On 4/10/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thoughts/comments on the proposal?
This looks a lot like the RTL insn!
For locus, you can use just an "int" instead of a word if you use the
same representation for locations as we do for RTL (INSN_LOCATOR). You
mention this step as "straigh
The "conditional jumps" are sometimes bad.
However, they've appeared the "conditional moves" to don't jump
and consecuently to reduce the penalization of the conditional jump.
I've the idea of combining GS_ASSIGN... and GS_COND... to give these
following 6 new GIMPLE instructions:
GS_ASSIGN_CON
On 4/9/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Following up on the recent discussion about GIMPLE tuples
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg01126.html), we have summarized
our main ideas and implementation proposal in the attached document.
This should be enough to get the implementatio
I perceived that many people think that the throw qualifiers, as
described by the standard, are not useful, as an example, I quote the
Boost Exception-specification rationale:
Although initially appealing, an exception-specification tends to have
consequences that require very careful thought to
2007/4/10, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Following up on the recent discussion about GIMPLE tuples
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg01126.html), we have summarized
our main ideas and implementation proposal in the attached document.
This should be enough to get the implementation goin
Sergio Giro wrote:
I started a thread about the possible development of a throw-like
qualifier for C++ which may statically check that the only possible
exceptions are those declared in the qualifier (please see the
corresponding thread:
I'm strongly opposed to adding a new qualifier with sl
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 11:55:14PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Thanks, I think you're right on there. The comments on PR31136 make it
> fairly clear what's wrong; perhaps the best solution might be for
> STRIP_SIGN_NOPS to mask out the high bits when it's discarding a size-reducing
> NOP_EXPR? Or
Paolo Bonzini schrieb:
Dennis Weyland wrote:
Hi!
I've applied for Google's Summer of Code 2007 with GCC as mentor
organization. I want to make GCC working faster on the algorithmic
level. I left out the detailed aims of the project, since i want to
discuss them with gcc developers/mentors fi
On 09 April 2007 21:49, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>> The optimization above would be wrong for such machines because
>>> the allocation would be smaller than the requested size.
>>
>> To request a size of ~size_t(0) is to request a size
>> of 0x or 0xULL that the allocator
>
On 09 April 2007 22:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 07:37:31PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Should promotion of function arguments be explicitly represented in
>> GIMPLE, or should it be performed when generating the corresponding RTL?
>
> There are two things here:
>
> (
#include // by J.C. Pîzarro
...
// This function doesn't touch the ECX register that is touched by OptionC.
__volatile__ static const int minus_one = -1;
void *__allocate_array_OptionD(size_t num, size_t size) {
register unsigned int result;
__asm__ __volatile__
(
"imull %2"
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Toon Moene wrote:
> I do not have easy access to the HTML repository anymore.
That's something we should be able to fix; just drop me (or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) a note!
> Martin Michlmayr asked me to add to the 4.2 changes list the inclusion
> of the new compile time option -far
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 11:13:17AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:51:22AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Zuxy Meng wrote:
> > >Intel's optimization reference manual says that:
> >
> > I wasn't going off the documentation... I'd be more interested in
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070409 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070409/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
"Lawrence Crowl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Intel has had several popular processors with segmented addresses
| including the 8086, 80186, and 80286. (Actually, the 80386 and
| successors are segmented, but the operating systems typically hide
| that fact.) The also had the i432.
|
|
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 07:37:31PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Should promotion of function arguments be explicitly represented in GIMPLE,
> or should it be performed when generating the corresponding RTL?
There are two things here:
(1) Promotion of arguments to their devlared types, should
#include // by J.C. Pîzarro
...
// See http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/~kirchher/CS047/multDiv.html
// One-operand imul: & Unsigned mul:
// warning: 32 bit, i686, possible risk of -x * -y = valid x * y, ...
// warning: it's made quick & dirty, possible to give clobbered situations.
// warning:
Hi Ian/All
That information was really very helpful. I have been able to localize the bug.
The issue is in the assembler. When I create a object file using the
assembler(as test.s -o test.o), the contents of .rdata which contains the jump
table is all wrong.
The assembly file:-
.section
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 01:49:09PM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >We've working in linear address spaces.
> >How for segmented address spaces? You give me examples.
