Zoltán Kócsi wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:53:10 +
Andrew Haley wrote:
We're talking about gcc on ARM. gcc on ARM uses 0 for the null
pointer constant, therefore a linker cannot place an object at
address zero. All the rest is irrelevant.
Um, the linker *must* place the vector table at
The documentation doesn't match the implementation:
tm.texi:@deftypefn {Target Hook} bool TARGET_NARROW_VOLATILE_BITFIELDS (void)
target-def.h:#define TARGET_NARROW_VOLATILE_BITFIELD hook_bool_void_false
target-def.h: TARGET_NARROW_VOLATILE_BITFIELD, \
Note the 'S' at the end in the d
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Yes, I believe that "Independent Modules" is intended to mean "any
code." However, it needs to be careful to not grant additional rights
to other parts of gcc itself. And in any case the only code which it
can control is code which uses the runtime library--the runti
On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Rafael Espindola wrote:
Is it IO bound because the LTO files are abnormally large? What
kinds of
file sizes are you seeing?
With the streamer debug enable we had over 40x the normal object size.
Without it, it looks to be 4 or 5 times if I remember correctly.
Nathan,
Great! This is the kind of work I am interested in. Thank you.
Rodrigo
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan Froyd [mailto:froy...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:04 PM
> To: Rodrigo Dominguez
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Binary Autovectorization
>
>
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20090129 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20090129/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>
>> Joern Rennecke writes:
>>
>>> So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent
>>> Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you
>>> make sure that they either don't need the GCC runtime, or that
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 04:46:37PM -0500, Rodrigo Dominguez wrote:
> I am looking at binary auto-vectorization or taking a binary and rewriting
> it to use SIMD instructions (either statically or dynamically). I was
> wondering if anyone knew of similar work and could help me with some links.
Ansh
Rodrigo Dominguez wrote:
> I am looking at binary auto-vectorization or taking a binary and rewriting
> it to use SIMD instructions (either statically or dynamically).
That's a tall order, considering how much source level dependency
information is needed. I don't know whether proprietary binary
Hi,
I am looking at binary auto-vectorization or taking a binary and rewriting
it to use SIMD instructions (either statically or dynamically). I was
wondering if anyone knew of similar work and could help me with some links.
Thank you,
Rodrigo Dominguez
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent
Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you
make sure that they either don't need the GCC runtime, or that they
incorporate pieces of it. You'd only
Joern Rennecke writes:
> So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent
> Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you
> make sure that they either don't need the GCC runtime, or that they
> incorporate pieces of it. You'd only need to make sure that
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
Combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules is certainly
more specific than combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules
and anything else you feel like.
Moreover, a typical link will contain Target Code which has not been
> Is it IO bound because the LTO files are abnormally large? What kinds of
> file sizes are you seeing?
With the streamer debug enable we had over 40x the normal object size.
Without it, it looks to be 4 or 5 times if I remember correctly.
> -Chris
Cheers,
--
Rafael Avila de Espindola
Google
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules is certainly
> more specific than combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules
> and anything else you feel like.
> Moreover, a typical link will contain Target Code which has not been
> generated by Eligibl
On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Chris Lattner
wrote:
On Jan 28, 2009, at 11:51 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Hi,
I got a request to try "FOO.H" if foo.h doesn't exist when dealing
with
#include "foo.h"
Any comments?
I strongly recommend against thi
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
The incremental linking argument is irrelevant. Either it's OK
without that or it's not OK with that.
Well, if we disregard incremental linking, than the propagation
is clearly not allowed.
Combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules is certainly
more spec
On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> The difference is that the front end does not work on source
code, but
> Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation
than
> to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime libra
Joern Rennecke writes:
> You seem to be saying that I could do incremental linking, first
> linking libgcc against the Independent Modules, slapping my own
> license on the partially linked work of Target Code (provided all
> used pieces of libgcc are target code - that is hardly ever the
> case,
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
> Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
>
>> Joern Rennecke wrote:
>>>
>>> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
>>>
>>> The old runtime library e
Hi Kaveh,
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> I'm trying to create complex number expressions that contain inf or
> nan in the imaginary part. I.e. (0 + inf I) or (0 + nan I).
If it does not need to be C (e.g. to try MPC in the middle end), you
could use Fortran:
! compile with gfortran -fno-range-check
co
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> I don't think these results are a bug, rather it's just an artifact of the
> way complex multiplcation is done and having these special values in
See bug 24581. Some aspects are a bug (GCC doesn't handle mixed
real/complex arithmetic the way it shoul
Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to figure out how come a memory allocation was short.
> I think I've stumbled onto the issue. "evt_t" is a 48 byte structure
> and "tpd_uptr" is a uintptr_t. "sz" initializes to 52 (decimal).
