Andrew Pinski writes:
> You could do what the rs6000 back-end does for the altivec builtins
> and resolve them while the parser is run (the SPU back-end does the
> same thing too). Yes there are opaque vector types, you just use
> build_opaque_vector_type instead of build_vector_type.
Thanks, I
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:04 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> I'm working on a coprocessor which has separate SIMD arithmetic
> operations for each data size, but only one SIMD logical operation for
> all sizes. I.e. there's four ADD insns (V8QI, V4HI, etc) , but only
> one AND insn. I'd like to use an o
Is there an opaque vector type? Something that can be assigned
to/from other vector types of the same size, without warning?
I'm working on a coprocessor which has separate SIMD arithmetic
operations for each data size, but only one SIMD logical operation for
all sizes. I.e. there's four ADD in
Status
==
GCC 4.4.0 was released into the wild approximately two weeks ago, and
so far few serious defects have been reported. That's great! There
are, however, a copule of open P1s and a bevy of P2s -- most of which
also apply to 4.5. So, there are good opportunities to help both 4.4
and
He Xiao wrote:
When I finished the scheduler, I got a strange phenomenon:
The CPI is reduced, but the total execution cycles are dramatically increased.
If this is a machine with a small number of registers, then try
disabling the first instruction scheduling pass that runs before
register al
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20090505 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20090505/
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/branches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:25:13AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Andi,
>>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> > Xinliang David Li writes:
>> >>
>> >> If the idea is generally accepted, I will prepare a series of patche
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Hi, I am going to create a gcc branch for the functionality of
>> lightweight IPO. The description of the project and current status can
>> be found in http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Lig
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:25:13AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Andi,
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Xinliang David Li writes:
> >>
> >> If the idea is generally accepted, I will prepare a series of patches
> >> and submit them to gcc trunk.
> >
> > I was reading
Andi,
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Xinliang David Li writes:
>>
>> If the idea is generally accepted, I will prepare a series of patches
>> and submit them to gcc trunk.
>
> I was reading your wiki page. Interesting idea.
>
> One aspect that wasn't clear to me on reading i
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> I didn't hear back from anyone opposing (or supporting!) MPC. Does that
> mean it's no longer controversial? Hopefully I've addressed the
> outstanding issues raised.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-04/msg00741.html
I personally think relying on MPC is a reasonable c
Status
==
The trunk is in Stage 1. As previously stated, we expect that Stage 1
will last through at least July.
Clearly, we have had a significant jump in P1 issues due to the major
changes made to the compiler middle-end. Let's drive that number
down -- otherwise it will be hard for othe
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Paolo Carlini schrieb:
>
>> Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, thanks. Then, I think I'll implement this, for now. Seems in any
>>> case conservative to have a link type test identical to the one used in
>>> libgomp and libgfortran and a fall back to the .s file (as cur
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Hi all, I plan to merge the cond-optab branch next Friday morning
> European time. No commit should be made to trunk from Friday 6:00 AM
> GMT to 12:00 AM GMT (or probably earlier).
Paolo, I've asked that there be no "major" check-ins between now and
then in order to give
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> We're in Stage 1, and in Stage 1 big changes happen -- and then there is
> naturally some instability. We clearly have some instability at
> present, so we need to slow down until that's resolved.
It looks like we have successfully resolved many of the problems. I
still s
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> From: "Mark Mitchell"
>
> > That is not a decision, however, on whether using MPC is or is not a
> > good idea. There have been objections raised to MPC, on the grounds
> > that it may not build on all host systems, or that the costs it brings
> > in
Pramod Joisha writes:
> Presently, the -combine option works only for C sources. I was
> wondering whether there are technical reasons for not supporting it
> for C++ sources. If not, are there plans for providing this support in
> the near future?
As a historical note, Geoff Keating, who implem
Hi,all,
I have recently porting the instruction scheduler to the new arch of
our lab. But something seems strange.
Our pipeline( single issue) will stall for 1 cycle if the
arithmetic/logic instruction follows by a load, and for 2 cycles if a
store/jump/call instruction follows. I wrote my schedule
I have the following code for implementing a new warning (PR16302). It
works as intended but I feel there is some duplication with the code
in fold_range_test (fold_const.c). However, fold_range_test cannot
handle arguments that contain C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR, hence the explicit
testing I added below.
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Pramod Joisha :
> >
> >
> > Presently, the -combine option works only for C sources. I was
> > wondering whether there are technical reasons for not supporting it
> > for C++ sources. If not, are there plans for providing this support in
>
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Hi, I am going to create a gcc branch for the functionality of
> lightweight IPO. The description of the project and current status can
> be found in http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LightweightIpo. Some highlights:
>
> 1) If you already use FDO i
2009/5/5 Dave Korn :
> Christian Joensson wrote:
>
>> ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/msformat-c.c:39: error: enum conversion in
>> initialization is invalid in C++
>
>> Any hints on what's going on and how to cure the issue?
>
> Yep: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00125.html (and thread).
Christian Joensson wrote:
> ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/msformat-c.c:39: error: enum conversion in
> initialization is invalid in C++
> Any hints on what's going on and how to cure the issue?
Yep: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00125.html (and thread).
cheers,
DaveK
2009/5/5 Pramod Joisha :
>
>
> Presently, the -combine option works only for C sources. I was wondering
> whether there are technical reasons for not supporting it for C++ sources. If
> not, are there plans for providing this support in the near future?
As LTO will obsolete -combine I do not see
This is on
Windows XP Pro/SP3 cygwin Intel Core2 Duo t9...@2.80ghz system with packages:
binutils 20080624-2 2.18.50.20080625
bison2.3-1 2.3
cloog-ppl0.15.3-1
cygwin 1.7.0-46
dejagnu 20021217-2 1.4.2.x
expect
Xinliang David Li writes:
>
> If the idea is generally accepted, I will prepare a series of patches
> and submit them to gcc trunk.
I was reading your wiki page. Interesting idea.
One aspect that wasn't clear to me on reading it was how different
compiler arguments for different files are handl
Paolo Carlini schrieb:
> Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> Ok, thanks. Then, I think I'll implement this, for now. Seems in any
>> case conservative to have a link type test identical to the one used in
>> libgomp and libgfortran and a fall back to the .s file (as currently used).
>>
> I committed the bel
27 matches
Mail list logo
