Packing booleans?

Would it be possible to have a -fpack-bools option that packs booleans into the smallest form possible (8 booleans -> 1 8-bit reg, etc.) into a register (or memory, as the case may be)? Samuel Lauber -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way

Re: GCC 4.0, Fast Math, and Acovea

On 5/3/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > tbp wrote: > Granted, POV-Ray may not be state-of-the-art, but then, I know quite a > few people who say that (even legitimately) about just about every > software product in existence. True. Still, POV has evolved from dkbtrace and it shows

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:48:20PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > If I understand what you are saying, I am complaining about the > specific cases where the difference is in the syntax. > Drat, trapped in my own web of logic and definitions ;) Yes, that's exactly what I was saying and now I see

Re: Incomplete instatitiation of virtual registers

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:44:47PM -0700, James E Wilson wrote: > Recursively calling instantiate_virtual_regs_in_insn does not look > right. Indeed it is not. I'd like to see the define_insn for {addhi3}. I'm a bit confused as to how I could have missed iterating over what appears like it ough

Re: FW: GCC Cross Compiler for cygwin

Kai Ruottu wrote: GCC configure. But there are long-standing bugs in the GCC sources and workarounds/fixes are required. Since you seem to have an understanding of the problems here, perhaps you could file some bugzilla bug reports to document them. then not... As told the "eabi" is not and one

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:06:14AM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > Part of the problem here is the use of a convenienve library to hold several > thousand object files and then making a shared library with the convenience > library. On many platforms, those without a --whole-archive flag, libtool >

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I personally find it kind of baffling to have the same tree code act > > differently in GENERIC and GIMPLE, a la SWITCH_EXPR. It seems to add > > confusion for minimal benefit. If you are suggesting that the single > > tree code GOMP_PARALLEL have di

Re: Incomplete instatitiation of virtual registers

Martin Koegler wrote: I notice, that your last change in function.c forgets virtual registers in the RTL in some conditions. In older version (the last I used was 20050412), this has not happend. Patches should go to gcc-patches instead of the gcc list. If you want us to continue accepting patches

Re: Q about Ada and value ranges in types

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 06:21:11PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote: > As of right now, I don't think this is a VRP problem, but something wrong > with the tree Ada produces. > That'd be good. If that's the case, we can make VRP assert that the range derived from such types agrees with the type's ran

Re: [wwwdocs] patch for Re: Access to benchmark page from our front page

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:48:27AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > You mean, like the following? Good idea. > > Installed. > Cool. Thanks. Diego.

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > Sure, in the same way we know what "strlen" is. > Excellent. I'll get rid of them then. > > That's what I thought at first, but the standard threw me into a > > loop when it mentioned "id-expression" instead of just > > "ident

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:23:59PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > GENERIC > > GOMP_PARALLEL > > > > GIMPLE > > GOMP_PARALLEL > > L1: > > g_body > > L2: > > I personally find it kind of baffling to have the same tree

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > GENERIC > GOMP_PARALLEL > > GIMPLE > GOMP_PARALLEL > L1: > g_body > L2: I personally find it kind of baffling to have the same tree code act differently in GENERIC and GIMPLE, a la SWITCH_EXPR. It seems to add c

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joe Buck wrote: | Richard Henderson showed that the libjava build spends 2/3 of its time | in libtool, and that his hand-hacked (but not portable) modification to | invoke the appropriate binutils commands directly gave a huge speedup. | To me, 300% ove

RE: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

Original Message >From: Peter O'Gorman >Sent: 04 May 2005 00:52 > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dave Korn wrote: >> Ok, here's a really *nasty* kludge: libtool is basically a big script >> that generates command lines for the other tools based on passed-in args >>

Re: C54x port: some general technical questions

Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault wrote: * We have defined BIT_PER_WORD to 16 and UNITS_PER_WORD to 1. On this DSP, there are two 40-bits accumulators. How do we make GCC take advantage of this and which machine mode do we use ? GCC has little support for non-power-of-2 sized accumulators. Traditionall

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dave Korn wrote: | Ok, here's a really *nasty* kludge: libtool is basically a big script | that generates command lines for the other tools based on passed-in args and | local configure settings, yeh? And a lot of the time it's used for lots and | l

RE: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

Original Message >From: Joe Buck >Sent: 03 May 2005 23:04 > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:57:10PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> At this point, it doesn't feel like switching to 1.5.16 is worth the >> effort. 2.0 should be far more maintainable, and hopefully >> significantly more efficien

Re: Dirac, GCC-4.0.0 and SIMD optimisations on x86 architecture

Anuradha Suraparaju wrote: My question is how do I report this as a bug? What information do I need to provide in the bug report? Did anybody else face similar problems with GCC-4.0.0 and MMX-enabled programs. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for info on reporting bugs. If you can narrow this d

Re: Global Objects initialization Problem.......