> The value would be correct if I were not trying to multiply t
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime library exception allowed you to distribute binaries that
both incl
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Ian Lance Taylor:
>
>> Florian Weimer writes:
>>
>>> The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
>>> Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
>>> to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
>>
>> I think it is c
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
No, this is not how Copyright works. In the absence of a license you may
not distribute the resulting work.
By my reading, you do have permission. It's right there in the
license.
You are arguing that the license must grant explicit permis
Hi,
I'm trying to create complex number expressions that contain inf or nan in
the imaginary part. I.e. (0 + inf I) or (0 + nan I).
However when I write (_builtin_nan("") * 1.0i) I get (nan + nan I). For
(__builtin_inf() * 1.0i) I get (nan + inf I).
I don't think these results are a bug, rathe
* Ian Lance Taylor:
> Florian Weimer writes:
>
>> The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
>> Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
>> to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
>
> I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which can
Joern Rennecke writes:
>> > The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
>> > Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
>> > to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
>>
>> I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which can even be executed
Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>> I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
>> any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
>
> The old runtime library exception allowed you to distribute binaries that
> both include pieces of th
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> We can limit new testcases, which we backport to 4.3 branch, only
>> to those 4.4 regressions against 4.3 branch. They should always
>> pass on 4.3 branch by definition.
>
> There's nothing wrong with backporting testcas
> The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
> Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
> to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which can even be executed
directly by some microprocessors, is
Joern Rennecke writes:
>> The license says that you have permission to propagate works when
>> certain conditions apply. It does not say that you do not have
>> permission if certain other conditions apply. Therefore, if certain
>> conditions apply, you have permission. It is not necessary for
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>> Code that is neither Target Code nor an Independent Module is code
>> that has never been involved with gcc, and the license does not cover
>> it.
>
> There is a lot of Target code that is, per definition, not an
> Independent Module because
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language
which uses gcc runtime library interfaces. For example, look at
libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors .
That the license of libgloss is GPL-compatible do
Dennis Clarke writes:
> Would there be any way that I could invite you into the community
> build farm at Blastwave.org for this purpose ? I think it would be
> great if we could get a GCC package built ( with ada ) that passes a
> set of QC/QA steps and then release it to the Solaris world. C
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Code that is neither Target Code nor an Independent Module is code
that has never been involved with gcc, and the license does not cover
it.
There is a lot of Target code that is, per definition, not an
Independent Module because it does not use the GCC runtime librar
Joern Rennecke writes:
>>> Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language
>>> which uses gcc runtime library interfaces. For example, look at
>>> libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors .
>>> That the license of libgloss is GPL-compatible does not help her
Florian Weimer writes:
> The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
> Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
> to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which can even be executed
directly by s
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc pro
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
>
>> 2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
>>>
The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc proprietary c
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc proprietary compiler.
No, it says that you can only do t
The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
to a "high-level, non-intermediate language". If I'm not mistaken,
there is currently no usable Java-to-bytecode compiler with a license
that is GPLv3-compa
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
>
>> The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
>> proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
>> or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc proprietary compiler.
>
> No, it says that you can only do that if every file of th
Hi,
I use GCC cross compilers from the RTEMS project. They differ only in nuances
from the official releases. Between GCC version 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 something
changed in the DWARF debug info. I am unsure if this is cause for trouble. I
tested it with the PowerPC and m68k architectures. Here is the t
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime library exception allowed you to distribute binaries that
both include pieces of the gcc runtime and arbitrary piece
* Joe Buck:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:51:22PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * David Edelsohn:
>>
>> > We have also published a rationale document and FAQ to help users
>> > understand the exception better. It is avaliable at:
>> >
>> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
>>
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:53:10 +
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 04:39:39PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> >> "6.3.2.3 Pointers
> >>
> >> If a null pointer constant is converted to a pointer type, the
> >> resulting pointer, called a null pointer, is guar
On 2009-01-29 08:53:10 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> We're talking about gcc on ARM. gcc on ARM uses 0 for the null pointer
> constant, therefore a linker cannot place an object at address zero.
> All the rest is irrelevant.
How about using volatile, as suggested by Robert Dewar (if the gcc
docume
On 2009-01-28 16:34:29 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> If 0 is a valid address, then it is improper for the compiler to use
> 0 to represent the null pointer.
I disagree. You can represent addresses with some bit set. If in
practice (at the processor level), this bit is ignored, then this
can really
Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 04:39:39PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> "6.3.2.3 Pointers
>>
>> If a null pointer constant is converted to a pointer type, the
>> resulting pointer, called a null pointer, is guaranteed to compare
>> unequal to a pointer to any object or function."
>
52 matches
Mail list logo
