On 09/10/2013 10:19 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 07:13 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Hello Maintainers:
>>
>> After google search and check the Linux kernel, H8/300 is dead, and for
>> gcc-4.9.0 and binutils-2.23.2 still has h8300, do we still need it for
>> another OS ?
>>
>> Welcome any suggesti
On 09/09/2013 02:45 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
A number of header files have inline functions declared in them. Some of
these functions are actually quite large, and I doubt that inlining them
is the right thing. For instance, tree-flow-inline.h has some quite
large functions. Many of the op_it
On 09/09/2013 07:13 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
Hello Maintainers:
After google search and check the Linux kernel, H8/300 is dead, and for
gcc-4.9.0 and binutils-2.23.2 still has h8300, do we still need it for
another OS ?
Welcome any suggestions or completions, thanks.
The related information in li
Hello Maintainers:
After google search and check the Linux kernel, H8/300 is dead, and for
gcc-4.9.0 and binutils-2.23.2 still has h8300, do we still need it for
another OS ?
Welcome any suggestions or completions, thanks.
The related information in linux kernel next tree:
commit d02babe847b
On 7/09/2013, at 1:31 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> 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:
>>> Hi, thanks for cathing this.
>>>
>>> I certainly missed that OPTION_BIONIC is not defined for linux targets
> -Original Message-
> From: Vladimir Makarov [mailto:vmaka...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 08 September 2013 17:51
> To: Matthew Fortune
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; ber...@codesourcery.com
> Subject: Re: mips16 LRA vs reload - Excess reload registers
>
> On 13-08-23 5:26 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote:
>
A number of header files have inline functions declared in them. Some of
these functions are actually quite large, and I doubt that inlining them
is the right thing. For instance, tree-flow-inline.h has some quite
large functions. Many of the op_iter* functions are 30-40 lines long,
and get_
Hi, I have a little question
Right now internally in gcc we flexibly check whether a particular
function (or rather "function class", which could be easily extended)
is present or not in libc by calling target hook "libc_has_function",
however in the testsuite for c99 runtime we still check whethe
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
Hello,
This post details some thoughts on an enhancement to the vectorizer that
could take advantage of the SIMD instructions that allows indexed element
as an operand thus reducing the need for duplication and possibly improve
reuse of previously loaded
Hello,
This post details some thoughts on an enhancement to the vectorizer that
could take advantage of the SIMD instructions that allows indexed element
as an operand thus reducing the need for duplication and possibly improve
reuse of previously loaded data.
Appreciate your opinion on this.
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:18:20AM -0400, Tim Prince wrote:
> I pulled down an update of gcc gomp-4_0-branch yesterday and see in
> the not-yet-working additions to gcc testsuite there appears to be a
> move toward adding more cilkplus clauses to omp simd, such as
> firstprivate lastprivate (which
On 9/9/2013 9:37 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Dear all,
sometimes it can be useful to annotate loops for better vectorization,
which is rather independent from parallelization.
For vectorization, GCC has [0]:
a) Cilk Plus's #pragma simd [1]
b) OpenMP 4.0's #pragma omp simd [2]
Those require -fci
Dear all,
sometimes it can be useful to annotate loops for better vectorization,
which is rather independent from parallelization.
For vectorization, GCC has [0]:
a) Cilk Plus's #pragma simd [1]
b) OpenMP 4.0's #pragma omp simd [2]
Those require -fcilkplus and -fopenmp, respectively, and activ
13 matches
Mail list logo