>
> Intel has had several popular processors with segmented addresses
> includi
On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/4/9, Lawrence Crowl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 4/7/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Consider an implementation that, when given
> >
> > Foo* array_of_foo = new Foo[n_elements];
> >
> > passes __compute_size(elements, sizeo
On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, i'm a novice because i like and i don't like the
GCC development's model.
Of course the user manual explains all what I have mentioned in my
previous email so it sounds like you like 95% of the other people who
don't read the manual
JoseD wrote:
@James
What do you mean by 16.3.3/3? GCC's version ?
This is a reference to the ISO C standard.
Still don't see what the problem whith 2 tokens is...
The problem is the fact that they are 2 tokens. You can do a ## b to
create ab, but you can not do a ## ( to create a( becaus
On Apr 9, 2007, at 12:14 PM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
How many code's species are they?
One for every problem...
7. Code for IPA??? <- i don't know this weird language. Is it with
attributes?.
8. Code for GIMPLE??? <- i don't know this weird language.
9. Code for RTL??? <- i don't know this weir
Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
Can any one suggest a right place to find the differences between the
DWARF formats in gcc compiler versions 3.4.6 and 4.1.1?
They both follow the standard, so there is no major change here. There
are of course changes in the details.
To find the details, you could com
Ching, Jimen (US SSA) wrote:
According to the manual, I should be getting a warning, but I don't.
Did
I misunderstand the manual?
A conditional expression, as per the ISO C/C++ standards, is an
expression of the form (A ? B : C). There is no conditional expression
in your testcase.
Also, i
2007/4/9, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/4/9, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well lets say this, we already support this to some extend, by using
> __builtin_constant_p and then just inlining. Also there exists
> alre
Zuxy Meng wrote:
"Mike Stump" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
??:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:37 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
My docs say that "INC/DEC does not change the carry flag".
Personally, I'm having a hard time envisioning how the semantics of the
instruction are relevant
> "Ross" == Ross Ridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ross> So long as whatever switch is used to enable this check isn't on by
Ross> default and its effect on code size and speed is documented, I don't
Ross> think it matters that much what those effects are. Anything that works
Ross> should mak
2007/4/9, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. To modify the C-preprocessor and/or C/C++ compiler for:
>#if argument X is a constant then
> use this code specific of constant X
>#else if argument Y is not a consta
Hello,
I started a thread about the possible development of a throw-like
qualifier for C++ which may statically check that the only possible
exceptions are those declared in the qualifier (please see the
corresponding thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg01162.html
2007/4/9, Lawrence Crowl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 4/7/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider an implementation that, when given
>
> Foo* array_of_foo = new Foo[n_elements];
>
> passes __compute_size(elements, sizeof Foo) instead of
> n_elements*sizeof Foo to operator new, wher
On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3. To modify the C-preprocessor and/or C/C++ compiler for:
#if argument X is a constant then
use this code specific of constant X
#else if argument Y is not a constant then
use this code specific of non-c
On 4/7/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consider an implementation that, when given
Foo* array_of_foo = new Foo[n_elements];
passes __compute_size(elements, sizeof Foo) instead of
n_elements*sizeof Foo to operator new, where __compute_size is
inline size_t __compute_size(size_t
On 4/9/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Evening all, just a quick question:
[ ref: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31513, "
[4.2/4.3 Regression] Miscompilation of Function Passing Bit Field Value to
Function" ]
Should promotion of function arguments be explicitly re
"J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To optimize even more the x86, it still has to use:
> 1. Use imul instead of mul because it's little bit faster in cycles.
> 2. Use jns/js (sign's conditional jump) instead of jnc/jc (carry's
> conditional jump).
