Email to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org is treated as SPAM

Email to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org is treated as SPAM

[H.J. Lu]

Hi,

My email to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org is treated as SPAM.
What do I need to do to send patches to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org?

Thanks.


H.J.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: hjl.tools@gmail.com


Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

     gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the
recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for
further information about the cause of this error. The error that the
other server returned was: 552 552 spam score exceeded threshold
(#5.6.1) (state 17).

----- Original message -----

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=2oWs5OyGOUvL9a/KuEEsBDMdJisZxYqbwSSc/w4L7mw=;
        b=Rtfu4gXPRrQ5BbOvEWlpgYnH/U98O3aJsCsU3cTnu+JiKdDVhCmzapWSS82F780UEV
         EiHVMaXLfzlejB2uuF+ZQ3/3Wl3IL4X+PUM14ld0/unbHsNYkTKwzsBpV64puC0ZnZ2t
         jREm0Wj4EoFvFE0OmpD8CLd6JpQV+Z4kpcVBw5oT5qTOQaQ4JWtMlYql28QXn0Kx8c+6
         IqqTzOZ7WC7qQ9euxkoYK5dC7xpXXBLZx4tZcFtnkIVDmJz4YCR5aIW/Jp8aCzzwCXon
         ybQTdWa6BZUOIvQd45hmo1DWfU5G8nJ7F8FzWmajkX+8nk6w3XttQaWzxXKg8ScgoTlc
         2RPQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.65.10 with SMTP id t10mr874164ves.48.1345136110170; Thu, 16
 Aug 2012 09:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.234.39 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOqkb2sWo3c4=-Gw7cUbYqpEC-X4U2PNJU=6LEmXaL_8gA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120814042032.GB23649@intrepid.com>
        <20120814063059.GU1999@tucnak.redhat.com>
        <Pine.LNX.4.64.1208141530410.11041@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
        <20120814161238.GH23649@intrepid.com>
        <CAMe9rOqDKdXEA2U3PcqS234J2yNL6RyTdTpXNuZLtTqBT3R8GA@mail.gmail.com>
        <20120814213426.GA28966@intrepid.com>
        <CAMe9rOqkb2sWo3c4=-Gw7cUbYqpEC-X4U2PNJU=6LEmXaL_8gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:55:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqzbSWYCCOjOhR-DZJZJKxN_xDDoweL9=nvTg1jE4GO9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH [x86_64] PR20020 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Gary Funck <gary@intrepid.com>, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
Cc: Gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, jh@suse.cz, Uros Bizjak
<ubizjak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Gary Funck <gary@intrepid.com> wrote:
>> Attached, is an updated patch (with change logs).
>>
>> The test cases are now in gcc.target/i386 and the
>> target selection is "dg-require-effective-target int128" only.
>>
>> Verified that the tests correctly detect the presence/lack
>> of TImode support.
>>
>
> Here is a patch, which passed tests on Linux/x86-64/ia32 with
>
> --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,java,lto,objc,ada,obj-c++,go
>
> on Linux/x32 with
>
> --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,java,lto,objc,obj-c++,go
>
> I skipped Ada on x32 since Ada run-time library assumes
> clock_t/time_t are long.
>
> I added a target hook, type_blkmode_p, so that a backend
> can force a type to BLKmode.  There is a macro,
> MEMBER_TYPE_FORCES_BLK.  But it will also set
>
> struct
> {
>   long double x;
> };
>
> to BLKmode instead of XFmode.  I think we can replace
> MEMBER_TYPE_FORCES_BLK with the new type_blkmode_p
> target hook.
>
>

Here is a patch to use MEMBER_TYPE_FORCES_BLK.
Tested on Linux/x86-64.  OK to install?

Thanks.

--
H.J.
---
gcc/

2012-08-16  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
            Gary Funck <gary@intrepid.com>

        PR target/20020
        * config/i386/i386.h (MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE): New macro.
        (MEMBER_TYPE_FORCES_BLK): Likewise.

gcc/testsuite/

2012-08-16  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
            Gary Funck <gary@intrepid.com>

        PR target/20020
        * gcc.target/i386/pr20020-1.c: New test.
        * gcc.target/i386/pr20020-2.c: Likewise.
        * gcc.target/i386/pr20020-3.c: Likewise.

diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
index 5ff82ab..4046a9a 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
@@ -1816,6 +1816,16 @@ do {
         \
 #define BRANCH_COST(speed_p, predictable_p) \
   (!(speed_p) ? 2 : (predictable_p) ? 0 : ix86_branch_cost)

+/* An integer expression for the size in bits of the largest integer machine


-- 
H.J.

Re: Email to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org is treated as SPAM

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 09:59:30AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>Hi,
>
>My email is treated as SPAM.
>What do I need to do to send patches to ....? 

I wonder why gmail strips the part of the message which says to send email
to the standard place postmaster at gcc.gnu.org.

Your email to overseers was kicked out as spam on my home system so something
you're doing is upsetting spamassassin.

I have, however, added you to the whitelist on sourceware so you shouldn't
have any further problems.

Re: Email to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org is treated as SPAM

[Jim Meyering]

H.J. Lu wrote:
> My email to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org is treated as SPAM.
> What do I need to do to send patches to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> H.J.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
> Date: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM
> Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
> To: hjl.tools@gmail.com
>
>
> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
>
>      gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>
> Technical details of permanent failure:
> Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the
> recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for
> further information about the cause of this error. The error that the
> other server returned was: 552 552 spam score exceeded threshold
> (#5.6.1) (state 17).
>
> ----- Original message -----
>
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
>         d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
>         h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
>          :cc:content-type;
>         bh=2oWs5OyGOUvL9a/KuEEsBDMdJisZxYqbwSSc/w4L7mw=;
>         b=Rtfu4gXPRrQ5BbOvEWlpgYnH/U98O3aJsCsU3cTnu+JiKdDVhCmzapWSS82F780UEV
>          EiHVMaXLfzlejB2uuF+ZQ3/3Wl3IL4X+PUM14ld0/unbHsNYkTKwzsBpV64puC0ZnZ2t
>          jREm0Wj4EoFvFE0OmpD8CLd6JpQV+Z4kpcVBw5oT5qTOQaQ4JWtMlYql28QXn0Kx8c+6
>          IqqTzOZ7WC7qQ9euxkoYK5dC7xpXXBLZx4tZcFtnkIVDmJz4YCR5aIW/Jp8aCzzwCXon
>          ybQTdWa6BZUOIvQd45hmo1DWfU5G8nJ7F8FzWmajkX+8nk6w3XttQaWzxXKg8ScgoTlc
>          2RPQ==
...
> From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>

I don't know about this case (don't even know if I have access
to those logs on sourceware.org), but...

I have seen a few false-positive rejections of messages sent by gmail
due to spam-detecting rules that deny a recipient whose HELO address
cannot be looked up.  In at least one case I documented, google was using
an address for which lookup failed, so my system rejected it as spam.
I guess it could have been due to DNS propagation delay.