[C++14] Admit C++ keywords as literal suffixes.

2013-06-17 Thread Ed Smith-Rowland
I understand that the literal operators for complex numbers for C++14 faltered at least in part because of the perceived ugliness of the float operator: constexpr complex operator"" i_f(); // fugly The obvious choice constexpr complex operator"" if(); failed because 'if' is a keyword. The

Re: Loop induction variable optimization question

2013-06-17 Thread Chung-Ju Wu
2013/6/18 Steve Ellcey : > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 21:36 +0200, Oleg Endo wrote: > >> >> Sorry for not having an answer. I got curious, because just yesterday I >> was looking at this one >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190 >> and thought that this is related, although it doesn't se

Re: Loop induction variable optimization question

2013-06-17 Thread Steve Ellcey
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 21:36 +0200, Oleg Endo wrote: > > Sorry for not having an answer. I got curious, because just yesterday I > was looking at this one > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190 > and thought that this is related, although it doesn't seem to. > I've tried the two func

Re: Loop induction variable optimization question

2013-06-17 Thread Oleg Endo
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 10:07 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote: > I have a loop induction variable question involving post increment. > If I have this loop: > > [...] > My question is is: why (and where) did ivopts decide to move the > post-increments above the usages in the first loop? In my case > (MIP

Loop induction variable optimization question

2013-06-17 Thread Steve Ellcey
I have a loop induction variable question involving post increment. If I have this loop: void *memcpy_word_ptr(int * __restrict d, int * __restrict s, unsigned int n ) { int i; for(i=0; i: # d_22 = PHI # s_23 = PHI # i_24 = PHI d_10 = d_22 + 4; s_11 = s_23 + 4; _12 = *s_23; *

Re: Generate coverage informations in different sections.

2013-06-17 Thread Frediano Ziglio
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 17:32 +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm a Xen developer. We have coverage support (lcov replacement) in > > order to extract coverage information. However would be very helpful to > > have a way to put counters, structures and strings (file names) related > > to cove

Re: Generate coverage informations in different sections.

2013-06-17 Thread Jan Hubicka
> Hi, > I'm a Xen developer. We have coverage support (lcov replacement) in > order to extract coverage information. However would be very helpful to > have a way to put counters, structures and strings (file names) related > to coverage in different section. Actually there are no such options (i

Re: unusable libatomic.so built in certain environments

2013-06-17 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Jan Beulich wrote: > expect runtime properties to be taken into account here. And > for cross builds I'd expect a way to control whether the final > binary would be using GNU IFUNC symbols rather than just > making this dependent upon tool chain capabilities. For cross builds

unusable libatomic.so built in certain environments

2013-06-17 Thread Jan Beulich
In an environment with relatively old core components (dynamic loader and glibc) but with up-to-date binutils (perhaps built along with gcc) libatomic.so gets built in a way such that it is unusable on the build system. A similar issue was reported in a mail leading to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pat

Generate coverage informations in different sections.

2013-06-17 Thread Frediano Ziglio
Hi, I'm a Xen developer. We have coverage support (lcov replacement) in order to extract coverage information. However would be very helpful to have a way to put counters, structures and strings (file names) related to coverage in different section. Actually there are no such options (it would be

Re: [PR43721] Failure to optimise (a/b) and (a%b) into single call

2013-06-17 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Kugan wrote: > Hi, > > I am attempting to fix Bug 43721 - Failure to optimise (a/b) and (a%b) into > single __aeabi_idivmod call > (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43721) > > execute_cse_sincos tree level pass does similar cse so I attempted to use > similar appr

Re: Libitm issues porting to POWER8 HTM

2013-06-17 Thread Patrick Marlier
Hi Peter, On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Peter Bergner wrote: > I'm currently implementing support for hardware transactional memory in > the rs6000 backend for POWER8. Things seem to be mostly working, but I > have run into a few issues I'm wondering whether other people are seeing. It sound

Re: designated initializers extension and sparc

2013-06-17 Thread Eric Botcazou
> I wrote the following test: > > union foo { int i; double d; }; > > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { > union foo f = { .d = 4 }; > > ASSERT_EQ(0, f.i); > ASSERT_FEQ(4.0, f.d); > > return 0; > } > > ASSERT_EQ and ASSERT_FEQ are some macros which checks the falue and > g

Re: designated initializers extension and sparc

2013-06-17 Thread Gabriel Paubert
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:28:56AM +0300, Sergey Kljopov wrote: > Hi, > > Reading the text > - > In a structure initializer, specify the name of a field to > initialize with `.fieldname =' before the element value. For > example, given the following structure, > struct point { int