On powerpc-apple-darwin8, I killed jc1 after it took over 37:29.81 at:
...
echo
../../../../gcc-4.3-work/libjava/classpath/lib/gnu/javax/swing/text/html/parser/HTML_401F*.class>
gnu/javax/swing/text/html/parser/HTML_401F.list
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=GCJ --mode=compile /opt/gcc/darwin_buildw/gcc/
Dave Korn wrote:
On 27 October 2007 18:27, Darryl Miles wrote:
The "unintended write-access" optimization is a massive headache for
developers of multi-threaded code.
But it's a boon for the autovectoriser, because it means it can transform
code with a branch into straight-line code.
Then
* Andi Kleen:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Never mind your latest patch with Jakub's feedback seems to handle
> that correctly. Looks good to me.
It fixes the (very simple) Java test case, too.
On 27 October 2007 18:27, Darryl Miles wrote:
> The "unintended write-access" optimization is a massive headache for
> developers of multi-threaded code.
But it's a boon for the autovectoriser, because it means it can transform
code with a branch into straight-line code.
> The problem here is
On 26 October 2007 23:46, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Dave Korn"
> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:35:44 +0100
>
>> On 26 October 2007 17:28, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>> > >
>>> > > This is legal POSIX threads code: counter is not accessed when we do
>>> > > not hold t
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Samuel Tardieu:
>
> > On 27/10, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > | (I can't reproduce the conditional store with my GCC 4.2 installation,
> > | though.)
> >
> > You need "-O -fno-inline" to trigger it on this particular example
> > (you don't need "-fno-inline" if
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > What do people think of this patch? This seems to fix the problem
> > case without breaking Michael's case. It basically avoids store
> > speculation: we don't write to a MEM unless the function
> > unc
Comments inline below v
Tomash Brechko wrote:
Consider this piece of code:
extern int v;
void
f(int set_v)
{
if (set_v)
v = 1;
}
f:
pushl %ebp
movl%esp, %ebp
cmpl$0, 8(%ebp)
movl$1, %e
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Never mind your latest patch with Jakub's feedback seems to handle
that correctly. Looks good to me.
-Andi
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> What do people think of this patch? This seems to fix the problem
> case without breaking Michael's case. It basically avoids store
> speculation: we don't write to a MEM unless the function
> unconditionally writes to the MEM anyhow.
I'm not sure
On Sat 27 Oct 2007, "L.Yan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dear all,
>
> I want to build the source of gcc and make '-msoft-float' available. But
> I don't know how to build the source code. I just do it as the following
> steps:
>
> 1. download the source code, gcc-4.1.2.tar.gz, from the mirror site;
> 2.
On 27/10, Robert Dewar wrote:
> I don't understand, are we looking at the same example, the example
> from Sam that I looked at did not have an entry body, so how could the
> entry body rule apply?
Let's look at the example (where I replaced protected procedures by
entries with a guard which is a
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Robert Dewar:
In the following example, is the access to "Shared" considered
unsynchronized even though what looks like a proper lock is used
around it?
Yes, it is unsynchronized. Why would you think otherwise?
The signaling rules are dynamic, not static. Only the co
> I get the following ICE running bootstrap with -O2 on ppc,
> --with-cpu=default32 r129655:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg01543.html
--
Eric Botcazou
Hello,
I get the following ICE running bootstrap with -O2 on ppc,
--with-cpu=default32 r129655:
make[5]: Entering directory
`/home/revitale/mainline_750cl_test/new_build2/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/nof/libjava'
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=GCJ --mode=compile
/home/revitale/mainline_750cl_test/new_bu
Wir haben etwas gegen Geruch !!!
http://www.olfex.de
Frachtenbörse ! Freight Exchange
http://www.frachtintern.com
180 Day FREE MEMBER !!!
-
Hi,
> > > So I am guessing the Felix version is lucky there are
> > > no gratuitous temporaries to be saved when this happens,
> > > and the C code is unlucky and there are.
> > >
> > > Maybe someone who knows how the optimiser works can comment?
> >
> > One problem with departing from the ABI eve
* Samuel Tardieu:
> On 27/10, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> | (I can't reproduce the conditional store with my GCC 4.2 installation,
> | though.)
