[match-and-simplify] Remove printing for expression

) @@ -3689,7 +3688,7 @@ if (verbose) for (unsigned i = 0; i p.simplifiers.length (); ++i) - print_matches (p.simplifiers[i]); + print_matches (p.simplifiers[i]-match); decision_tree dt; for (unsigned i = 0; i p.simplifiers.length (); ++i) 2014-12-12 Prathamesh Kulkarni

Re: [match-and-simplify] Remove printing for expression

On 22 December 2014 at 03:21, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, I removed printing for expression: from print_matches. I think it is out of place tvim here and we call print_matches after lowering. OK to commit ? s/tvim here/there. Thanks, Prathamesh

Re: [Patch] Missing plugin header files

On 15 January 2015 at 14:14, Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Steve Ellcey sell...@imgtec.com wrote: I tried compiling an empty plugin that just included gcc-plugin.h and plugin-version.h and found that these header files were included from

Re: [Patch] Missing plugin header files

On 16 January 2015 at 00:00, Steve Ellcey sell...@imgtec.com wrote: 2015-01-14 Steve Ellcey sell...@mips.com * Makefile.in (PLUGIN_HEADERS): Add dominance.h, cfg.h, cfgrtl.h, cfganal.h, cfgbuild.h, cfgcleanup.h, lcm.h, builtins.def, chkp-builtins.def, and

[PATCH, committed] remove duplicate contents explow.h, dojump.h

r219655 added two files explow.h, dojump.h with duplicated contents, silly mistake from my side. The attached patch removes duplicate contents. Committed (r219680) as obvious. Thanks, Prathamesh 2015-01-15 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org * explow.h: Remove duplicate

Re: [match-and-simplify] Remove printing for expression

On 12 January 2015 at 08:46, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 8 January 2015 at 17:52, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sun, 21 Dec 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, I removed printing for expression: from

[PATCH] add includes in config/tilepro/mul-tables.c and config/tilegx/mul-tables.c

to a doc-fix ? OK to commit ? Thanks, Prathamesh 2015-01-20 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org * config/tilegx/mul-tables.c: Move symtab.h include after coretypes.h include. * config/tilepro/mul-tables.c: Add includes hashtab.h, hash-set.h, vec.h

Re: flatten expr.h (version 2)

On 14 January 2015 at 12:14, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 14 January 2015 at 17:31, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 14 January 2015 at 11:16, Prathamesh Kulkarni

Re: flatten expr.h (version 2)

, OK to commit ? Thanks, Prathamesh -- Eric Botcazou 2015-01-22 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org * emit-rtl.h (store_bit_field): Move prototype to expmed.h. (extract_bit_field): Likewise. (extract_low_bits): Likewise. (expand_mult): Likewise

Re: [PATCH v2] libgcc: Use braces instead of macro's empty body to avoid xgcc warnings.

On 31 January 2015 at 15:30, Chen Gang S gang.c...@sunrus.com.cn wrote: On 1/31/15 16:53, Andreas Schwab wrote: Chen Gang S gang.c...@sunrus.com.cn writes: * gthr-single.h (__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION): Use braces instead of macro's empty body to avoid xgcc warnings. The ChangeLog

Re: [match-and-simplify] Remove printing for expression

On 8 January 2015 at 17:52, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sun, 21 Dec 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, I removed printing for expression: from print_matches. I think it is out of place tvim here and we call print_matches after lowering. OK to commit ? Hum, it's now a very

[PATCH, testsuite] fix ggcplug.c test-case

. */ /* { dg-options -O } */ +#include gcc-plugin.h #include config.h #include system.h #include coretypes.h #include tm.h #include tree.h -#include gcc-plugin.h #include toplev.h #include basic-block.h #include hash-table.h 2015-01-11 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org testsuite

Re: [PATCH, committed] Fix build of jit (was Re: [PATCH] Flatten tree.h and tree-core.h (Version 3))

