libstdc++: [_Hashtable] Do not reuse untrusted cached hash code
On merge reuse merged node cached hash code only if we are on the same
type of
hash and this hash is stateless. Usage of function pointers or
std::function as
hash functor will prevent this optimization.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
After r14-3110-g7fb65f10285, the canonical form for
`a ? ~b : b` changed to be `-(a) ^ b` that means
for aarch64 we need to add a few new insn patterns
to be able to catch this and change it to be
what is the canonical form for the aarch64 backend.
A secondary pattern was needed to support a
This patch is a prelimianry patch to add the full 1,024 bit dense math register
(DMRs) for -mcpu=future. The MMA 512-bit accumulators map onto the top of the
DMR register.
This patch only adds the new 1,024 bit register support. It does not add
support for any instructions that need 1,024 bit
This patch changes the assembler instruction names for MMA instructions from
the original name used in power10 to the new name when used with the dense math
system. I.e. xvf64gerpp becomes dmxvf64gerpp. The assembler will emit the
same bits for either spelling.
The patches have been tested on
This patch changes the MMA instructions to use either FPR registers
(-mcpu=power10) or DMRs (-mcpu=future). In this patch, the existing MMA
instruction names are used.
A macro (__PPC_DMR__) is defined if the MMA instructions use the DMRs.
The patches have been tested on both little and big
The MMA subsystem added the notion of accumulator registers as an optional
feature of ISA 3.1 (power10). In ISA 3.1, these accumulators overlapped with
the traditional floating point registers 0..31, but logically the accumulator
registers were separate from the FPR registers. In ISA 3.1, it was
This patch re-enables generating load and store vector pair instructions when
doing certain memory copy operations when -mcpu=future is used.
During power10 development, it was determined that using store vector pair
instructions were problematical in a few cases, so we disabled generating load
This patch implements support for a potential future PowerPC cpu. Features
added with -mcpu=future, may or may not be added to new PowerPC processors.
This patch adds support for the -mcpu=future option. If you use -mcpu=future,
the macro __ARCH_PWR_FUTURE__ is defined, and the assembler
This patch is very preliminary support for a potential new feature to the
PowerPC that extends the current power10 MMA architecture. This feature may or
may not be present in any specific future PowerPC processor.
In the current MMA subsystem for Power10, there are 8 512-bit accumulator
I had a thinko in r14-1600-ge60593f3881c72a96a3fa4844d73e8a2cd14f670
where we would remove the `& CST` part if we ended up not calling
expand_single_bit_test.
This fixes the problem by introducing a new variable that will be used
for calling expand_single_bit_test.
As afar as I know this can only
Hello-
The PR points out that my fix for PR53431 was incomplete and did not handle
-Wunknown-pragmas. This is a one-line fix to correct that, is it OK for
trunk and for GCC 13 backport please? bootstrap + regtest all languages on
x86-64 Linux. Thanks!
-Lewis
-- >8 --
As noted on the PR, commit
Victor Do Nascimento writes:
> Add a build-time test to check whether system register data, as
> imported from `aarch64-sys-reg.def' has any duplicate entries.
>
> Duplicate entries are defined as any two SYSREG entries in the .def
> file which share the same encoding values (as specified by its
Victor Do Nascimento writes:
> In implementing the ACLE read/write system register builtins it was
> observed that leaving argument type checking to be done at expand-time
> meant that poorly-formed function calls were being "fixed" by certain
> optimization passes, meaning bad code wasn't being
> On Oct 5, 2023, at 4:08 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-08-25 11:24, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> This is the 3rd version of the patch, per our discussion based on the
>> review comments for the 1st and 2nd version, the major changes in this
>> version are:
>
> Hi Qing,
>
> I hope the
Victor Do Nascimento writes:
> Motivated by the need to print system register names in output
> assembly, this patch adds the required logic to
> `aarch64_print_operand' to accept rtxs of type CONST_STRING and
> process these accordingly.
