On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:07:52PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:50:13PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> csui = (ONEUL << a);
> >> b = ((csui & cst) != 0);
> >> if (b)
> >> return 1;
> >> else
> >>
Clive Webster schrieb:
I've previously used WinAVR and their port of gcc has an 'enhancement' in
the avr-size which is option '-C' or '--format=avr' which also needs you to
Please notice that this mailing list is about GCC development, not about
binutils.
size is not a part of GCC. size is par
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Feng LI writes:
>
>> Yes, you are right. But how could I reference to a backend defined
>> builtin
>> function in the middle end (I need to generate the builtin function in
>> the
>> middle end and expand it in x86 b
On 23 April 2012 18:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Peter A. Felvegi" writes:
>
>> Should I file a bug report?
>
> Yes, please. Thanks.
Please check it's not http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24926 first
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting "H.J. Lu" :
>
>> Putting our own foo in a section with a special prefix in section name,
>> like .secondary_*, works with linker support. But it isn't very reliable.
>
>
> In what way is requiring linker support for STB_GNU_SECONDA
I've previously used WinAVR and their port of gcc has an 'enhancement' in
the avr-size which is option '-C' or '--format=avr' which also needs you to
pass the chip type in '--mmcu=atmega328p' for example. This shows the total
amount of flash required (ie code + data), and RAM (ie data + bss) and
c
Feng LI writes:
> Yes, you are right. But how could I reference to a backend defined builtin
> function in the middle end (I need to generate the builtin function in the
> middle end and expand it in x86 backend)?
If the function doesn't have a machine-independent definition
"Peter A. Felvegi" writes:
> Should I file a bug report?
Yes, please. Thanks.
Ian
Hi Ian,
2012/4/23 Ian Lance Taylor :
> Feng LI writes:
>
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> 2012/4/22 Ian Lance Taylor :
>>> Feng LI writes:
>>>
Yes, you are right. But how could I reference to a backend defined builtin
function in the middle end (I need to generate the builtin function in the
midd
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I will file a PR for this later today, maybe after trying on a few
> other targets to see if this is a middle-end problem or a target
> issue.
This is now PR target/53087 (http://gcc.gnu.org/PR53087).
Actually the poor code looks to be co
Feng LI writes:
> Hi Ian,
>
> 2012/4/22 Ian Lance Taylor :
>> Feng LI writes:
>>
>>> Yes, you are right. But how could I reference to a backend defined builtin
>>> function in the middle end (I need to generate the builtin function in the
>>> middle end and expand it in x86 backend)?
>>
>> If th
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:50:13PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> csui = (ONEUL << a);
>> b = ((csui & cst) != 0);
>> if (b)
>> return 1;
>> else
>> return 0;
>
> We (powerpc) would be much better if this were
>
> csui = (ONE
Hi Richard
1. Printing global variables.
Look at the cgraph (.000i.cgraph) dump.
2. Preserving function arguments (what I call an "interface").
I think we do that now.
Thank you very much! I'll grab the latest release and have a look.
Best regards,
Nikolaos Kavvadias
Both 1 and 2 ar
The summery goes something like this:
It is possible for the second pass of ira to get confused and decide that
NO_REGS or a hard float register are better choices for the result of the
2 operand mult. First pass already optimally allocated in GR_AND_MD1_REGS.
Two pass ira is enabled with "-fexpe
On 04/22/2012 11:43 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
When EGCS and GCC merged back together again, the changes made to the
FSF version of GCC (that is, the non-EGCS version) were put into
FSFChangelog, which is where you found them. There was no attempt to
copy all the entries from FSFChangeLog to t
On 04/23/2012 06:27 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hello,
I ported the code to expand switch() statements with bit tests from
stmt.c to GIMPLE, and looked at the resulting code to verify that the
transformation applies correctly, when I noti
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:50:13PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> csui = (ONEUL << a);
> b = ((csui & cst) != 0);
> if (b)
> return 1;
> else
> return 0;
We (powerpc) would be much better if this were
csui = (ONEUL << a);
return (csui & cst) >> a;
Other targets would proba
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a simple IPA pass that requires access to all function bodies in a
> program. For C and small Fortran programs doing this at link time causes no
> issues. However, when I attempt to compile a larger Fortran program the
> pass is called multiple times at link time, each time w
Hi,
I have a simple IPA pass that requires access to all function bodies in a
program. For C and small Fortran programs doing this at link time causes no
issues. However, when I attempt to compile a larger Fortran program the
pass is called multiple times at link time, each time with only a por
Hello,
clang gave an error on a code that compiled with gcc so far. The reduced
test case is:
8<8<8<8<---
class V;
struct E
{
E(const V& v_);
char* c;
V* v;
int i;
};
class V
{
private:
union {
char* c;
struct {
V* v;
int i;
};
};
};
E::E(const V& v_) :
c(v_.c), // line 25
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> int foo (_Bool b)
> {
> if (b)
> return 1;
> else
> return 0;
> }
Indeed PHI-OPT performs the transformation on this code, too. But the
resulting code on powerpc64 is fine:
[stevenb@gcc1-power7 gcc]$ cat t.c.149t.optimized
;; Fu
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I ported the code to expand switch() statements with bit tests from
> stmt.c to GIMPLE, and looked at the resulting code to verify that the
> transformation applies correctly, when I noticed this strange PHI-OPT
> transformation
Hello,
I ported the code to expand switch() statements with bit tests from
stmt.c to GIMPLE, and looked at the resulting code to verify that the
transformation applies correctly, when I noticed this strange PHI-OPT
transformation that results in worse code for the test case of PR45830
which looks
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A colleague noticed that we were not vectorizing loops that had end of
> loop computations that were MIN type operations that weren't expressed
> in the form of a typical min operation. A transform from (i < x ) &&
> ( i < y)
2012/4/22 :
> Dear all,
>
> I have a few questions regarding how to augment the information dumped in
> "004t" GIMPLE dumps (prior any optimization).
>
> My main concerns are:
>
> 1. Printing global variables.
Look at the cgraph (.000i.cgraph) dump.
> 2. Preserving function arguments (what I ca
Hi Ian,
2012/4/22 Ian Lance Taylor :
> Feng LI writes:
>
>> Yes, you are right. But how could I reference to a backend defined builtin
>> function in the middle end (I need to generate the builtin function in the
>> middle end and expand it in x86 backend)?
>
> If the function doesn't have a mach
26 matches
Mail list logo
