gcc-4.6.0: Bring in patches from FSF 4.6 branch

This brings in new patches from 4.6 release branch
updates the comment section of existing branch to not
contain patch numbers.

Tested build on qemu for arm ppc mips x86 and x86_64

Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>

1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/gcc-4_6-branch-backports/0370-2011-05-30-Richard-Guenther-rguenther-suse.de.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/gcc-4_6-branch-backports/0370-2011-05-30-Richard-Guenther-rguenther-suse.de.patch
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e42ce20c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/gcc-4_6-branch-backports/0370-2011-05-30-Richard-Guenther-rguenther-suse.de.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+From e6b2e8c99b9295953acd13658d44591561252337 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: rguenth <rguenth@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
+Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:17:35 +0000
+Subject: [PATCH] 2011-05-30  Richard Guenther  <rguenther@suse.de>
+
+	PR tree-optimization/49218
+	* tree-vrp.c (adjust_range_with_scev): Properly check whether
+	overflow occured.
+
+	* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr49218.c: New testcase.
+
+
+git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_6-branch@174430 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
+
+index 2f50595..be083fc 100644
+new file mode 100644
+index 0000000..2fb18dd
+--- /dev/null
++++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr49218.c
+@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
++#ifdef __SIZEOF_INT128__
++typedef __int128 L;
++#else
++typedef long long L;
++#endif
++float f;
++
++int
++main ()
++{
++  L i = f;
++  if (i <= 10)
++    do
++      {
++	++i;
++	asm ("");
++      }
++    while (i != 11);
++  return 0;
++}
+diff --git a/gcc/tree-vrp.c b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
+index 6914a08..299a948 100644
+--- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
++++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
+@@ -3422,11 +3422,17 @@ adjust_range_with_scev (value_range_t *vr, struct loop *loop,
+                                            loop->nb_iterations_upper_bound,
+                                            double_int_one),
+                                        unsigned_p, &overflow);
+-      tem = double_int_to_tree (TREE_TYPE (init), dtmp);
+       /* If the multiplication overflowed we can't do a meaningful
+-	 adjustment.  */
+-      if (!overflow && double_int_equal_p (dtmp, tree_to_double_int (tem)))
+-	{
++	 adjustment.  Likewise if the result doesn't fit in the type
++	 of the induction variable.  For a signed type we have to
++	 check whether the result has the expected signedness which
++	 is that of the step as nb_iterations_upper_bound is unsigned.  */
++      if (!overflow
++	  && double_int_fits_to_tree_p (TREE_TYPE (init), dtmp)
++	  && (unsigned_p
++	      || ((dtmp.high ^ TREE_INT_CST_HIGH (step)) >= 0)))
++	{
++	  tem = double_int_to_tree (TREE_TYPE (init), dtmp);
+ 	  extract_range_from_binary_expr (&maxvr, PLUS_EXPR,
+ 					  TREE_TYPE (init), init, tem);
+ 	  /* Likewise if the addition did.  */
+-- 
+1.7.0.4
+