>
> Consequently, an rtx such as:
>
> (set (reg/i:DI 0
Victor Do Nascimento writes:
> This patch defines the structure of a new .def file used for
> representing the aarch64 system registers, what information it should
> hold and the basic framework in GCC to process this file.
>
> Entries in the aarch64-system-regs.def file should be as follows:
>
>
May I please ping this one, and/or, is it something straightforward
enough I can just commit it as obvious? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/631814.html
-Lewis
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:23 PM Lewis Hyatt wrote:
>
> Hello-
>
>
Hi, Sid,
Thanks a lot for the detailed comments.
See my responds embedded below.
Qing
> On Oct 5, 2023, at 4:01 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2023-08-25 11:24, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Use the counted_by atribute info in builtin object size to compute the
>> subobject size for
Victor Do Nascimento writes:
> Implement the aarch64 intrinsics for reading and writing system
> registers with the following signatures:
>
> uint32_t __arm_rsr(const char *special_register);
> uint64_t __arm_rsr64(const char *special_register);
> void* __arm_rsrp(const char
> Could you by the way add this mention this PR:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111791
> Add the test of this PR ?
Commented in that PR. This patch does not help there.
Regards
Robin
Marek,
Sorry for the late comment (I was just back from a long vacation immediate
after Cauldron).
One question:
Is the option “-fhandened” for production build or for development build?
If it’s for development build, then adding -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern is
reasonable since the
> On Oct 6, 2023, at 4:01 PM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Freitag, dem 06.10.2023 um 06:50 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar:
>> On 2023-10-06 01:11, Martin Uecker wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag, dem 05.10.2023 um 15:35 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 04:08:52PM -0400, Siddhesh
Generally looks really good. Some comments below.
Victor Do Nascimento writes:
> Given the implementation of a mechanism of encoding system registers
> into GCC, this patch provides the mechanism of validating their use by
> the compiler. In particular, this involves:
>
> 1. Ensuring a
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 23:22, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 02:40, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
> >> > index 4f8561509ff..55a6a68c16c 100644
> >> >
Alex Coplan writes:
> This patch generalises the TFmode load/store pair patterns to TImode and
> TDmode. This brings them in line with the DXmode patterns, and uses the
> same technique with separate mode iterators (TX and TX2) to allow for
> distinct modes in each arm of the load/store pair.
>
Alex Coplan writes:
> The test is trying to check that we don't use q-register stores with
> -mstrict-align, so actually check specifically for that.
>
> This is a prerequisite to avoid regressing:
>
> scan-assembler-not "add\tx0, x0, :"
>
> with the upcoming ldp fusion pass, as we change where
On 10/18/23 13:28, waffl3x wrote:
I will try to get something done today, but I was struggling with
writing some of the tests, there's also a lot more of them now. I also
wrote a bunch of musings in comments that I would like feedback on.
My most concrete question is, how exactly should I be
Alex Coplan writes:
> With the new ldp/stp pass enabled, there is a change in the codegen for
> this test as follows:
>
> add x8, sp, 16
> ptrue p3.h, mul3
> str p3, [x8]
> - str x8, [sp, 8]
> - str x9, [sp]
> + stp x9, x8, [sp]
>
Alex Coplan writes:
> The test is looking for individual stores which are able to be merged
> into stp instructions. The test currently passes -fno-schedule-fusion
> -fno-peephole2, presumably to prevent these stores from being turned
> into stps, but this is no longer sufficient with the new
Alex Coplan writes:
> Currently, rtl_ssa::change_insns requires all new uses and defs to be
> specified explicitly. This turns out to be rather inconvenient for
> forming load pairs in the new aarch64 load pair pass, as the pass has to
> determine which mem def the final load pair consumes, and
Alex Coplan writes:
> This is needed by the upcoming aarch64 load pair pass, as it can
> re-order stores (when alias analysis determines this is safe) and thus
> change which mem def a given use consumes (in the RTL-SSA view, there is
> no alias disambiguation of memory).
>
>
Alex Coplan writes:
> Add a helper routine to access-utils.h which removes the memory access
> from an access_array, if it has one.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested as a series on aarch64-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * rtl-ssa/access-utils.h (drop_memory_access): New.