Satendra Pratap wrote: I am using a cross compiler "sparclet-aout-gcc". I have written my own main function and does not link to libgcc's main function while linking is done. I m not able to initialize the global objects The generated executable format is "a.out". You have so much modified stuff he

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:27:26PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > > Do we gain anything over expanding this to the approprate __sync_foo > > builtin in the front end.? > > > Can the optimizers tell that this is an atomic builtin? If so, > then no, they're not necessary. Sure, in the same way we k

Re: No link to benchmarks page ?

On Tue, 3 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > is there any link to gcc.gnu.org/benchmarks on the web pages ? Yes, but _rather_ well hidden, to be honest. Thanks for the hint! I just added a pointer to that page from the navigation bar on our main page. Gerald

[wwwdocs] patch for Re: Access to benchmark page from our front page

On Tue, 3 May 2005, Diego Novillo wrote: > ISTR a link from GCC's home page into http://gcc.gnu.org/benchmarks/ > but it doesn't seem to be there anymore. Shouldn't it be on the > index on the left at least? You mean, like the following? Good idea. Installed. Gerald Index: style.mhtml ===

Re: Q about Ada and value ranges in types

Yeah, I didn't show all of it, sorry. My patch to address this problem includes a more detailed description (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg00127.html). As of right now, I don't think this is a VRP problem, but something wrong with the tree Ada produces. Configu

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:57:10PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > At this point, it doesn't feel like switching to 1.5.16 is worth the > effort. 2.0 should be far more maintainable, and hopefully > significantly more efficient on hosts where the use of shell functions > optimized for properties o

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:16:35PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:42:47PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > > GENERIC > > GIMPLE > > GOMP_ATOMIC > > Do we gain anything over expanding this to the approprate __sync_foo > builtin in the front end.? > Can the optim

Re: volatile semantics

Mike Stump dixit: > int avail; > int main() { > while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0) >continue; > return 0; > } 3.4.4 fetches too. I get: .L2: mov %eax, DWORD PTR avail test%eax, %eax je .L2 This is at -O99, other levels produce similar results. //mir

Re: GCC 4.0, Fast Math, and Acovea

On May 3, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:45:55PM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: If you have a suggestion for better benchmarks, I'm listening. Is your ray tracer available? I recently heard of Openbench, a project to create an open version of the SPEC benchm

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Lars Segerlund wrote: > I will try to look it over, right now I am very busy, and I > don't know when I can get back. I have to remarks so far, the > first is that we have to extend the gfortran internal > representation also, and the second is tha

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:42:47PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > GENERIC > GIMPLE > GOMP_ATOMIC Do we gain anything over expanding this to the approprate __sync_foo builtin in the front end.? > GENERIC > GIMPLE > GOMP_FLUSH Likewise. > #pragma omp threadprivate > -

Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

Okie, I will try to look it over, right now I am very busy, and I don't know when I can get back. I have to remarks so far, the first is that we have to extend the gfortran internal representation also, and the second is that perhaps we don't have to have a 1 to 1 mapping of OMP to IL

Access to benchmark page from our front page

ISTR a link from GCC's home page into http://gcc.gnu.org/benchmarks/ but it doesn't seem to be there anymore. Shouldn't it be on the index on the left at least? Thanks. Diego.

Re: GCC 4.0, Fast Math, and Acovea

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:45:55PM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > If you have a suggestion for better benchmarks, I'm listening. Is your > ray tracer available? > I recently heard of Openbench, a project to create an open version of the SPEC benchmarks http://www.exactcode.de/oss/openbench/

Re: GCC 4.0, Fast Math, and Acovea

tbp wrote: On 4/29/05, Uros Bizjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Scott! Hello Scott & Uros, Specifically, the -funsafe-math-optimizations flag doesn't work correctly on AMD64 because the default on that platform is -mfpmath=sse. Without specifying -mfpmath=387, -funsafe-math-optimizat

[gomp] OpenMP IL design notes

I have started working on connecting Dmitry's OpenMP parser to the middle-end so that we can start generating the basic runtime calls, which Richard should be posting soon. With any luck, we should have some basic functionality in a few weeks. Initially, we will be outlining parallel sections int

Re: parse bug in 4.0.0?

Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | This test program: | | struct bar; | | template struct bar *foo (T *p) | { | return p->t; | } | | produces an error in 4.0.0: yes, a parser bug. good candidate for bugzilla PR. -- Gaby

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Apr 29, 2005, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 01:30:13PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> I don't know of a way to tell libtool to not do duplicate compiles. >> You can use -prefer-pic, but at least from looking at the script it >> will still compile twic

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Apr 29, 2005, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:47:06AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Ian Lance Taylor writes: >> > >> > And, yes, we clearly need to do something about the libjava build. >> >> OK, I know nothing about libtool so this might not be possible,

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Apr 28, 2005, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Joe Buck writes: Joe> Is there a reason why we aren't using a recent libtool? > Porting and testing effort to upgrade. FWIW, I'd love to switch to a newer version of libtool, but I don't have easy access to as many OSs as I

Re: volatile semantics

On May 3, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Dale Johannesen wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Seeing through the const-stripping cast is a useful optimization. It is? Why would somebody write that? perhaps a function, which returned a non-const reference that happen

parse bug in 4.0.0?

This test program: struct bar; template struct bar *foo (T *p) { return p->t; } produces an error in 4.0.0: test.cc:3: error: β??barβ?? is not a template type Without the keyword "struct" it compiles fine. Earlier versions (3.3.2, and I'm pretty sure 3.4.1 as well) don't complain.

Re: volatile semantics

Dale Johannesen wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Seeing through the const-stripping cast is a useful optimization. It is? Why would somebody write that? perhaps a function, which returned a non-const reference that happened to be bound to a constant, has been inlined. IM

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos wrote: As far as I can understand, it's not possible to build gcc 4.0.0 and gcc 3.4.* using GNU binutils with current release 2.15 of GNU binutils. One has to use the CVS sources or at least one file. FYI binutils-2.16 has just been released. You might want to try th

Re: volatile semantics

On May 3, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Paul Koning wrote: This change bothers me a lot. It seems likely that this will break existing code possibly in subtle ways. It did, that is why Mike is asking about it. :)

Re: volatile semantics

On May 3, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Dale Johannesen wrote: However, as a QOI issue, I believe the compiler should treat the reference as volatile if either the object or the lvalue is volatile. That is obviously the user's intent. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I wonder at gcc'

Re: volatile semantics

> "Nathan" == Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Nathan> Dale Johannesen wrote: >> However, as a QOI issue, I believe the compiler should treat the >> reference as volatile if either the object or the lvalue is >> volatile. That is obviously the user's intent. Nathan> I'm not di

Re: volatile semantics

Dale Johannesen wrote: However, as a QOI issue, I believe the compiler should treat the reference as volatile if either the object or the lvalue is volatile. That is obviously the user's intent. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I wonder at gcc's ability to make good on such a promise. A cast i

Re: Code generation clarification (Submodels)

Thanks Ian; much appreciated. Andrew Walrond

Re: volatile semantics

On May 3, 2005, at 7:41 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Mike Stump wrote: int avail; int main() { while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0) continue; return 0; } Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinitely loops, or should it be obligated to actually fetch from memory? Hint,

Re: problems with -fdump-tree options (gcc 4.0.0)

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:57:12PM +0200, Nico Moser wrote: > Where is the bla.c.t**.optimized file? > You didn't use -O. None of the optimizers run without it. > What is the bla.c.t03.generic file? The same as the > That's the IL that all FEs generate while parsing. In some cases .original a

problems with -fdump-tree options (gcc 4.0.0)

Hi, I tried the following: gcc -fdump-tree-all-all -c -o bla.o bla.c and I got these: bla.c.t02.original bla.c.t03.generic bla.c.t06.vcg bla.c.t08.gimple bla.c.t09.useless bla.c.t11.lower bla.c.t12.eh bla.c.t13.cfg bla.c.t14.oplower I have two questions: Where is the bla.c.t**.optimized file? What

Re: Mainline Bootstrap failure on x86-64-linux-gnu

Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:35:43PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > >> I configure with: >> >> /cvs/gcc/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/4.1-devel >> --enable-checking=misc,tree,gc,rtl,rtlflag,assert --enable-threads=posix >> --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-__

No link to benchmarks page ?

Hi, is there any link to gcc.gnu.org/benchmarks on the web pages ? Hartmut Machen Sie aus 14 Cent spielend bis zu 100 Euro! Die neue Gaming-Area von Arcor - über 50 Onlinespiele im Angebot. http://www.arcor.de/rd/emf-gaming-1

Re: volatile semantics

Mike Stump wrote: int avail; int main() { while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0) continue; return 0; } Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinitely loops, or should it be obligated to actually fetch from memory? Hint, 3.3 fetched. I beleive the compiler is so licensed

Re: Code generation clarification (Submodels)

Andrew Walrond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If I have a gcc configured for i686-* target system and I use that compiler > to > build a package without any -m submodel options , is the generated code > 1) only suitable for i686 and better, or > 2) tuned for i686 and better but still OK for i38

RE: volatile semantics

Original Message >From: Mike Stump >Sent: 03 May 2005 09:42 > int avail; > int main() { >while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0) > continue; >return 0; > } > > > Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinitely > loops, or should it be obligated to actually fetc

Re: Code generation clarification (Submodels)

On Monday 02 May 2005 13:01, Andrew Walrond wrote: > Simple question, but I'm not entirely clear from reading the documentation Anyone? Pretty please? (a ghastly pleading phrase, which is used by some really strange people in an attempt to have another do something they are reluctant to undertak

Re: PLEASE HELP!

R Lokesh babu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My application (COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE) links to > libstdc++, By default Solaris OS > does not install the libstdc++ package > (libgcc-3.3-sol9-sparc-local.gz). > Can I re-distribute the lib-gcc package and install it > along with my application > installat

Re: Q about Ada and value ranges in types

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:46:59PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote: > You're not showing where this comes from, so it's hard to say. However > D.1480 is created by the gimplifier, not the Ada front end. There could > easily be a typing problem in the tree there (e.g., that of the subtraction), > but

Re: fold_indirect_ref bogous

On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:19 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > fold_indirect_ref, called from the gimplifier happily converts > > const char *a; > > ... > > *(char *)&a[x] = 0; > > to > > a[x] = 0; > > confusing alias1 and ICEing in verify_ssa: > > /net/alwazn/home/rguenth/src/gcc/cvs/gcc-4

PLEASE HELP!

Hello, My application (COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE) links to libstdc++, By default Solaris OS does not install the libstdc++ package (libgcc-3.3-sol9-sparc-local.gz). Can I re-distribute the lib-gcc package and install it along with my application installation. (Is it a violation of GPL?) :) Or should my I

Re: Backporting to 4_0 the latest friend bits

Hi, On Mon, 2 May 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote: > At the same time, if the code in question doesn't mean what the person > who wrote it wants it to mean (e.g., if it implicitly declares classes > in the scope of the friendly class, rather than nominating other classes > as friends), then that code s

Re: big slowdown gcc 3.4.3 vs gcc 3.3.4 (64 bit)

Kenneth P.. Massey wrote: > The code below runs significantly slower when compiled in 64 bit with > 3.4.3 than > it does in 3.3.4, and both are significantly slower than a 32 bit > compile. Thanks for the report. Would you please open a bugreport in Bugzilla? -- Giovanni Bajo

Re: volatile semantics

Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > int avail; > int main() { >while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0) > continue; >return 0; > } > > > Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinitely > loops, or should it be obligated to actually fetch from memory? > Hint, 3.3 fetch

Re: volatile semantics

Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinitely loops, or should it be obligated to actually fetch from memory? Hint, 3.3 fetched. IANA(Language)L, but I think it should definitely fetch from memory. Paolo

volatile semantics

int avail; int main() { while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0) continue; return 0; } Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinitely loops, or should it be obligated to actually fetch from memory? Hint, 3.3 fetched. I get: L6: b L6 on mainline and 4.0.

Re: PPC 64bit library status?

Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2. libgfortran.h line 63 defines int8_t. > > Ick! Sounds like the configure mechanism went haywire. This can happen when you reconfigure. See for a possible patch. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab,

gcc-3_3-branch frozen

Consider gcc-3_3-branch as frozen. Release script is running. Thanks, -- Gaby

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Apr 29, 2005, at 7:41 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:49:37PM +0200, Lars Segerlund wrote: If we do a reasonable comparison of compile times against the intel compiler or the portland group or something similar we consistenly find that gcc is slower by a couple of

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Apr 29, 2005, at 6:03 PM, Joe Buck wrote: I've seen claims that Darwin's linker is much more efficient than the GNU linker, though I haven't confirmed this. :-) I have a vague recollection this is true (32=bit only). If someone wants to post linux numbers and the command, I'll redo on my box.