Has anyone ever tried to implement lazy strength reduction for GCC?

Hello, One of the suggestions Jeff made wrt. simplifying regmove, was that some parts of it can be implemented more elegantly with the lazy strength reduction algorithm, which is an extension of PRE as implemented in GCC's gcse.c. Has anyone ever tried implementing this for GCC? Bonus if there'

Re: Build report: Successful build of gcc 4.1.2 on Cygwin (Win XP Pro SP2)

"Aaron W. LaFramboise" wrote: > I don't really see any compelling reason that win32 threads shouldn't > work on Cygwin. As far as I know, nothing about this choice is > ultimately exposed to the user. In fact, Win32 threads are quite likely > to yield superior performance anywhere where it matte

Re: Build report: Successful build of gcc 4.1.2 on Cygwin (Win XP Pro SP2)

Brian Dessent wrote: Jesper de Jong wrote: /home/jesper/gcc-4.1.2/configure --enable-threads=win32 Where do people keep getting this idea that Cygwin uses win32 threads? It doesn't, and you've most likely built a compiler that is subtly broken in some way. Cygwin uses pthreads, this sh

Re: Variable scope debug info

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:46:18AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > Now, it might turn out that adding additional dwarf records for > every single declaration won't significantly increase the size > of the debug information. But it is a consideration. FWIW, I would expect that it would not make a signifi

RE: Bootstrap is broken on i[345]86-linux

> -Original Message- > From: FX Coudert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:01 PM > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Meissner, Michael; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bootstrap is broken on i[345]86-linux > > Bootstrap has been broken since 2007-03-25 on i[345]86-linux. This

Re: Variable scope debug info

On Apr 5, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Joe Buck wrote: The test/debug/recompile loop I spend much of my life in lately is dominated by link time. We found that omitting the debug information from the link step solves this issue.

Re: Variable scope debug info

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:21:28AM -0700, Brian Ellis wrote: > Now if there were actual function calls in the initialization, and no > records were emitted, I would consider that to be a problem (haven't > tested this at the moment though), however, static initializers like > that could easily be

Re: Variable scope debug info

Now if there were actual function calls in the initialization, and no records were emitted, I would consider that to be a problem (haven't tested this at the moment though), however, static initializers like that could easily be skipped as a feature in the interest of saving space. Example : i

Re: Variable scope debug info

I wrote: > >If adding scope attributes every time more than one variable is declared > >adds to the already immense bulk of C++ debugging information, I'd > >prefer to live with the bug myself. On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:36:57PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote: > Out of interest, why? I haven't looked int

Re: Variable scope debug info

On 05/04/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:37:06PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote: > My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code: > > int i = 0; > int j = 2; > int k = 3; > > If I set a breakpoint at the 3rd line, before int k = 3; has been > execut

Re: Variable scope debug info

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:37:06PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote: > My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code: > > int i = 0; > int j = 2; > int k = 3; > > If I set a breakpoint at the 3rd line, before int k = 3; has been > executed, and check if k is in scope, I find that it is

Re: Variable scope debug info

"Rob Quill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code: > > int i = 0; > int j = 2; > int k = 3; > > If I set a breakpoint at the 3rd line, before int k = 3; has been > executed, and check if k is in scope, I find that it is, when, of > cours

Re: Build report: Successful build of gcc 4.1.2 on Cygwin (Win XP Pro SP2)

Hello Brian, Maybe because the configuration instructions: http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html suggest that there is a choice and if you don't know better you will think "I'm using Windows so I can use win32 threads". Jesper 2007/4/5, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Jesper de Jong wro

Re: bad edge created in CFG ?

Hi, On 3/14/07, Seongbae Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/14/07, Sunzir Deepur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have used -da and -dv to produce vcg files of the CFG of this simple program: > > int main(int argc, char**argv) > { > if(argc) > printf("positive\n"); >

Variable scope debug info

Hi, I wrote an email about this a while ago, but it was rather consice and didn't explain the problem well. My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code: int i = 0; int j = 2; int k = 3; If I set a breakpoint at the 3rd line, before int k = 3; has been executed, and check

RE: Build report: Successful build of gcc 4.1.2 on Cygwin (Win XP Pro SP2)

On 05 April 2007 13:52, Brian Dessent wrote: > Jesper de Jong wrote: > >> /home/jesper/gcc-4.1.2/configure --enable-threads=win32 > > Where do people keep getting this idea that Cygwin uses win32 threads? > It doesn't, and you've most likely built a compiler that is subtly > broken in some w

Re: Request for Bugzilla-only permissions

On 4/5/07, Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, My goal is to get more involved in Binutils, GCC, and possibly GDB, for the AVR port, to help where I can. My FSF paperwork is in process on my company's side but it may take a while. In the meantime I would like to request Bugzilla-only

Re: Proposal: changing representation of memory references

On 4/4/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, > >> >> That is, unless we could share most of the index struct (upper, > >> >> lower, step) among expressions that access them (IE make index be > >> >> immutable, and require unsharing and resharing if you want to modify > >> >> the

Request for Bugzilla-only permissions

Hi, Currently, and in the past I have been involved in the open source AVR toolchain, mostly with other tools such as avr-libc , and in building a popular distribution of the tools which include GNU Binutils and GCC. I have been keeping track of AVR-sp

Re: Build report: Successful build of gcc 4.1.2 on Cygwin (Win XP Pro SP2)

Jesper de Jong wrote: > /home/jesper/gcc-4.1.2/configure --enable-threads=win32 Where do people keep getting this idea that Cygwin uses win32 threads? It doesn't, and you've most likely built a compiler that is subtly broken in some way. Cygwin uses pthreads, this should be --enable-threads

Build report: Successful build of gcc 4.1.2 on Cygwin (Win XP Pro SP2)

I successfully build gcc-4.1.2 on Cygwin running on Windows XP Professional with SP2. Output from running /home/jesper/gcc-4.1.2/config.guess: i686-pc-cygwin Output of 'gcc -v': Using built-in specs. Target: i686-pc-cygwin Configured with: /home/jesper/gcc-4.1.2/configure --enable-th

Re: Proposal: changing representation of memory references

On 4/4/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, > >> >-- flags > >> > > >> >for each index, we remeber > >> >-- lower and upper bound > >> >-- step > >> >-- value of the index > >> > >> This seems a lot, however, since most of it can be derived from the > >> types, why are we also kee

Re: Proposal: changing representation of memory references

Hello, > >Remarks: > >-- it would be guaranteed that the indices of each memory reference are > > independent, i.e., that &ref[idx1][idx2] == &ref[idx1'][idx2'] only > > if idx1 == idx1' and idx2 = idx2'; this is important for dependency > > analysis (and for this reason we also need to reme

Re: VAX backend status

I've noticed a few things in doing the above. GCC 4.x doesn't seems to do CSE on addresses. Because the VAX binutils doesn't support non-local symbols with a non-zero addend in the GOT, PIC will do a define_expand so that (const (plus (symbol_ref) (const_int))) will be split into separate inst