> ---
>
Alex Coplan writes:
> In the case that !insn->is_debug_insn () && next->is_debug_insn (), this
> function was missing an update of the prev pointer on the first nondebug
> insn following the sequence of debug insns starting at next.
>
> This can lead to corruption of the insn chain, in that we
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 02:40, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
>> > index 4f8561509ff..55a6a68c16c 100644
>> > --- a/gcc/fold-const.cc
>> > +++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc
>> > @@ -10684,9
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 05:28:10PM +, waffl3x wrote:
> I've seen plenty of these G_ or _ macros on strings around like in
> grokfndecl for these errors.
>
> G_("static member function %qD cannot have cv-qualifier")
> G_("non-member function %qD cannot have cv-qualifier")
>
> G_("static
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> Hi Uros,
> Thanks for the speedy review.
>
> > From: Uros Bizjak
> > Sent: 17 October 2023 17:38
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:08 PM Roger Sayle
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This patch is the backend piece of a solution to PRs 101955
> > I will try to get something done today, but I was struggling with
> > writing some of the tests, there's also a lot more of them now. I also
> > wrote a bunch of musings in comments that I would like feedback on.
> >
> > My most concrete question is, how exactly should I be testing a
> >
This patch slightly improves the embench-iot benchmark score for
PRU code size. There is also small improvement in a few real-world
firmware programs.
Embench-iot size
--
Benchmark before afterdelta
-
Hi Luhua,
Here's the excerpts from the debug log. I think the full log files are
too large to send over email.
rv32_gcv avl_single-32.c:
Executing on host:
/scratch/tc-testing/tc-oct-17-vsetvli-refactor/build/build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/xgcc
This implements the worker function for double multiplication
for devices without MUL instruction.
Johann
--
LibF7: Implement mul_mant for devices without MUL instruction.
libgcc/config/avr/libf7/
* libf7-asm.sx (mul_mant): Implement for devices without MUL.
* asm-defs.h
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
> trunk?
Note that this doesn't fix the other testcase in the PR, which doesn't use any
lambdas and which ICEs in the same way:
export module pr105322;
auto f() {
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk?
-- >8 --
For a local variable initialized by a lambda:
auto f = []{};
The corresponding BLOCK_VARS contains the variable declaration first,
followed by the closure type declaration, consistent with the
Hi Tomas, Tobias and Tom,
Thanks for asking. Interestingly, I've a patch (attached) from last year that
tackled some of the issues here. The surface problem is that nvptx's march
and misa are related in complicated ways. Specifying an arch defines the
range of valid isa's, and specifying an
This is a partial patch to make the mangling of function version names
for target_clones match those generated using the target or
target_version attributes. It modifies the name of function versions,
but does not yet rename the resolved symbol, resulting in a duplicate
symbol name (and an error
This adds initial support for function multiversion on aarch64 using the
target_version and target_clones attributes. This mostly follows the
Beta specification in the ACLE [1], with a few diffences that remain to
be fixed:
- Symbol mangling for target_clones differs from that for target_version
This patch adds support for the "target_version" attribute to the middle
end and the C++ frontend, which will be used to implement function
multiversioning in the aarch64 backend.
Note that C++ is currently the only frontend which supports
multiversioning using the "target" attribute, whereas the
This series adds support for function multiversioning on aarch64. There are a
few minor issues in patch 2/3, that I intend to fix in future versions or
follow-up patches. I also have some open questions about the correctness of
existing function multiversioning implementations [1], that could
[Sorry, I forgot to respond to this]
On 2023-10-06 16:01, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Freitag, dem 06.10.2023 um 06:50 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar:
On 2023-10-06 01:11, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Donnerstag, dem 05.10.2023 um 15:35 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 04:08:52PM
> On Oct 18, 2023, at 11:18 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-10-18 10:51, Qing Zhao wrote:
> + member FIELD_DECL is a valid field of the containing structure's
> fieldlist,
> + FIELDLIST, Report error and remove this attribute when it's not. */
> +static void
Pushed as obvious.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/aarch64/aarch64.cc (aarch64_test_fractional_cost):
Test <= instead of testing < twice.