On 10 January 2015 at 03:17, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote: On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 01:50 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 9 January 2015 at 16:21, Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael Collison michael.colli...@linaro.org

Re: [BUILDROBOT] tilepro-linux/tilegx-linux fallout from flattening

:36 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Sat, 2015-01-10 01:50:42 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: On 9 January 2015 at 16:21, Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael Collison michael.colli...@linaro.org wrote

Re: [PATCH, testsuite] fix ggcplug.c test-case

On 12 January 2015 at 14:19, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, The test-case plugin/ggcplug.c was failing due to flattening of tree.h and tree-core.h. Test-case was incorrect because it included gcc-plugin.h after tree.h whereas gcc

Re: [PATCH, testsuite] fix ggcplug.c test-case

On 12 January 2015 at 15:49, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 12 January 2015 at 14:36, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 12 January 2015 at 14:19, Richard Biener rguent

Re: [PATCH] Flatten tree.h and tree-core.h (Version 3)

On 12 January 2015 at 16:24, Andreas Schwab sch...@suse.de wrote: I'm getting this testsuite regression: FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/ggcplug.c compilation Fixed with r219458. Thanks, Prathamesh In file included from /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20150112/gcc/testsuite/../../gcc/tree.h:23:0,

Re: [PATCH, testsuite] fix ggcplug.c test-case

On 12 January 2015 at 14:36, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 12 January 2015 at 14:19, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, The test-case plugin/ggcplug.c was failing due

Re: [PATCH, committed] Fix build of jit (was Re: [PATCH] Flatten tree.h and tree-core.h (Version 3))

On 13 January 2015 at 00:01, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote: On Jan 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: oops, sorry about this. We will build further flattening patches with --enable-languages=all,go,jit,ada. Shall that cover all the front

Re: [PATCH] Flatten tree.h and tree-core.h (Version 3)

On 9 January 2015 at 16:21, Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael Collison michael.colli...@linaro.org wrote: This patch flattens tree.h and tree-core.h. This is a revised patch that does not include tree-core.h as a result of flattening.

[PATCH] fix visium build

Hi, The tree.h and tree-core.h flattening patch: (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg00467.html broke visium build. The attached patch fixes that. Built on visium-elf. OK to commit ? Thank you, Prathamesh 2015-01-09 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org * config

Re: [PATCH] Flatten tree.h and tree-core.h (Version 3)

On 10 January 2015 at 02:58, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 01:50:42AM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: I bootstrapped on x86 with all languages. I also bootstrapped on all targets listed in contrib/config-list.mk with c and c++ enabled. Is this okay

Re: flatten expr.h (version 2)

On 13 January 2015 at 15:34, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, This is a revamped expr.h flattening flattening patch rebased on tree.h and tree-core.h flattening patch (r219402). It depends upon the following patch to get committed

Re: flatten expr.h (version 2)

On 13 January 2015 at 16:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: On 13 January 2015 at 15:34, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, This is a revamped expr.h flattening flattening patch rebased on tree.h and tree

Re: flatten expr.h (version 2)

On 14 January 2015 at 16:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: On 14 January 2015 at 14:34, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 13 January 2015 at 22:02, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote

Re: flatten expr.h (version 2)

On 14 January 2015 at 17:31, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 14 January 2015 at 11:16, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: On 14 January 2015 at 16:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote

Re: flatten expr.h (version 2)

On 13 January 2015 at 22:02, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: On 13 January 2015 at 16:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: On 13 January 2015 at 15:34, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote

[C++ patch] PR 65858

. The attached patch fixes the ICE, by setting ok = true if warn_narrowing is enabled thereby returning true to convert_like_real(). Booststrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. OK for trunk ? Thank you, Prathamesh /cp 2015-04-20 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka

Re: [C++ patch] PR 65858

On 1 May 2015 at 01:12, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote: Hi again, On 04/30/2015 08:45 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: .. also, your patch doesn't seem to fix the case of -w instead of That could be fixed as follows: if (!warn_narrowing || inhibit_warnings) ok = true; else //

