Re: replace do-while macros with static inline functions

2013-12-13 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> >> I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with >> static inline functions returning void, where appropriate ? >> By "where appropriate" I mean:

Re: replace do-while macros with static inline functions

2013-12-13 Thread Ondřej Bílka
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 02:42:23PM -0500, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 08:33:03PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with > > static inline functions returning void, where appropriate ? > > By "where appropriate

Re: replace do-while macros with static inline functions

2013-12-13 Thread Diego Novillo
Bah. Forgot to remove html. On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> >> I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with >> static inline functions returning void, where appropriate ? >> B

Re: replace do-while macros with static inline functions

2013-12-13 Thread Trevor Saunders
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 08:33:03PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with > static inline functions returning void, where appropriate ? > By "where appropriate" I mean: > a) call to macro contains no side-effects > b) macro does not

The Linux binutils 2.24.51.0.2 is released

2013-12-13 Thread H.J. Lu
It is also available as hjl/linux/release/2.24.51.0.2 tag at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=summary H.J. --- This is the beta release of binutils 2.24.51.0.2 for Linux, which is based on binutils 2013 1213 master branch on sourceware.org plus various changes. It is purely for

Re: Partial PRE optimization causing slowdown

2013-12-13 Thread Steve Ellcey
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 11:26 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > I have a question about the partial pre (-ftree-partial-pre) optimization > > that was added in GCC 4.8. I have noticed that this optimization is slowing > > down the bitmnp01 bench

arm ttype encoding

2013-12-13 Thread Tristan Gingold
Hi, we are currently working on the use of the arm ehabi for Ada exceptions, and we aren't sure about which encoding has to be used for ttype. The patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00765.html explains that on `Older ARM EABI toolchains set this value [ttype_encoding] incorrectly`

Re: Partial PRE optimization causing slowdown

2013-12-13 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > I have a question about the partial pre (-ftree-partial-pre) optimization > that was added in GCC 4.8. I have noticed that this optimization is slowing > down the bitmnp01 benchmark in the EEMBC1.1 suite on MIPS. I see this with > the 4.8 GC