Jan,
there was a very recent change in inlining on the mainline:
2013-09-02 Jan Hubicka
* ipa-split.c (execute_split_functions): Split externally visible
functions called once.
but as far as I can see there was no explanation for it. This introduced
annoying warnings in Ada
Hi Thomas,
> The idea, as we discussed it at the GNU Tools Cauldron's Acceleration
> BoF, is that the host program (for at least some acceleration devices)
> will be responsible for loading the acceleration device's code to the
> device, using some support library that is specific to each accelera
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:29:56PM +0400, Michael V. Zolotukhin wrote:
> > The idea, as we discussed it at the GNU Tools Cauldron's Acceleration
> > BoF, is that the host program (for at least some acceleration devices)
> > will be responsible for loading the acceleration device's code to the
> > d
> > Oh, if we just link the target binary as a data section into the host
> > binary, then I see no problems in that, it seems absolutely feasible
> > with the existing infrastructure. I just thought (seemingly it was
> > incorrect) that we're speaking about linking of target code with the
> > hos
Sorry forgot to mention, my name is Tuncer.
Again any help would be much appreciated.
I know these maybe simple for some of you if you could lend me a hand, you
will be doing a great deal of help.
Changed the subject for better understanding,
Thanks again guys :)
> Hi,
>
> I am a student at Bi
Hi!
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 19:18:01 +0400, "Michael V. Zolotukhin"
wrote:
> > - collect all those target object files from the link, link them together
> > using target compiler driver, and feed back the resulting binary
> > or shared library into the host linking (some magic section in there)
>
On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 12:57 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Kugan
> wrote:
> > On 17/06/13 19:07, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Kugan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I am attempting to fix Bug 43721 - Failure to optimise (a/b) and (a%b)
> >>
Quoting Ilya Enkovich :
Hi,
I'm fighting with mode switching (to be more precise with
create_pre_exit function) trying to make it work for MPX. I saw
create_pre_exit had some stability issues before and now I'm facing
similar issues trying to have it working when bound register is
returned by
> I'd go with .gnu.target_lto* names (i.e. s/.gnu.lto/.gnu.target_lto/
> on the existing LTO section names if they are for the accelerator rather
> than host).
I guess that now we could go with any naming, as it's far from being
finalized.
> I really have almost zero experience with LTO, but I don
Hi,
I'm fighting with mode switching (to be more precise with
create_pre_exit function) trying to make it work for MPX. I saw
create_pre_exit had some stability issues before and now I'm facing
similar issues trying to have it working when bound register is
returned by function in addition to GPR
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 05:59:35PM +0400, Michael V. Zolotukhin wrote:
> Let's continue this discussion.
>
> Summing up what was said above, I think we need following changes in
> LTO-infrastructure to enable offloading:
> * [in lto_plugin] claim files with .openmp (or whatever
> name) sections
Hi guys,
Let's continue this discussion.
Summing up what was said above, I think we need following changes in
LTO-infrastructure to enable offloading:
* [in lto_plugin] claim files with .openmp (or whatever
name) sections along with files containing .lto sections, as we do now
* [in lto_plugin
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 September 2013 12:55
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Why DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
>
> DECL_IS_BUILTIN is true if the decl was created by the frontend / backend
> rat
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 03 September 2013 11:19
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Why DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Kugan
wrote:
> On 17/06/13 19:07, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> 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_
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 September 2013 11:19
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Why DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Why do we h
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why do we have two macros in tree.h with seemingly the same semantics?
> DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
The point is they are not the same.
Richard.
> --
>
> Paulo Matos
>
>
Hi,
Why do we have two macros in tree.h with seemingly the same semantics?
DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
--
Paulo Matos
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Mon, 2013-08-26 12:51:53 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2013-08-20 11:24:31 +0400, Alexander Ivchenko
> >> wrote:
> >> > I certainly missed that OPTION_BIO
19 matches
Mail list logo