[match-and-simplify] fix incorrect code-gen in 'for' pattern

Hi, genmatch generates incorrect code for following (artificial) pattern: (for op (plus) op2 (op) (simplify (op @x @y) (op2 @x @y) generated gimple code: http://pastebin.com/h1uau9qB 'op' is not replaced in the generated code on line 33: *res_code = op; I think it would be a

Re: [match-and-simplify] fix incorrect code-gen in 'for' pattern

On 18 May 2015 at 14:12, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, genmatch generates incorrect code for following (artificial) pattern: (for op (plus) op2 (op) (simplify (op @x @y) (op2 @x @y) generated gimple code

[match-and-simplify] report error for invalid operator-lists

= peek(); + if (token-type != CPP_CLOSE_PAREN) +fatal_at (token, expected identifier got %s, cpp_type2name (token-type, 0)); + if (op-substitutes.length () == 0) fatal_at (token, operator-list cannot be empty); 2015-05-19 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org

Re: [match-and-simplify] fix incorrect code-gen in 'for' pattern

On 18 May 2015 at 20:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: On 18 May 2015 at 14:12, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, genmatch generates incorrect code for following (artificial) pattern: (for op (plus

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. On second thoughts, should we reject expansion of operator-list _only_ if it's mixed with 'for' ? We could define multiple operator-lists

[match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

Hi, This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ? Thanks, Prathamesh 2015-05-20 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org * genmatch.c (parser::record_operlist): Remove. (parser::oper_lists_set): Likewise

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. On second thoughts, should

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

On 20 May 2015 at 18:18, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka

Re: [match-and-simplify] fix incorrect code-gen in 'for' pattern

On 19 May 2015 at 14:34, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 18 May 2015 at 20:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: On 18 May 2015 at 14:12, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2015

Re: [C PATCH] warn for empty struct -Wc++-compat

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Joseph Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Is this version okay ? [gcc/c] * c-decl.c (warn_cxx_compat_finish_struct

[C PATCH] Fix PR44257

for trunk if testing passes ? Thank you, Prathamesh 2015-06-19 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org PR c/44257 * c-typeck.c (build_indirect_ref): Add check !in_typeof before reporting incomplete type error. * gcc.dg/pr44257: New test-case. diff --git a/gcc/c

[C patch] PR49551

.c @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options -O -fdata-sections } */ + +int x = 1; +int x; + +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {comm[\t ]+x} } } */ 2015-05-31 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org PR c/49551 * c-decl.c (merge_decls): Merge

fix segfault in verify_flow_info() with -dx option

on that. */ if ((cfun-curr_properties PROP_cfg) - !from_ipa_pass) + !from_ipa_pass + cfun-cfg) verify_flow_info (); if (current_loops loops_state_satisfies_p (LOOP_CLOSED_SSA)) 2015-07-05 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka

flatten cfgloop.h

using config-list.mk. I left includes in cfgloop.h commented with #if 0 ... #endif. OK for trunk ? Thank you, Prathamesh 2015-07-05 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org * loop-invariant.h: New header file. * loop-init.h: Likewise. * loop-doloop.h: Likewise

move a * (1 b) - a b pattern from fold-const.c to match.pd

Hi, The attached patch moves pattern a * (1 b) - a b. Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress. OK for trunk if testing passes ? Thank you, Prathamesh 2015-07-06 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org * fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): Remove pattern

Re: fix segfault in verify_flow_info() with -dx option

On 6 July 2015 at 12:00, Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: Hi, Passing -dx causes segmentation fault: Test case: void f(void) {} ./test.c: In function 'f': ../test.c:3:1: internal

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

On 20 May 2015 at 17:39, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote: Hi

Re: [ARM] implement division using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations

, Prathamesh Thanks, Kyrill On 29/07/15 11:09, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, This patch tries to implement division with multiplication by reciprocal using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations and -freciprocal-math enabled. Tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf using qemu. OK

