When the timing requirements are not met upon queueing an insn with
INSN_EXACT_TICK, the scheduler backtracks. This seems wasteful.
Why not prioritize INSN_EXACT_TICK insns so that we queue them
first on the cycle they need?
Thanks for the patch!
On 2012-09-13 08:46 , Richard Guenther wrote:
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/builtin-location.C
===
*** /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.0 +
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/builtin-location.C 2012-0
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> But if you want an example, I don't think that the formatOf
> arithmetic operations (IEEE 754-2008 ยง5.4.1 -- that's a "shall")
> are implemented by GCC, either for binary or for decimal, say
> add two _Decimal128 numbers and round to _Decimal64 directl
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> change
> node->symbol.whatever
> to
> node->ref_symbol().whatever
Please don't uglify the compiler with this. If GTY deficiencies force you
to do that, then hold off on it until GTY doesn't force you anymore.
Ciao,
Michael.
On 2012-09-12 15:55:16 +0300, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
> If exist, what are the known bugs in the current implementation of
> Decimal / IEEE 754-2008 standard ?
I don't know any reported bug of the decimal implementation (though
PR 37845 about the FP_CONTRACT pragma, which affects binary on some
mac
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >
> > > Alternately, we could use Richi's approach I suppose (what happened to
> > > that
> > > patch, btw)?
> >
> > I was under the impre
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > Alternately, we could use Richi's approach I suppose (what happened to that
> > patch, btw)?
>
> I was under the impression that the patch was good to go in; Richard?
Yes. I've made the
