On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 11:05:01AM +0900, Sho Nakatani wrote:
> - When task A encounters "#pragma omp task" derective, worker creates a task
> and immediately execute it. Worker pushes A to the head of deque.
Immediately starting a freshly created task on #pragma omp task is nice for
cache
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> For i686-linux bootstraps it's hard to argue against it, but in general
> I find it easier to cope with the occasional broken tree than with
> getting patches reverted when you can't reproduce the failure.
Maybe you find that easier, but aut
From: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:15:38 +0200
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 08:10:25PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:27:12PM +0900, Sho Nakatani wrote:
>> > Then, I'll compare the trees created by gcc and icc, and point out
>> > that the implementation of OpenMP
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04/04/11 16:20, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Steven Bosscher
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My proposal would be: A patch may be reverted immediately by anyone
>>> with SVN write acce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/04/11 16:20, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> My proposal would be: A patch may be reverted immediately by anyone
>> with SVN write access if bootstrap is broken for more than 24 hours on
>> any prima
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/04/11 19:14, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>
> Another danger is getting a mob effect as in PR48403 (which I've also
> seen happen on other occasions) and getting the wrong set of patches
> reverted by trigger-happy people. To be blunt, there are some p
Hi. Sorry for being late.
> Depends on what you mean by lazy task creation, gcc schedules
> tasks lazily if they aren't if (0), some data structure if created
> for them when encountering #pragma omp task directive, but I guess
> any implementation will do something like that.
I mean the followin
cc Try something new http://bit.ly/fJFCOJ i defiantly received benefits as soon
as i began doing it its my pleasure to be able to share it success with you
seriously everyday used to be the same and now i can't wait to see whats next
you'll truly have all the time in the world to expand your h
On 04/05/2011 12:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Steven Bosscher writes:
>
>> My proposal would be: A patch may be reverted immediately by anyone
>> with SVN write access if bootstrap is broken for more than 24 hours on
>> any primary target. With proper notification to everyone involved,
>> obv
> I saw that dwarf2out.c (generate_type_signature) does not just calculate
> the complete type signature for use with DW_AT_signature, but also
> outputs a DW_AT_GNU_odr_signature. The comment says:
>
> /* First, compute a signature for just the type name (and its
> surrounding context, if any.
On 04/04/2011 11:58 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> In the PR audit trail, I've proposed to revert the patch, and HJ and
> Benjamin are also in favor of that. In Benjamin's works: Bootstrap has
> been broken for much too long, on all the common devel arches.
Which is not actually true, see the secon
Steven Bosscher writes:
> My proposal would be: A patch may be reverted immediately by anyone
> with SVN write access if bootstrap is broken for more than 24 hours on
> any primary target. With proper notification to everyone involved,
> obviously.
I agree.
At the summit in October there was a
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> My proposal would be: A patch may be reverted immediately by anyone
> with SVN write access if bootstrap is broken for more than 24 hours on
> any primary target. With proper notification to everyone involved,
> obviously.
I agree.
FWIW,
Hello,
Revisions r171843, and r171845 broke bootstrap on many platforms, see
PR48403. The commit of r171942 was supposed to fix this problem, but
there are multiple reports that the problem is _not_ fixed for some
configurations.
This means that bootstrap has now been broken for three days on x86
On 04/04/2011 02:34 PM, Matt Fischer wrote:
I'm getting an internal compiler error on the following test program:
void func(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, short int h)
{
assert(a< 100);
assert(b< 100);
assert(c< 100);
assert(d< 100);
I'm getting an internal compiler error on the following test program:
void func(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, short int h)
{
assert(a < 100);
assert(b < 100);
assert(c < 100);
assert(d < 100);
assert(e < 100);
assert(f < 100);
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for running these. I spent some time this morning looking
> through the results, they largely look ok though I don't have much
> perspective on the
> the objc/ obj-c++ failures.
>
> These failures here
>
> For v7
I am looking at finishing up the PowerPC support for functions compiled with
target specific options, and the PowerPC will have the same problem that the
x86 has, namely in order to support target functions, you need to have all of
the machine specific builtins created, even if the user did not say
sfegwergregvrgevev
erfvrefv
vreftrvrvrvrd
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 08:10:25PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:27:12PM +0900, Sho Nakatani wrote:
> > Then, I'll compare the trees created by gcc and icc, and point out
> > that the implementation of OpenMP Task uses Lazy Task Creation while
> > gcc does not.
>
> Depen
sable-shared
> Thread model: single
> gcc version 4.7.0 20110404 (experimental) (GCC)
GCC 4.6 produces right code.
b:
/* prologue: function */
/* frame size = 0 */
/* stack size = 0 */
.L__stack_usage = 0
rcall a
adiw r24,1
/* epilogue start */
ret
Denis.
On Apr 4, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
> I have a target that supports a "push.b x" operation that puts a byte onto
> the stack but pre-decrements the stack pointer by 2 to maintain alignment.
FWIW, you might look at the pdp11 target support, since what you describe is
done by pdp11 al
I have a target that supports a "push.b x" operation that puts a byte onto
the stack but pre-decrements the stack pointer by 2 to maintain alignment.
I have a machine description that includes these two defines:
(define_insn "*pushqi_pre_mod"
[(set (mem:QI (pre_modify:HI (reg:HI 1)
avr-gcc bar.c -da -S -Os -dp
== configuration
Target: avr
Configured with: ../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/configure --target=avr
--prefix=some-prefix --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-libssp
--disable-libada --disable-nls --disable-shared
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.7.0 20110404 (experimental) (GCC)
Hi,
I saw that dwarf2out.c (generate_type_signature) does not just calculate
the complete type signature for use with DW_AT_signature, but also
outputs a DW_AT_GNU_odr_signature. The comment says:
/* First, compute a signature for just the type name (and its
surrounding context, if any. This
GNU MPFR 3.0.1 ("boudin aux pommes", patch level 1) is now
available for download from the MPFR web site:
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.0.1/
from INRIAGForge:
https://gforge.inria.fr/projects/mpfr/
and from the GNU FTP site:
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/mpfr/
Thanks very much to those who sent u
Prof Uday Khedker presented a very nice tutorial on GCC development at
this year's CGO: http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/grc/index.php?page=gcc-tut
I've added a link to the tutorial from the getting started wiki:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted
Diego.
Hey,
When I build my software products via gcc can I use it with third
party's proprietary software (not open source)?
Yes.
When I build my software products via gcc I must provide source code of
my products in any case?
No. You don't need to publish _your_ source code in this case. There are
Excuse me, unfortunately I didn't found anything about my questions.
Tell me please next.
When I build my software products via gcc can I use it with third
party's proprietary software (not open source)?
When I build my software products via gcc I must provide source code of
my products in any ca
29 matches
Mail list logo