[ARM] implement division using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations

Hi, This patch tries to implement division with multiplication by reciprocal using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations and -freciprocal-math enabled. Tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf using qemu. OK for trunk ? Thank you, Prathamesh 2015-07-28 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka

Re: [genmatch] reject empty c_expr

On 16 July 2015 at 12:39, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi, We allow c_expr to be empty which accepts cases like the following: (simplify match-operand (if () result-operand)) (simplify match-operand {}) Yes we do

[genmatch] reject empty c_expr

Hi, We allow c_expr to be empty which accepts cases like the following: (simplify match-operand (if () result-operand)) (simplify match-operand {}) The attached patch rejects empty c_expr. Ok for trunk after bootstrap + test ? Thank you, Prathamesh 2015-07-15 Prathamesh Kulkarni

Re: [RFC] [2/2] divmod transform: override expand_divmod_libfunc for ARM and add test-cases

ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02008.html Thanks, Prathamesh On 25 May 2016 at 18:19, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 23 May 2016 at 14:28, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Hi,

Re: [ARM] implement division using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations

On 30 May 2016 at 13:52, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 23 May 2016 at 14:59, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 5 February 2016 at 18:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>

Re: increase alignment of global structs in increase_alignment pass

On 7 June 2016 at 20:17, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > > After your commit these tests fail on AArch64: > > UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/vect/section-anchors-vect-70.c scan-ipa-dump-times > increase_alignment "Increasing alignment of decl" 0 > UNRESOLVED:

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 10 June 2016 at 01:53, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On 8 June 2016 at 20:38, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> I think it would be nice to work towards transitioning >> >> flag_section_anchors to a flag on varpool nodes, thereby removing >> >> the Optimization flag from

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 8 June 2016 at 20:38, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> I think it would be nice to work towards transitioning >> flag_section_anchors to a flag on varpool nodes, thereby removing >> the Optimization flag from common.opt:fsection-anchors >> >> That would simplify the walk over varpool

Re: [ARM] implement division using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations

On 7 June 2016 at 14:07, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> Please find the updated patch attached. >>> It passes testsuite for arm-none-linux-gnueabi, arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and >>> arm-none-eabi. >>> However the test-case added in the patch (neon-vect-div-1.c) fails to

Re: [RFC] [2/2] divmod transform: override expand_divmod_libfunc for ARM and add test-cases

On 23 May 2016 at 14:28, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > This patch overrides expand_divmod_libfunc for ARM port and adds test-cases. > I separated the SImode tests into separate file from DImode tests > because certain arm configs (cortex-15)

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 10 June 2016 at 16:47, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 10 June 2016 at 01:53, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> >> On 8 June 2016 at 20:38, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 13 June 2016 at 16:13, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> diff --git a/gcc/cgraph.h b/gcc/cgraph.h >> index ecafe63..41ac408 100644 >> --- a/gcc/cgraph.h >> +++ b/gcc/cgraph.h >> @@ -1874,6 +1874,9 @@ public: >> if we did not do any inter-procedural code movement. */ >>unsigned

Re: RFC [1/2] divmod transform

On 27 May 2016 at 17:31, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, 27 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 27 May 2016 at 15:45, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Wed, 25 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> > >

Re: [ARM] implement division using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations

On 23 May 2016 at 14:59, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 5 February 2016 at 18:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 4 February 2016 at 16:31, Ramana Radhakrishnan >> <ramana@googlemail.com>

Re: RFC [1/2] divmod transform

On 27 May 2016 at 15:45, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 25 May 2016 at 12:52, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Tue, 24 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> > >

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 1 June 2016 at 18:37, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> This patch tries to move increase_alignment pass from small to regular ipa >> pass. >> Does the patch look correct ? >&

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 2 June 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 1 June 2016 at 18:37, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> > >&g

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 2 June 2016 at 14:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 2 June 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> >>> On 1 June 2016 at 18:37, Richard Biener <rguent