> 3. To modify the C-preprocessor and/or
Evening all, just a quick question:
[ ref: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31513, "
[4.2/4.3 Regression] Miscompilation of Function Passing Bit Field Value to
Function" ]
Should promotion of function arguments be explicitly represented in GIMPLE,
or should it be performed whe
4. Conditional moves (cmov).
2007/4/9, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:47:07AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >#include
> >
> >void *__allocate_array_OptionA(size_t num, size_t size) { // 1st best
> > unsigned long long tmp = (unsigned long long)
On Apr 9, 2007, at 6:49 AM, Chris Dams wrote:
I am not sure whether the problem I am going to describe is a
problem with
gcc or with the dynamic linker on Mac OS X, but maybe someone here
knows a
way to deal with it or could suggest a more appropriate mailing
list. I
use gcc 3.3 on Darwin 7
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:51:22AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Zuxy Meng wrote:
> >Intel's optimization reference manual says that:
>
> I wasn't going off the documentation... I'd be more interested in
> either benchmarks or in recommendations by Intel people that kno
On Apr 8, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Zuxy Meng wrote:
Intel's optimization reference manual says that:
I wasn't going off the documentation... I'd be more interested in
either benchmarks or in recommendations by Intel people that know the
details of the core2 and the performance impact of those det
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:47:07AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >#include
> >
> >void *__allocate_array_OptionA(size_t num, size_t size) { // 1st best
> > unsigned long long tmp = (unsigned long long)size * num;
> > if (tmp >= 0x800
On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
void *__allocate_array_OptionA(size_t num, size_t size) { // 1st best
unsigned long long tmp = (unsigned long long)size * num;
if (tmp >= 0x8000ULL) tmp=~size_t(0);
return operator new[](tmp);
}
First this just h
#include
void *__allocate_array_OptionA(size_t num, size_t size) { // 1st best
unsigned long long tmp = (unsigned long long)size * num;
if (tmp >= 0x8000ULL) tmp=~size_t(0);
return operator new[](tmp);
}
void *__allocate_array_OptionB(size_t num, size_t size) { // 2nd best
u
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:44:26AM +1200, Ross Smith wrote:
> On Monday, 9 April 2007 13:09, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> >
> > This code is bigger than Joe Buck's.
> >
> > Joe Buck's code: 10 instructions
> > Ross Ridge's code: 16 instructions
> > Ross Smith's code: 16 instructions
>
> Well, yes, but it
2007/4/9, Ross Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday, 9 April 2007 13:09, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
>
> This code is bigger than Joe Buck's.
>
> Joe Buck's code: 10 instructions
> Ross Ridge's code: 16 instructions
> Ross Smith's code: 16 instructions
Well, yes, but it also doesn't have the bug J
On Monday, 9 April 2007 13:09, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
>
> This code is bigger than Joe Buck's.
>
> Joe Buck's code: 10 instructions
> Ross Ridge's code: 16 instructions
> Ross Smith's code: 16 instructions
Well, yes, but it also doesn't have the bug Joe's code had. That was
sort of the whole point.
#include
void *__allocate_array_of_RossRidge(size_t num, size_t size, size_t max_num) {
if (num > max_num)
size = ~size_t(0);
else
size *= num;
return operator new[](size);
}
void *__allocate_array_of_JCPizarro(size_t num, size_t size, size_t
max_num) {
if (num > max_num) retur
Dear all,
I am not sure whether the problem I am going to describe is a problem with
gcc or with the dynamic linker on Mac OS X, but maybe someone here knows a
way to deal with it or could suggest a more appropriate mailing list. I
use gcc 3.3 on Darwin 7.9.0. On this platform the following happe
2007/4/9, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> The multiply is signed. It is need more researching a little bit.
So what, the low order 32 bits are unaffected. I think this is just
confusion on your part!
Yes, i accidently eliminated the lines containing the point '.' for
2007/4/9, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
_Z29__allocate_array_of_RossRidgejjj:
[ gcc v3.4.6 : 9 instructions ]
movl4(%esp), %edx
cmpl12(%esp), %edx # comparing and ?? i lose me
movl8(%esp), %eax
orl $-1, %eax
imull %edx, %e
allocate_array_april2007.tar.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
2007/4/9, Ross Ridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Florian Weimer writes:
>Yeah, but that division is fairly expensive if it can't be performed
>at compile time. OTOH, if __compute_size is inlined in all places,
>code size does increase somewhat.
Well, I believe the assumption was that __compute_s
Florian Weimer writes:
>Yeah, but that division is fairly expensive if it can't be performed
>at compile time. OTOH, if __compute_size is inlined in all places,
>code size does increase somewhat.
Well, I believe the assumption was that __compute_size would be inlined.
If you want to minimize code
54 matches
Mail list logo