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
index
On 2023-10-18 10:51, Qing Zhao wrote:
+ member FIELD_DECL is a valid field of the containing structure's fieldlist,
+ FIELDLIST, Report error and remove this attribute when it's not. */
+static void
+verify_counted_by_attribute (tree fieldlist, tree field_decl)
+{
+ tree attr_counted_by
> Am 18.10.2023 um 16:19 schrieb Robin Dapp :
>
> Hi,
>
> even though there was no full conclusion yet I took the liberty of
> just posting this as a patch in case of further discussion.
>
> In PR/111794 we miss a vectorization because on riscv type precision and
> mode precision differ for
Given the implementation of a mechanism of encoding system registers
into GCC, this patch provides the mechanism of validating their use by
the compiler. In particular, this involves:
1. Ensuring a supplied string corresponds to a known system
register name. System registers can be
In implementing the ACLE read/write system register builtins it was
observed that leaving argument type checking to be done at expand-time
meant that poorly-formed function calls were being "fixed" by certain
optimization passes, meaning bad code wasn't being properly picked up
in checking.
This patch defines the structure of a new .def file used for
representing the aarch64 system registers, what information it should
hold and the basic framework in GCC to process this file.
Entries in the aarch64-system-regs.def file should be as follows:
SYSREG (NAME, CPENC (sn,op1,cn,cm,op2),
Add a build-time test to check whether system register data, as
imported from `aarch64-sys-reg.def' has any duplicate entries.
Duplicate entries are defined as any two SYSREG entries in the .def
file which share the same encoding values (as specified by its `CPENC'
field) and where the
This patch adds the `aarch64-sys-regs.def' file, originally written
for Binutils, to GCC. In so doing, it provides GCC with the necessary
information for teaching the compiler about system registers known to
the assembler and how these can be used.
By aligning the representation of data common to
Motivated by the need to print system register names in output
assembly, this patch adds the required logic to
`aarch64_print_operand' to accept rtxs of type CONST_STRING and
process these accordingly.
Consequently, an rtx such as:
(set (reg/i:DI 0 x0)
(unspec:DI [(const_string
This revision of the patch series addresses the following key pieces
of upstream feedback:
* `aarch64-sys-regs.def', being identical in content to the file with
the same name in Binutils, now retains the copyright header from
Binutils.
* We migrate away from the binary search handling of
Implement the aarch64 intrinsics for reading and writing system
registers with the following signatures:
uint32_t __arm_rsr(const char *special_register);
uint64_t __arm_rsr64(const char *special_register);
void* __arm_rsrp(const char *special_register);
float
>>> + member FIELD_DECL is a valid field of the containing structure's
>>> fieldlist,
>>> + FIELDLIST, Report error and remove this attribute when it's not. */
>>> +static void
>>> +verify_counted_by_attribute (tree fieldlist, tree field_decl)
>>> +{
>>> + tree attr_counted_by =
[Resending from correct email.]
Hi, Surya
Thanks for working on this issue and creating a patch.
It helps if you explicitly send patches to Segher and me, and copy
gcc-patches.
+/* Return true if insn is a non-permuting load/store. */
+static bool
+non_permuting_mem_insn (swap_web_entry
Hi, Surya
Thanks for working on this issue and creating a patch.
It helps if you explicitly send patches to Segher and me, and copy gcc-patches.
+/* Return true if insn is a non-permuting load/store. */
+static bool
+non_permuting_mem_insn (swap_web_entry *insn_entry, unsigned int i)
+{
+
Hi, Sid,
Thanks a lot for your time and effort to review this patch set!
And sorry for my late reply due to a long vacation immediately after Cauldron,
just came back this Monday..
See my reply embedded below:
> On Oct 5, 2023, at 2:51 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-08-25 11:24,
This patch moves the call to TARGET_SIMD_CLONE_ADJUST until after the
arguments and return types have been transformed into vector types. It
also constructs the adjuments and retval modifications after this call,
allowing targets to alter the types of the arguments and return of the
clone
Rebased, no major changes, still needs review.
