Benjamin Redelings I wrote:
Hi,
I have been playing with the GCC vectorizer and examining assembly code
that is produced for dot products that are not for a fixed number of
elements. (This comes up surprisingly often in scientific codes.) So
far, the generated code is not faster than non-ve
Hi,
I have been playing with the GCC vectorizer and examining assembly code
that is produced for dot products that are not for a fixed number of
elements. (This comes up surprisingly often in scientific codes.) So
far, the generated code is not faster than non-vectorized code, and I
think t
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:07 AM, FX wrote:
> I know something is going on with section names, so I thought I'd mention
> that there is a big regression on darwin (most "-flto -fwhopr -O2" tests
> fail) at rev. 155544. An example is:
Really lto should be disabled when targeting darwin. See PR 41
I know something is going on with section names, so I thought I'd mention that
there is a big regression on darwin (most "-flto -fwhopr -O2" tests fail) at
rev. 155544. An example is:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20010313-1.c -O2 -fwhopr (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/var/folders/UV/U
[redir to gcc-help]
On 01/01/2010 05:44 AM, Andris Kalnozols wrote:
> If the bug was a basic programming error, one would expect a
> runtime failure (dereferencing a NULL pointer) no matter which
> compiler was used.
I would not expect that, and I have no idea whay you would. Undefined
behaviou
Hi :
In regmove.c there is function "replace_in_call_usage" called in
fixup_match_1,
It replaces dst register by src in call_insn, I suspect whether it is necessary
Since comment of CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE says that no pseudo register
can appear in it and seems src is pseudo register.
further m
