dep question in sched-deps.c

2012-03-20 Thread p z
Hello, I am confused by following piece of code in sched-deps.c. My understanding is the last_pending_memory_flush only holds jumps, calls and memory write. So I think the two invocations of add_dependence should build true dependence, not anti. for (u = deps->last_pending_mem

GCC 4.6.3 successful build on i386-apple-darwin10.8.0

2012-03-20 Thread Espen Trydal
i386-apple-darwin10.8.0 Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/Cellar/gcc/4.6.3/bin/../libexec/gcc/i386-apple-darwin10.8.0/4.6.3/lto-wrapper Target: i386-apple-darwin10.8.0 Configured with: ../gcc-4.6.3/configure --prefix=/usr/local/Cellar/gcc46 --enable-languages=all

Re: peephole2+dead reg info after reload?

2012-03-20 Thread Aurelien Buhrig
>> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to make some peephole2 optimizations working (gcc 4.6.1), but >> it seems the REG_DEAD information is lost during or after reload. >> >> In the following peephole2 definition, peep2_reg_dead_p returns false, >> whereas REG_DEAD information is correctly set before reload for

Re: A problem related to const rvalue

2012-03-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
2012/3/20 : > Is it a bug or by design? Who can answer the question for me? This list is for discussing the development of GCC not for help using it, so this is the wrong mailing list for your question. It would be more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing list, please take an follow-up there, tha

Re: subreg:HI of PSI HW register issue

2012-03-20 Thread Aurelien Buhrig
09/03/2012 17:10, Bernd Schmidt: > On 03/09/2012 04:20 PM, Aurelien Buhrig wrote: >> I'm not used to work at tree level for now and it is unclear for me what >> part of the code should be tweaked. Can you tell me which part of the >> code you are fixing/looking at, so that I can have a better >> un

Re: pr52543

2012-03-20 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Kenneth Zadeck writes: > i actually care about all registers, not just the hard ones.as it > turns out i had been wrong and lower-subregs splits pseudo to pseudo > moves, and hard reg to and from psuedo moves. > > register_move_cost requires the regclasses. > > anyway that is not the right th

Re: pr52543

2012-03-20 Thread Kenneth Zadeck
i actually care about all registers, not just the hard ones.as it turns out i had been wrong and lower-subregs splits pseudo to pseudo moves, and hard reg to and from psuedo moves. register_move_cost requires the regclasses. anyway that is not the right thing to do for the shifts. kenny

Re: pr52543

2012-03-20 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Kenneth Zadeck writes: > I think that the question is really bigger than finding the correct > line to fix. The problem is, that this code assumes that machines do > not have multiword moves or multiword shifts. My machine has both, > and i assume that the avr and the neon have at least multi

Re: PRE_GCC3_DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS

2012-03-20 Thread Aldy Hernandez
On 03/19/12 12:28, David Edelsohn wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: Hello, The rs6000 and cr16 backends and unwinding code have a define for the DWARF frame register for pre-GCC3 compatibility (PRE_GCC3_DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS): gcc/doc/tm.texi.in:@defmac PRE_GCC3_

Re: pr52543

2012-03-20 Thread Kenneth Zadeck
Ian is certainly correct. I think that the question is really bigger than finding the correct line to fix. The problem is, that this code assumes that machines do not have multiword moves or multiword shifts. My machine has both, and i assume that the avr and the neon have at least multiwo

Re: GCC 5? (was Re: GCC 4.7.0RC: Mangled names in cc1)

2012-03-20 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Richard Guenther skribis: > >> 2012/3/19 Ludovic Courtès : > > [...] > >>> In the example of name mangling, I’d just have wrapped in ‘extern "C"’ >>> all the headers listed in ‘PLUGIN_HEADERS’ in gcc/Makefile.in.  The >>>

Re: Cloning functions

2012-03-20 Thread Matt Davis
Hi Martin, thanks very much for the information! On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 02:07:17PM +1100, Matt Davis wrote: >> Hello, >> In my transformation of an input program, I need to clone functions >> and the callee functions in each clone.

Re: GCC 5? (was Re: GCC 4.7.0RC: Mangled names in cc1)

2012-03-20 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Richard, Richard Guenther skribis: > 2012/3/19 Ludovic Courtès : [...] >> In the example of name mangling, I’d just have wrapped in ‘extern "C"’ >> all the headers listed in ‘PLUGIN_HEADERS’ in gcc/Makefile.in.  The >> rationale is that it simplifies plug-in maintenance, while not impeding

Re: Reloading going wrong. Bug in GCC?

2012-03-20 Thread Mohamed Shafi
ping !!!. Any help on http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-09/msg00150.html shafi On 14 September 2011 15:07, Mohamed Shafi wrote: > Hi, > > I am working on a 32bit private target which has the following restriction > > 1. store/load can happen only through a general purpose register (GP_REGS) > 2. ba

Re: fold_builtin changes tree

2012-03-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:21:45AM +, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > > I'm not sure what you are folding the builtin to, but perhaps you could > > retain a reference to the function. > > > > I am folding the function call __function_size(foobar) to a new symbol > foobar@size. The reference to funct

Re: Cloning functions

2012-03-20 Thread Martin Jambor
Hi, On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 02:07:17PM +1100, Matt Davis wrote: > Hello, > In my transformation of an input program, I need to clone functions > and the callee functions in each clone. To clone a function, or > create a duplicate, I use "cgraph_function_versioning()" This works > perfectly well

Re: fold_builtin changes tree

2012-03-20 Thread Paulo J. Matos
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:49:39 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > I'm not sure what you are folding the builtin to, but perhaps you could > retain a reference to the function. > I am folding the function call __function_size(foobar) to a new symbol foobar@size. The reference to function foobar d