On Mar 7, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian suggested that we delete this information after the FE is
finished. This makes sense, I think, from a memory-saving
perspective. But, that means we will get different kinds of error
output dependi
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian suggested that we delete this information after the FE is
> finished. This makes sense, I think, from a memory-saving
> perspective. But, that means we will get different kinds of error
> output depending on when a diagnostic is emitted, which I think
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20080307 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20080307/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Otherwise, the libgomp.spec, which only resides in lib64, won't be found
at link time.
So I applied the link by hand - however, it occurs to me a computer is
the perfect tool to do this for me. Hence, why doesn't the make install
machinery do this ?
Kind regards,
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: [E
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Manuel" == Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Manuel> Here is a patch that give us caret diagnostics in C/C++.
>
> Nice.
>
> Manuel> The third approach would be to store an offset and when
> Manuel>
> "Manuel" == Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manuel> Here is a patch that give us caret diagnostics in C/C++.
Nice.
Manuel> The third approach would be to store an offset and when
Manuel> generating diagnostics, reopen the file, fseek to the offset
Manuel> and print that lin
On Friday 07 March 2008 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Philipp Marek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Shouldn't this be done in the linker instead?
> >
> > Well, can the linker change the instruction sequences? Ie. put a JMP
> > instead of other code?
>
> Sure. The linker can do whatever it likes.
"Philipp Marek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Shouldn't this be done in the linker instead?
> Well, can the linker change the instruction sequences? Ie. put a JMP
> instead of other code?
Sure. The linker can do whatever it likes. The usual problem is that
by the time the linker sees the cod
Hi,
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> To be realistic it is very unlikely anybody will measure a difference
> from a few more or a few less clds in a program.
Only an assumption, and in fact wrong. See upthread for a benchmark.
IIRC Uros also made measurements to justify the removal of
BTW - It gets much better:
$ ls -la /usr/lib/libgcj.so.90.0.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 32844984 3. Feb 16:03 /usr/lib/libgcj.so.90.0.0
$ ./run /usr/lib/libgcj.so.90.0.0
Approx. 470045 bytes saved.
That's 1.4% :-)
If my script isn't buggy, that is
--
Versioning your /etc, /home or
Hello Jakub!
>> When wouldn't that possible? My script currently splits on an
>> instruction-level -- although I would see no problem that some branch
>> jumps into a "half" opcode of another branch, if the byte sequence
>> matches.
>
> Consider:
> :
>0: b8 a4 00 00 00
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 01:05:03PM +0100, Philipp Marek wrote:
> When wouldn't that possible? My script currently splits on an
> instruction-level -- although I would see no problem that some branch
> jumps into a "half" opcode of another branch, if the byte sequence
> matches.
Consider:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 11:10:53AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Philipp Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I wrote some perl scripts to test this. I took a "alldefconfig" i686
Hello Jakub!
> You need to be very careful with it, as if there are any jumps
> into the middle of the to be abstracted tail sequences, you can't
> abstract them or would need to adjust also the jumps into them (if
> possible, which not always is).
When wouldn't that possible? My script currently
Hello Dave!
> One achitectural problem here is that GCC doesn't emit bytes. It emits
> ASCII text, in the form of assembly instructions, and it's
> not always easy to predict how they'll look by the time they've been
> through the assembler and then had relocs applied by the
> linker. (Indeed, to
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 11:10:53AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Philipp Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wrote some perl scripts to test this. I took a "alldefconfig" i686
> > kernel, let objdump disassemble it, and on "iret", "ret", "ljmp" or "jmp"
> >
Philipp Marek wrote:
> I'd like to (manually) define some byte blocks, eg. as functions with
> an identifier. Then, if GCC would emit exactly these bytes, it
> puts a JMP identifier there instead.
One achitectural problem here is that GCC doesn't emit bytes. It emits ASCII
text, in the form
Hello Michael!
> Can I test your script in my embedded system?
> Can you send to me?
Here you are.
code_overlap.pl - disassembles a binary, and outputs a list
(address, name, instruction, bytes) to STDOUT.
bytes_saved.pl - takes such a list, and tries to estimate
the amount of bytes that c
Hello Richard!
[ I took linux-tiny out - it's moderated, and I don't want to spam them. ]
> Sounds like what -frtl-abstract-sequences is trying to do.
Yes, thank you. I didn't know that; that should be close.
*But*: I think it doesn't work.
$ size vmlinux-as vmlinux-Os
textdata b
Hi,
Philipp Marek wrote:
Hello everybody,
I have a feature request.
and my scripts emit space savings of about 30kB. Now that's not
that much, but for embedded systems it means another userspace
binary more.
[ If anyone's interested, I can post my scripts here ... they're not
that large.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Philipp Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I have a feature request.
>
>
> I'd like to (manually) define some byte blocks, eg. as functions with an
> identifier. Then, if GCC would emit exactly these bytes, it puts a JMP
> identifier there
Hello everybody,
I have a feature request.
I'd like to (manually) define some byte blocks, eg. as functions with an
identifier. Then, if GCC would emit exactly these bytes, it puts a JMP
identifier there instead.
This would help by sharing many identical (text/code) byte sequences, to
make a s
* Robert Dewar:
> again, in the real world, there are MANY projects that are nothing
> like this interactive when it comes to moving to new versions of
> operating systems.
Sure, but how many of those get to see software compiled with GCC 4.3?
If this has any real impact, it's more likely to sho
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
>> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> So that is the bug in the Linux kernel. Since fixing kernel is much
>>> easier
>>> than providing a workaround in compilers, I think kernel should be fixed
>>> and no need for icc/gcc fix.
>>
>> Fixing a bu
24 matches
Mail list logo
