Snapshot gcc-4.6-20130125 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20130125/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Sudakshina Das
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Sudakshina Das
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Sudakshina Das
On 01/25/2013 09:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Chassin wrote:
On 01/24/2013 06:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Chassin
wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Please keep this on the list.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 12:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>
>> I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
>> not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: "toolability" (for
>> the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows
Paolo Bonzini wrote, On Friday 25 January 2013 05:38 PM:
Il 25/01/2013 08:24, Uday P. Khedker ha scritto:
Exactly. We have been using our training program since 2007 (and have
been incrementally refining it on a continuously). Our experience has
been that it has brought down the ramp up period
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 25 January 2013 15:59
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: autovectorizer doesn't support multistep widen mult
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there any technical reason (besides nobody bothers to implement it) why
> GCC doesn't support multistep conversions for widen mult?
No.
> In tree-vect-stmts.c:
> /* Check if it's a multi-step conversion that can be done using
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Sudakshina Das
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Sudakshina Das
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Sudakshina Das
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Richard Biener
Hello,
Is there any technical reason (besides nobody bothers to implement it) why GCC
doesn't support multistep conversions for widen mult?
In tree-vect-stmts.c:
/* Check if it's a multi-step conversion that can be done using intermediate
types. */
prev_type = vectype;
prev_mode = v
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
> I read code in lower-subreg.c and found GCC only split some of
> multi-word mode instructions, like load from memory into pseudo reg,
> etc. The related code is in find_decomposable_subregs.
>
> So for below example from PR56102:
>
> double g
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Sudakshina Das
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Sudakshina Das
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Sudakshi
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Sudakshina Das
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Sudakshina Das
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Sudakshina Das
>> > wrote:
>> > > Dear all,
>> > >
>> > > I am currently u
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Chassin wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 06:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Chassin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/23/2013 02:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Please keep this on the list.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Chassin
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
>
>
> Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 05:28 PM:
>
>
>>> In the program below, we have a global pointer p that has conditional
>>> assignments before its
>>> use on the RHS of a copy statement.
>>>
>>> ---
"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> > I would assume that foo would be nomips16 and goo would be mips16.
>> >
>> > The definition of plain foo() or goo() says that nothing is specified.
>> >
>> > What is not clear then?
>> >
>> > This is how all such ot
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Sudakshina Das
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Sudakshina Das
> > wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I am currently updating a pass that was made for gcc-4.6.*, so that it
> > > works fo
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > I would assume that foo would be nomips16 and goo would be mips16.
> >
> > The definition of plain foo() or goo() says that nothing is specified.
> >
> > What is not clear then?
> >
> > This is how all such other attributes in gcc are handled.
>
>
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, David Daney wrote:
> > I'm not understanding why mips16 and nomips16 are not simple inheritable
> > attributes.
>
> The mips16ness of a function must be known by the caller so that the
> appropriate version of the JAL/JALX instruction can be emitted
Not really, the issue of
Il 25/01/2013 08:24, Uday P. Khedker ha scritto:
> Exactly. We have been using our training program since 2007 (and have
> been incrementally refining it on a continuously). Our experience has
> been that it has brought down the ramp up period of novices to a couple
> of week.
A couple of weeks is
Hi!
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:37:16 +0100, I wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:09:33 +0100, I wrote:
> > Also known as: »I found another one«.
>
> (That's the last one I'm currently seeing.) Again depending on
> usability, we either get:
>
> checking for [GCC] option to accept ISO C89... none n
Hi!
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:34:09 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> For libc, I think always using $CC -E is fine. You don't need to bother
> with the MSG_CHECKING and CACHE_VAL boilerplate.
Ah, I thought the caching was required to have config.status' --recheck
do the right thing. Which actually
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> I read code in lower-subreg.c and found GCC only split some of
> multi-word mode instructions, like load from memory into pseudo reg,
> etc. The related code is in find_decomposable_subregs.
>
> So for below example from PR56102:
>
> double
On 01/24/2013 06:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Chassin wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Please keep this on the list.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Chassin
wrote:
On 01/23/2013 10:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The callgraph isn't the ma
23 matches
Mail list logo