[ipa-comdats] create a new comdat group for symbol if it's referenced from multiple comdat groups

Hi, I was trying to address first TODO from ipa-comdats.c (attached patch) TODO: When symbol is used only by comdat symbols, but from different groups, it would make sense to produce a new comdat group for it with anonymous name. The patch simply puts symbol in a new comdat group and makes symbol

move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

Hi Richard, This patch tries to move increase_alignment pass from small to regular ipa pass. Does the patch look correct ? Since we are only increasing alignment of varpool nodes, I am not sure if any ipa read/write hooks were necessary and passed NULL for them. Cross-tested on arm*-*-*,

Re: RFC [1/2] divmod transform

On 30 May 2016 at 13:15, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Mon, 30 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> The attached patch ICE's during bootstrap for x86_64, and is reproducible >> with >> following case with -m32 -O2: >> >> typedef l

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 17 June 2016 at 19:52, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 14 June 2016 at 18:31, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 13 June 2016 at 16:13, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >>>> diff --gi

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 14 June 2016 at 18:31, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 13 June 2016 at 16:13, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >>> diff --git a/gcc/cgraph.h b/gcc/cgraph.h >>> index ecafe63..41ac408 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/cgraph.h >

Re: reject decl with incomplete struct/union type in check_global_declaration()

On 15 January 2016 at 03:27, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> Hi, >> For test-case containing only the following declaration: >> static struct undefined_struct object; >> gcc rejects it at -

Re: reject decl with incomplete struct/union type in check_global_declaration()

On 16 January 2016 at 02:56, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 15 January 2016 at 03:27, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: &

Re: [ARM] implement division using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations

On 31 July 2015 at 15:04, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > > On 29/07/15 11:09, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> Hi, >> This patch tries to implement division with multiplication by >> reciprocal using vrecpe/vrecps &g

reject decl with incomplete struct/union type in check_global_declaration()

Hi, For test-case containing only the following declaration: static struct undefined_struct object; gcc rejects it at -O0 in assemble_variable() with error "storage size of is unknown", however no error is reported when compiled with -O2. AFAIU that happens because at -O2, analyze_function()

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html Thanks, Prathamesh On 23 June 2016 at 22:51, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 19:52, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 14 June 2

Re: [ARM] implement division using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations

On 4 February 2016 at 16:31, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 31 July 2015 at 15:04, Ramana Radhakrishnan >> <ramana.radhakrish...@foss.arm

Re: [C++ patch] report better diagnostic for static following '[' in parameter declaration

On 29 January 2016 at 05:03, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:46:56AM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> @@ -19016,10 +19017,22 @@ cp_parser_direct_declarator (cp_parser* parser, >> cp_lexer_consume_token (parser->le

[C++ patch] report better diagnostic for static following '[' in parameter declaration

Hi, For the test-case, void f(int a[static 10]); g++ gives following errors: test-foo.cpp:1:14: error: expected primary-expression before ‘static’ void f(int a[static 10]); ^ test-foo.cpp:1:14: error: expected ‘]’ before ‘static’ test-foo.cpp:1:14: error: expected ‘)’ before

Re: reject decl with incomplete struct/union type in check_global_declaration()

On 19 January 2016 at 16:49, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > Sorry for speaking up late, but I think we could do better with formatting > in this patch: > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 03:45:22PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b

Re: add check for aarch64 in check_effective_target_section_anchors()

On 15 February 2016 at 19:24, James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:03:23PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> Hi, >> aarch64 supports section anchors but it appears >> check_effective_target_section_anchors() doesn't contain

add check for aarch64 in check_effective_target_section_anchors()

Hi, aarch64 supports section anchors but it appears check_effective_target_section_anchors() doesn't contain entry for it. This patch adds for entry for aarch64. OK for trunk ? Thanks, Prathamesh diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index

[lto-partition.c] move assignment to refs_node, last_visited_node outside if-else