>
> You need "-O -fno-inline" to trigger it on this particular example
> (you don't need "-fno-inline" if you put "Lock" in a separate package).
Ah, thanks
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 12:54 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 10/27/07, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > skaller wrote:
> >
> > > So I am guessing the Felix version is lucky there are
> > > no gratuitous temporaries to be saved when this happens,
> > > and the C code is unlucky and th
On 27/10, Florian Weimer wrote:
| (I can't reproduce the conditional store with my GCC 4.2 installation,
| though.)
You need "-O -fno-inline" to trigger it on this particular example
(you don't need "-fno-inline" if you put "Lock" in a separate package).
* Robert Dewar:
>> In the following example, is the access to "Shared" considered
>> unsynchronized even though what looks like a proper lock is used
>> around it?
>
> Yes, it is unsynchronized. Why would you think otherwise?
The signaling rules are dynamic, not static. Only the code path that i
* Bart Van Assche:
> On 10/27/07, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And this isn't really specific to threads.
>
> Hello Florian,
>
> What I was trying to explain is that it is not necessary to declare
> shared variables volatile, not for any C/C++ compiler that is
> compliant with th
Bart Van Assche writes:
> On 10/27/07, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And this isn't really specific to threads.
> What I was trying to explain is that it is not necessary to declare
> shared variables volatile, not for any C/C++ compiler that is
> compliant with the langua
On 10/27/07, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And this isn't really specific to threads.
Hello Florian,
What I was trying to explain is that it is not necessary to declare
shared variables volatile, not for any C/C++ compiler that is
compliant with the language standard. Your reply di
* Bart Van Assche:
> As known the compiler may not reorder any access to any static
> variable, global variable or dynamically allocated data with a call to
> a function that is not declared inline.
I assume you mean "defined in another translation unit" instead of "not
declared inline". Still,
skaller writes:
>
> On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 14:24 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > This is basically a public relations exercise. I doubt this
> > optimization is especially important, so I think it's OK to
> > disable it to keep people happy. Even though the optimization
> > has been
> > On 10/22/07, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> > > The core problem here seems to be that the "C with threads" memory
> > > model isn't sufficiently well-defined to make a determination
> > > possible. You're assuming that you have no responsibility to mark
> > > shared memory protected by a mutex as
On 27/10/2007, L.Yan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I want to build the source of gcc and make '-msoft-float' available. But
> I don't know how to build the source code. I just do it as the following
> steps:
Hi Peter,
this list is for discussing the development of gcc. To get help
building and u
Dear all,
I want to build the source of gcc and make '-msoft-float' available. But
I don't know how to build the source code. I just do it as the following
steps:
1. download the source code, gcc-4.1.2.tar.gz, from the mirror site;
2. tar -xzf gcc-4.1.2.tar.gz;
3. ./configure --prefix=/home/user/
> If you make the function static then gcc can chose ABI-incompatible
> calling conventions.
Right, and the gain can be significant on x86.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 10/27/07, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> skaller wrote:
>
> > So I am guessing the Felix version is lucky there are
> > no gratuitous temporaries to be saved when this happens,
> > and the C code is unlucky and there are.
> >
> > Maybe someone who knows how the optimiser works can com
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 09:25:09 +1000, skaller wrote:
> Yes, but with a class:
>
> struct X {
> int x;
> void f() { if (C) x = 1; }
> void f2() { reg = x; if (c) reg = 1; x = reg; }
> };
Hmm, indeed, and the example may end right here, you do
Samuel Tardieu wrote:
On 26/10, Robert Dewar wrote:
| Of course in Ada there is a clear notion of threads semantic, and
| a clear definition of what the meaning of code is in the presence
| of threads, so the specific situation discussed here is easy to
| deal with (though Ada takes the view tha
skaller wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 20:26 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
skaller wrote:
So I am guessing the Felix version is lucky there are
no gratuitous temporaries to be saved when this happens,
and the C code is unlucky and there are.
Maybe someone who knows how the optimiser works can comm
* Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-26 14:53]:
> Can you estimate how many packages use or ?
Not easily because I backed out those changes.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
35 matches
Mail list logo
