Matthias Kretz
On Friday, 16 July 2021 21:58:36 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:26, Matthias Kretz wrote: > > On Friday, 16 July 2021 18:54:30 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 16:33, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > Adjusting them based on tuning would certainly

Re: Pushing XFAILed test cases

2021-07-17 Thread Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches
On 16.07.21 20:22, Sandra Loosemore wrote: So it seems to me rather surprising to take the position that we should not be committing any new test cases that need to be XFAILed It is what I was told in no uncertain terms some years ago, which is where my current state of knowledge comes from.