Hi, This is a silly patch that moves the following assignments outside if-else conditionals, refs_node = node; last_visited_node++; resulting in empty else block. OK for trunk ? Thanks, Prathamesh diff --git a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c b/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c index 9eb63c2..dca59af 100644 ---

Re: [lto-partition.c] move assignment to refs_node, last_visited_node outside if-else

On 7 April 2016 at 19:11, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 07:05:09PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> Hi, >> This is a silly patch that moves the following assignments outside >> if-else conditionals, >> refs_node = node; >

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 5 April 2016 at 18:28, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 5 April 2016 at 16:58, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> > >>

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 6 April 2016 at 13:44, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 5 April 2016 at 18:28, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> > >

[PR70366] fix chromium build failure with LTO due to segfault in inline_call

Hi, The following fix suggested by Richard fixes chromium build failing due to segfault in inline_call. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Cross-tested on arm*-*-* and aarch64*-*-*. Ok for trunk ? Thanks, Prathamesh diff --git a/gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR69951

On 1 March 2016 at 16:19, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > >> >> >> On 01/03/16 09:54, Richard Biener wrote: >> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, James Greenhalgh wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:21:27AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >>

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 1 April 2016 at 23:02, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On April 1, 2016 3:48:35 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: >>Hi, >>The attached patch introduces param max-lto-partition which creates an >>upper

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 4 April 2016 at 13:56, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 1 April 2016 at 23:02, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On April 1, 2016 3:48:35 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> &

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 4 April 2016 at 17:30, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> > Um not sure if I understood correctly. >> > Do we want to constrain individual partition size by adding parameter >> > lto-max-partition >> > for balanced partitioning but not for -flto-partition=one >> > case (since latter would

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 4 April 2016 at 19:44, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >> diff --git a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c b/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c >> index 9eb63c2..bc0c612 100644 >> --- a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c >> +++ b/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c >> @@ -511,9 +511,20 @@ lto_balanced_map (int n_lto_partitions) >>

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 5 April 2016 at 16:58, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 4 April 2016 at 19:44, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> > >> >> diff --git a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c b/gcc/lto/lto-pa

[genmatch] reject duplicate captures used as arguments in user-defined predicates

Hi, I suppose we should reject duplicate captures used as "arguments" in user defined predicates ? eg: (match (foo @0 @0) match-template) The attached patch prints error "duplicate capture id" for above pattern. Bootstrapped+tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk ? Thanks, Prathamesh diff

[RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

Hi, The attached patch introduces param max-lto-partition which creates an upper bound for partition size. My primary motivation for this patch is to fix building chromium for arm with -flto-partition=one. Chromium fails to build with -flto-partition={none, one} with assembler error: "branch out

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 26 April 2016 at 16:31, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 6 April 2016 at 14:54, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: >> > >>

Increase default value of lto-min-partition to 10000

Hi, As discussed in other thread, this patch increases default value for lto-min-partition to 1. OK to commit if bootstrap+testing passes ? Thanks, Prathamesh Index: gcc/params.def === --- gcc/params.def (revision 235478)

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 6 April 2016 at 14:54, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> >> > On 6 April 2016 at 13:44, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> >

Re: increase alignment of global structs in increase_alignment pass

On 19 May 2016 at 13:19, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Thu, 19 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 18 May 2016 at 19:38, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Wed, 18 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> > >

RFC [1/2] divmod transform

Hi, I have updated my patch for divmod (attached), which was originally based on Kugan's patch. The patch transforms stmts with code TRUNC_DIV_EXPR and TRUNC_MOD_EXPR having same operands to divmod representation, so we can cse computation of mod. t1 = a TRUNC_DIV_EXPR b; t2 = a TRUNC_MOD_EXPR b

Re: [ARM] implement division using vrecpe/vrecps with -funsafe-math-optimizations

On 5 February 2016 at 18:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 4 February 2016 at 16:31, Ramana Radhakrishnan > <ramana@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> <prathamesh.kulka...@linar

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >