Re: if() and trailing ;

2006-07-29 Thread Joe Buck
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:33:03PM -0400, Simon Boulet wrote: > After a couple hours debugging code, I figured our an if() somewhere > had a trailing ; like this: > > if (memcmp(p, COMMUNITY, strlen(COMMUNITY)) != 0); > continue; /* failed */ > > The cod

Re: if() and trailing ;

2006-07-29 Thread Simon Boulet
Hi Dale, On 29-Jul-06, at 8:25 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: On Jul 29, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Simon Boulet wrote: Hi, After a couple hours debugging code, I figured our an if() somewhere had a trailing ; like this: if (memcmp(p, COMMUNITY, strlen(COMMUNITY)) != 0);

Re: if() and trailing ;

2006-07-29 Thread Dale Johannesen
On Jul 29, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Simon Boulet wrote: Hi, After a couple hours debugging code, I figured our an if() somewhere had a trailing ; like this: if (memcmp(p, COMMUNITY, strlen(COMMUNITY)) != 0); continue; /* failed */ The code above will alwa

if() and trailing ;

2006-07-29 Thread Simon Boulet
Hi, After a couple hours debugging code, I figured our an if() somewhere had a trailing ; like this: if (memcmp(p, COMMUNITY, strlen(COMMUNITY)) != 0); continue; /* failed */ The code above will always reach "continue" even when memcmp() == 0. I was

Re: Patch: Support IA-64 speculation [4/5]

2006-07-29 Thread Andi Kleen
Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Adding backward pointers will increase their size by 30%, so perhaps > some mark dead and collect later scheme would work here better? Can't you use a xor list? It works as long as you can keep enough context to know about the following (or previous)

gcc-4.2-20060729 is now available

2006-07-29 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20060729 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20060729/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

Re: GCC missed optimization?

2006-07-29 Thread Dorit Nuzman
I think this patch by Zdenek - vectorizing function calls - is related: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01655.html (would need to be extended to cover this case). dorit > On 7/28/06, François-Xavier Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been doing some benchmarking of gfortran

Re: What happened to the gcc 4.2 vectorizer patches?

2006-07-29 Thread Dorit Nuzman
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29/07/2006 12:46:34 PM: > Hi, > > I was browsing DannyB's patch queue, and saw that there are many > patches for the vectorizer that have apparently not been reviewed: > ... > > Dorit, why haven't you pinged any of these patches? > I was away for a fe

Re: What happened to the gcc 4.2 vectorizer patches?

2006-07-29 Thread Dorit Nuzman
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29/07/2006 01:16:03 PM: > * Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-29 11:46]: > > Some of these patches are bug fixes but others are listed GCC 4.2 > > projects, so can/should they still go into GCC 4.2? > > There was some discussion about this a

Re: What happened to the gcc 4.2 vectorizer patches?

2006-07-29 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-29 11:46]: > Some of these patches are bug fixes but others are listed GCC 4.2 > projects, so can/should they still go into GCC 4.2? There was some discussion about this after the 2006-06-04 status report http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00120.htm

What happened to the gcc 4.2 vectorizer patches?

2006-07-29 Thread Steven Bosscher
Hi, I was browsing DannyB's patch queue, and saw that there are many patches for the vectorizer that have apparently not been reviewed: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00941.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00942.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg0094