On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 14 September 2010 00:16, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general
understanding is that clang C++ suppo
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to
replace the current frontends entirely.
Ian
On 14 September 2010 00:16, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>>> I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general
>>> understanding is that clang C++ support is not yet complete, so there is
>>> a benefit there, but only a
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> By that rule, it is clearly beneficial for some gcc users to compile
> Fortran using dragon-egg to take advantage of OpenCL. Ergo, dragon-egg
> is beneficial to GCC.
That's pretty special purpose, though. Not something I would personally
recommend that gcc develope
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
>> I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general
>> understanding is that clang C++ support is not yet complete, so there is
>> a benefit there, but only a temporary one. I don't see a real benefit
>> going forward
On 13 September 2010 23:41, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>
>> On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>>>
From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> I think you are again talking about user benefits. You don't see a
> (user) benefit in gcc->llvm because you perhaps do not use the
> features that LLVM has and GCC doesn't. But users of gcc->llvm surely
> see a large benefit if people
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>>
>>> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
>>> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
>>> see yet how GCC developers can c
On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>
>> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
>> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
>> see yet how GCC developers can consider either more beneficial than
>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Bingfeng Mei" writes:
>
>> I am experimenting some cond_exec patterns to better support
>> predicate in our target. I came across the following optimization
>> done in cse1, and not sure if it is correct behaviour or my fault.
>> Basica
On 9/13/10 2:04 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Therefore, I see a clear benefit to clang->gcc, but I
do not see a clear benefit to gcc->llvm.
Suppose you have large Fortran applications, and want to accelerate
parts of them on graphics processors.
Several of the OpenCL implementations use LLVM for
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> I am experimenting some cond_exec patterns to better support
> predicate in our target. I came across the following optimization
> done in cse1, and not sure if it is correct behaviour or my fault.
> Basically, cse1 performs copy propagation for insn 12 and 16 based
> on
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
> see yet how GCC developers can consider either more beneficial than
> the other.
It seems to me that at the present moment LLVM
Hello,
I am experimenting some cond_exec patterns to better support
predicate in our target. I came across the following optimization
done in cse1, and not sure if it is correct behaviour or my fault.
Basically, cse1 performs copy propagation for insn 12 and 16 based
on assignment in insn 10. Howev
On 13 September 2010 16:55, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:44:57PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> >
>> > Hmm, my impression was that GCC can mostly gain from clang-gcc, and only
>> > lose from llvm-gcc...
>>
>> What will
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:44:57PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, my impression was that GCC can mostly gain from clang-gcc, and only
> > lose from llvm-gcc...
>
> What will be gained and what will be lost in your opinion?
>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Laurynas Biveinis
wrote:
> Thanks. I assume that you pass --enable-languages=c to configure?
No, just a very simple configure and make command:
../path/to/gcc-4.6-build$ time { ../gcc-4.6-20100911/configure
--prefix=/usr --disable-nls --with-system-zlib && make -
2010/9/13 Dennis, CHENG Renquan :
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Laurynas Biveinis
> wrote:
>> I am the author of how these macros are generated, but somehow I have
>> missed this thread initially. Could you send me off-list that
>> gtype-desc.h file?
>
> The problematic gtype-desc.h has been
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Laurynas Biveinis
wrote:
> I am the author of how these macros are generated, but somehow I have
> missed this thread initially. Could you send me off-list that
> gtype-desc.h file?
The problematic gtype-desc.h has been sent to Laurynas separately, I
was compiling
From: Basile Starynkevitch
Subject: Re: How to parse a code snippet at front-end plugin
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 08:35:48 +0200
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:19:06 +0800 (CST)
> "Thinker K.F. Li" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am try to make a plugin to analyze GIMPLE before genericize. It
>> will insert s
> renq...@flyer-1-1:~/src/gcc-4.6-build$ grep -RsInw
> ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type gcc/
> gcc/gtype-desc.h:2451:#define ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type() ((struct
> lang_type *)(ggc_internal_cleared_alloc_stat (sizeof (struct
> lang_type) MEM_STAT_INFO)))
>
> this definition just doesn't accept any arg
13.9.2010 10:39, Dennis, CHENG Renquan kirjoitti:
So maybe the Gentoo distro has some problem...
No, I've tried compiling gcc-4.6-20100911 on ubuntu 10.04, the same
problem also happened;
and I also found that macro was defined in a generated header file, in
the gcc build directory;
renq...@
On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/10/2010 03:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
>>
>> On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
>>> wrote:
>>
>> Some strong way of addressing the concern that this cou
On 09/10/2010 03:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Kai Ruottu wrote:
> This seems to be defined in a header generated during the build
> into the $BUILD/gcc :
>
> [r...@localhost gcc]# grep ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type *.h
> gtype-desc.h:#define ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type_u() ((union lang_type_u
> *)(ggc_internal_c
25 matches
Mail list logo
