committed as revision 204987.
thanks
kenny
On 11/18/2013 05:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This patch fixes a number of places where the mode bitsize had been used but
the mode precision should have been used. The tree level is somewhat sloppy
about
I see what you're saying. You mean because the VLA stack space can be
dynamically "free'd" right away, as opposed to be there until the
epilogue. That is true :( Is still seems odd when just looking at it.
It's hard to imagine somebody would actually code
myarray[const_thousand_var] as opposed to m
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:43:50PM -0800, Hendrik Greving wrote:
> Hmm don't VLA's obey the same lifetime rules as regular automatic
> arrays on the stack?
In the languages yes, in GCC no. There is code to determine possibilities
of sharing some stack space between variables that can't be used at
Hmm don't VLA's obey the same lifetime rules as regular automatic
arrays on the stack?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:22:22AM -0800, Hendrik Greving wrote:
>> Interesting, I just read up on it and I didn't know that. Thanks. Is
>> it correct to
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:22:22AM -0800, Hendrik Greving wrote:
> Interesting, I just read up on it and I didn't know that. Thanks. Is
> it correct to say though that it is a missing optimization and
> frame_pointer_needed shouldn't evaluate to true?
Certainly not unconditionally. It depends on
Güray Özen wrote:
I came across a news about gcc will support OpenACC/OpenMP target
directive. How can i download this version?
Well, the support is at an early stage, targetting several different
backends. The work is done by several teams and, hence, not always very
well coordinated. I thin
Interesting, I just read up on it and I didn't know that. Thanks. Is
it correct to say though that it is a missing optimization and
frame_pointer_needed shouldn't evaluate to true?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Hendrik Greving
> wrote:
There is a typo in pushq offset computation. It should be
pushq_offset += ((unsigned char *) pushq_offset)[-6] == 0xf2 ? 1 : 0
instead of
pushq_offset += ((unsigned char *) pushq_offset)[6] == 0xf2 ? 1 : 0
H.J.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:03 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Here is a proposal to use
Here is a proposal to use 32-byte PLT to preserve bound registers.
Any comments?
BTW, we are working on another proposal to use a second PLT
section with 8 byte or 16 byte memory overhead, instead of
24 byte overhead.
--
H.J.
---
Intel MPX:
http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/319433-0
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Hendrik Greving
wrote:
> What's the difference in the C vs. the C++ spec that makes it a VLA in GNU-C?
max in C++ is considered an integer constant expression while in C it
is just an expression.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Andr
What's the difference in the C vs. the C++ spec that makes it a VLA in GNU-C?
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Hendrik Greving
> wrote:
>> In the below test case, "CASE_A" actually uses a frame pointer, while
>> !CASE_A doesn't. I can't im
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 13:17 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> >
> > > What would be the good way to add such a plugin event to GCC 4.9?
> >
> > See the cpp_callbacks structure, used to make diag
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 13:17 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> > What would be the good way to add such a plugin event to GCC 4.9?
>
> See the cpp_callbacks structure, used to make diagnostics go through GCC's
> diagnostics machinery, for example
Hello,
I'm doing master at Polytechnic University of Catalonia, BarcelonaTech
and I started to my master thesis. My topic is code generation for
hardware accelerator into OmpSs. OmpSs is being developed by Barcelona
Supercomputer Center, and it has a runtime for gpu. It can manage
kernel invocatio
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 07:24:46AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/18/13 04:08, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>I'd say that turning memset (0, '\0', 0) into a trap is bad from a QOI
> >perspective. Jeff, is there an easy way to avoid this? Testcase:
> >
> >void fn (void *addr, int a)
> >{
> > if (a =
On 11/18/13 04:08, Richard Biener wrote:
I'd say that turning memset (0, '\0', 0) into a trap is bad from a QOI
perspective. Jeff, is there an easy way to avoid this? Testcase:
void fn (void *addr, int a)
{
if (a == 0)
addr = (void *)0;
__builtin_memset (addr, '\0', a);
}
I wonder
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> What would be the good way to add such a plugin event to GCC 4.9?
See the cpp_callbacks structure, used to make diagnostics go through GCC's
diagnostics machinery, for example. I'm not clear why the existing
callbacks (in particular the file_c
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:08:27PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'd say that turning memset (0, '\0', 0) into a trap is bad from a QOI
> perspective. Jeff, is there an easy way to avoid this? Testcase:
>
> void fn (void *addr, int a)
> {
> if (a == 0)
> addr = (void *)0;
> __builtin_me
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jeff Law:
>
>>> Is this new in C11? Does it apply to functions such as strnlen as well?
>
>> No, it's C99 I think. There was a clarification which came in after
>> C99 which clarified that even if the length is zero, the pointers must
>>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
> This patch fixes a number of places where the mode bitsize had been used but
> the mode precision should have been used. The tree level is somewhat sloppy
> about this - some places use the mode precision and some use the mode bitsize.
> It seems th
20 matches
Mail list logo
