Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Would it be OK to backport this to 4.7 and possibly 4.6?
I'll defer the decision to the target maintainers. But please double-check
for any changes in the vectorizer parts when backporting to
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Would it be OK to backport this to 4.7 and possibly 4.6?
I'll defer the decision to the target maintainers. But please double-check
for any changes in the vectorizer parts when backporting to
Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
In addition I'd like this documented in changes.html for each of the
release branches.
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
However, it does need to be release-noted.
Would the following htdocs patch be OK with you? Feel free to suggest
a more appropriate wording ...
On 10/08/12 14:44, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
In addition I'd like this documented in changes.html for each of the
release branches.
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
However, it does need to be release-noted.
Would the following htdocs patch be OK with you? Feel free
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 10/08/12 14:44, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Would the following htdocs patch be OK with you? Feel free to suggest
a more appropriate wording ...
I think we need to make it clear that this also fixes a bug in the
compiler that could lead to a run-time error.
On 10/08/12 16:18, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 10/08/12 14:44, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Would the following htdocs patch be OK with you? Feel free to suggest
a more appropriate wording ...
I think we need to make it clear that this also fixes a bug in the
compiler that
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
How about:
pOn ARM, a bug has been fixed in GCC's implementation of the AAPCS
rules for the layout of vectors that could lead to wrong code being
generated. Vectors larger than 8 bytes in size are now by default
aligned to an 8-byte boundary. This is an ABI
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
ChangeLog:
* target.def (vector_alignment): New target hook.
* doc/tm.texi.in (TARGET_VECTOR_ALIGNMENT): Document new hook.
* doc/tm.texi: Regenerate.
*
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
ChangeLog:
* target.def (vector_alignment): New target hook.
* doc/tm.texi.in
On 07/08/12 16:04, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
ChangeLog:
* target.def (vector_alignment): New target hook.
(Note that while the patch contains changes to common code, those
should be no-ops for all targets that do not implement the new hook.)
I'll defer the decision to the target maintainers.
I'd rather have this consistent across all maintained release branches
today than to leave this for an
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/06/12 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote:
The type argument or the size argument looks redundant.
Technically,
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
OK for mainline?
Ok. Please add to the documentation that the default vector alignment
has to be a power-of-two multiple of the default vector element alignment.
Committed, thanks. The
From: Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:24:08 +0200
Richard (Earnshaw) has asked me to take over working on this patch now.
I've now made the change requested above and removed the size argument.
The target is now simply asked to return the required alignment for
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/06/12 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote:
The type argument or the size argument looks redundant.
Technically, yes, we could get rid of tree_low_cst (TYPE_SIZE (type)
and calculate it
15 matches
Mail list logo