On 30/08/2023 10:19, Andre Vieira (lists) via Gcc-patches wrote:
This patch finalizes adding support for the generation of SVE simd
clones when no simdlen is provided, following the ABI rules where the
widest data type determines the minimum
Rebased on top of trunk, minor change to check if loop_vinfo since we
now do some slp vectorization for simd_clones.
I assume the previous OK still holds.
On 30/08/2023 13:54, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
When analyzing a loop and choosing a
Refactor simd clone handling code ahead of support for poly simdlen.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* omp-simd-clone.cc (simd_clone_subparts): Remove.
(simd_clone_init_simd_arrays): Replace simd_clone_supbarts with
TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS.
(ipa_simd_modify_function_body):
Rebased, needs review.
On 30/08/2023 10:13, Andre Vieira (lists) via Gcc-patches wrote:
This patch enables the compiler to use inbranch simdclones when
generating masked loops in autovectorization.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* omp-simd-clone.cc (simd_clone_adjust_argument_types): Make function
Made it a local function and changed prototype according to comments.
Is this OK?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-vect-data-refs.cc (vect_get_smallest_scalar_type): Special
case
simd clone calls and only use types that are mapped to vectors.
(simd_clone_call_p): New
Posting the changed patch for completion, already reviewed.
On 30/08/2023 13:32, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Teach parloops how to handle a poly nit and bound e ahead of the changes to
enable non-constant simdlen.
Can you use poly_int_tree_p to
Just posting a rebase for completion.
On 30/08/2023 13:31, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
SVE simd clones require to be compiled with a SVE target enabled or the
argument types will not be created properly. To achieve this we need to copy
Hi,
I noticed I had missed one of the preparatory patches at the start of
this series (first one) added now, also removed the 'vect: Add
vector_mode paramater to simd_clone_usable' since after review we no
longer deemed it necessary. And replaced the old vect: Add
Many thanks to Tobias Burnus for pointing out the mistake/typo in the PR
number.
This fix is for PR 110551, not PR 110511. I'll update the ChangeLog and
filename
of the new testcase, if approved.
Sorry for any inconvenience/confusion.
Cheers,
Roger
--
> -Original Message-
> From:
Hi,
even though there was no full conclusion yet I took the liberty of
just posting this as a patch in case of further discussion.
In PR/111794 we miss a vectorization because on riscv type precision and
mode precision differ for mask types. We can still vectorize when
allowing assignments with
On 10/18/23 07:46, waffl3x wrote:
Any progress on this, or do I need to coax the process along? :)
Yeah, I've been working on it since the copyright assignment process
has finished, originally I was going to note that on my next update
which I had hoped to finish today or tomorrow. Well, in
Could you by the way add this mention this PR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111791
Add the test of this PR ?
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-10-18 21:51
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; gcc-patches; palmer; kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw
CC: rdapp.gcc
On 10/18/23 09:37, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vlad, is it OK if I backport the patch below to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528 ? Jakub has
given a conditional OK on irc.
Ok. It should be safe. I don't expect any issues because of this.
I didn't push this yet because it would have introduced an UNRESOLVED that
my summary script didn't catch. Normally I go with just contrib/test_summary
but that only filters out FAIL and XPASS. I should really be using
compare_testsuite_log.py from riscv-gnu-toolchain/scripts.
It was caused by
Vlad, is it OK if I backport the patch below to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528 ? Jakub has
given a conditional OK on irc.
Thanks,
Richard
Richard Sandiford writes:
> While backporting another patch to an earlier release, I hit a
> situation in which
Hi, this patch fix V4 issue:
Previously as Richard S commented:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/633178.html
slp_op and mask_vectype are only initialised when mask_index >= 0.
Shouldn't this code be under mask_index >= 0 too?
