Re: Using MPC Library with GCC

other updates will come, but the base functionality is now there. I've opened PR 40302 as you requested (and assigned myself). I have noticed that mpc is not automatically detected even when installed in the standard library path (with gcc-4.5-20090604). This means that building with

Re: [RFC] enabling -fshow-column by default

2009/5/20 Aldy Hernandez: >> >> My only worry is that the testsuite may confuse column and line >> numbers and pass/fail tests because of it. > > Janis has a patch for the testsuite to handle all this. I'm seeing exactly this in the libstdc++ testsuite with some new tests I've written - is a fix o

gcc-4.5-20090604 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.5-20090604 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20090604/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

Re: From regno to pseudo?

Steven Bosscher wrote: Hello, Is there a way to get the REG for a given regno? I am building a register renumbering map that is just a pair of unsigned int , but I can't figure out how to get the REG for new_regno without remembering a pointer to it myself. Is there an easier/better way? Ciao!

Re: STRIP_NOPS and lower-precision/bit-field types

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Adam Nemet wrote: > >> 1. Change STRIP_NOPS not to remove the cast if it's changing the precision >> (not just when it changes machine modes).  And then audit code quality where >> we need to and are allowed to look thro

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

Duncan Sands writes: > this would work when doing unit-at-a-time, but not when doing > function-at-a-time. Does gcc still do function-at-a-time? No. Ian

Re: GCC Summit 2010 topic (potentially).

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Toon Moene wrote: > L.S., > > This year I'm unable to attend the GCC Summit (both due to time and money > constraints). > > In 2008, I pondered to talk about the effect of link time optimization on > typical Fortran programs - > > That is, until my attention got hij

Re: STRIP_NOPS and lower-precision/bit-field types

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Adam Nemet wrote: > 1. Change STRIP_NOPS not to remove the cast if it's changing the precision > (not just when it changes machine modes). And then audit code quality where > we need to and are allowed to look through these casts. As I said in

STRIP_NOPS and lower-precision/bit-field types

In this testcase: struct s { unsigned long a:2; unsigned long b:40; unsigned long c:22; }; f (struct s s) { g (((unsigned long) (s.b-8)) + 8); } fold breaks the code. Specifically, after a few transformations we're asked to fold this. (I changed the big constant t

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

Hi Rafael, There was some talk about it on #gcc. A plugin should be able to see all the GCC IL, so it should be able to convert it to LLVM. Keeping the current llvm-gcc interface would require some hacks *) The plugin will have to call exit to keep gcc's code generation from running. this wou

"plugin"-ifying the MELT branch.

Hello All, To make MELT more interesting & more easy to use, I want to make it become a (big & meta *) plugin. I also need to document & illustrate it much more. I actually did start to work on the pluginification of MELT: I mean making MELT a real GCC plugin, not needing any core GCC patch a

GCC Summit 2010 topic (potentially).

L.S., This year I'm unable to attend the GCC Summit (both due to time and money constraints). In 2008, I pondered to talk about the effect of link time optimization on typical Fortran programs - That is, until my attention got hijacked by the geo-politically more pressing question of Coarr

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

On Jun 4, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Rafael Espindola > wrote: I'd love to see this, but I can't contribute to it directly. I think the plugin interfaces would need small extensions, but there are no specific technical issues preventing it fro

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:59 PM, Miles Bader wrote: Chris Lattner writes: Some time ago, there was a discussion about integrating LLVM and GCC [1]. However, with plugin infrastructure in place, could LLVM be plugged into GCC as an additional optimization plugin? I'd love to see this, but I can'

GCC 4.5.0 Status Report (2009-06-04)

Status == The trunk is in Stage 1. As previously stated, we expect that Stage 1 will last through at least July. There are still large pending merges we are aware of, specifically the VTA and LTO branches will be considered when deciding when to go to Stage 3. We hope to see you all at this

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

> Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but eh -- why would you want > to make an LLVM plugin?  Aren't LLVM and GCC doing just fine as > competing compilers? LLVM is a toolkit. There is a patched version of GCC that uses LLVM (llvm-gcc). This is particularly important for fortran and ada since c

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Rafael Espindola wrote: >> I'd love to see this, but I can't contribute to it directly.  I think the >> plugin interfaces would need small extensions, but there are no specific >> technical issues preventing it from happening.  LLVM has certainly >> progressed a lo

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

> I'd love to see this, but I can't contribute to it directly.  I think the > plugin interfaces would need small extensions, but there are no specific > technical issues preventing it from happening.  LLVM has certainly > progressed a lot since that (really old) email went out :) I can help a bit.

Re: [4.3] Invalid code or invalid optimisation?

Dave Korn wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> Dave Korn wrote: >> >>> Adding a "memory" clobber to the inline asm works around the problem, >>> causing 4.3 series to generate the same assembly as head, but I think it's a >>> sledgehammer approach. Am I asking too much of GCC to not sink the store,

Re: [4.3] Invalid code or invalid optimisation?

Dave Korn wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> Volatile stores only block other >> volatile stores: they don't block *all* stores. If you really want a >> complete >> memory barrier, which in a mutex you surely do, then you're going to have to >> clobber memory. > > Ah. That suggests that HEAD i

Re: [4.3] Invalid code or invalid optimisation?

Andrew Haley wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: > >> Adding a "memory" clobber to the inline asm works around the problem, >> causing 4.3 series to generate the same assembly as head, but I think it's a >> sledgehammer approach. Am I asking too much of GCC to not sink the store, or >> is 4.3 doing somet

Re: [4.3] Invalid code or invalid optimisation?

Dave Korn wrote: > Adding a "memory" clobber to the inline asm works around the problem, > causing 4.3 series to generate the same assembly as head, but I think it's a > sledgehammer approach. Am I asking too much of GCC to not sink the store, or > is 4.3 doing something wrong? I /think/ that

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

Hi, Some time ago, there was a discussion about integrating LLVM and GCC [1]. However, with plugin infrastructure in place, could LLVM be plugged into GCC as an additional optimization plugin? I plan to start working on an llvm plugin any day now. Ciao, Duncan.