Also, when do we encounter mismatched
This patch fixes this following FAILs in RISC-V regression:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-gather-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump vect
"Loop contains only SLP stmts"
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-gather-1.c scan-tree-dump vect "Loop contains only SLP
stmts"
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-gather-3.c -flto
LGTM popcount patch.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 01:33:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Making it guaranteed that it has at least one argument say through
> template poly_int(const U &, const T &...) {}
> fixes it for 4.8/4.9 as well.
So, perhaps (but so far totally untested, the other bootstrap is still
running):
Thanks Richard, let's wait for a while incase there are comments from others
due to not familiar with these parts.
Pan
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 2:34 PM
To: Li, Pan2
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; Wang, Yanzhang
;
> Any progress on this, or do I need to coax the process along? :)
Yeah, I've been working on it since the copyright assignment process
has finished, originally I was going to note that on my next update
which I had hoped to finish today or tomorrow. Well, in truth I was
hoping to send one the
> I saw you didn't extend VI -> V_VLSI. I guess will failed SLP on popcount.
Added VLS modes and your test in v2.
Testsuite looks unchanged on my side (vect, dg, rvv).
Regards
Robin
Subject: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Add popcount fallback expander.
I didn't manage to get back to the generic
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:23:49AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/cse.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/cse.cc
> > @@ -4951,8 +4951,14 @@ cse_insn (rtx_insn *insn)
> > && is_a (mode, _mode)
> > && (extend_op = load_extend_op (int_mode)) != UNKNOWN)
> > {
> > +#if
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56:01PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 18.10.23 11:36, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:12:44AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > +FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/allocate-13.f90 -O (internal compiler
> > > error: tree code 'statement_list' is not
On 18.10.23 11:36, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:12:44AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
+FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/allocate-13.f90 -O (internal compiler error:
tree code 'statement_list' is not supported in LTO streams)
Any references to GENERIC code in clauses etc.
We can test codecvt::length() with the same data that we test
codecvt::in(). For each call of in() we add another call to length().
Some additional small cosmentic changes are applied.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* testsuite/22_locale/codecvt/codecvt_unicode.h: Test length()
---
More details of VSETVL bug:
Loop:
10ddc: 9ed030d7vmv1r.v v1,v13
10de0: b21040d7vncvt.x.x.w v1,v1
10de4: 5e0785d7vmv.v.v v11,v15
10de8: b700a5d7vmacc.vvv11,v1,v16
10dec:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, liuhongt wrote:
> Also give up vectorization when niters_skip is negative which will be
> used for fully masked loop.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu{-m32,}.
> Ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> PR tree-optimization/111820
> PR
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> GCC ICEs on the first testcase. Successful match_uaddc_usubc ends up with
> some dead stmts which DCE will remove (hopefully) later all.
> The ICE is because one of the dead stmts refers to a freed SSA_NAME.
> The code already gsi_removes a
On Wed, 2023-10-18 at 10:52 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 23:51, Dimitrij Mijoski wrote:
> >
> > We can test codecvt::length() with the same data that we test
> > codecvt::in(). For each call of in() we add another call to length().
> > Some additional small cosmentic
Forget about this patch.
Commit log code example is wrong, fixed it in V2：
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/633420.html
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: 2023-10-18 18:21
To: gcc-patches
CC: kito.cheng; kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw; rdapp.gcc;
Confirm dynamic LMUL algorithm works well for choosing LMUL = 4 for the PR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111848
But it generate horrible register spillings.
The root cause is that we didn't hoist the vmv.v.x outside the loop which
increase the SLP loop register pressure.
So,
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 12:43:10PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> It seemed like there was considerable support for bumping the minimum
>> to beyond 4.8. I think we should wait until a decision has been made
>> before adding more 4.8 workarounds.
>
> I think adding a
Confirm dynamic LMUL algorithm works well for choosing LMUL = 4 for the PR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111848
But it generate horrible register spillings.
The root cause is that we didn't hoist the vmv.v.x outside the loop which
increase the SLP loop register pressure.
So,
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 12:43:10PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> It seemed like there was considerable support for bumping the minimum
> to beyond 4.8. I think we should wait until a decision has been made
> before adding more 4.8 workarounds.
I think adding a workaround until that decision
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
