Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140130 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140130/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi, I was wondering if it's a good idea to add -Wheader-guard option
that warns on mismatches between #ifndef and #define lines
in header guard, similar to -Wheader-guard in clang-3.4 ?
(http://llvm.org/releases/3.4/tools/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.html)
I have implemented patch for -Wheader-guard (p
One more question. Is it valid to use arr[MAX/2..MAX] on target?
#define MAX 20
void foo ()
{
int arr[MAX];
#pragma omp target map(from: arr[0:MAX/2])
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < MAX; i++)
arr[i] = i;
}
}
In this case GOMP_target gets sizes[0]==40 as input. Due to t
On 01/30/14 08:19, Paulo Matos wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:sch...@linux-m68k.org]
Sent: 30 January 2014 15:15
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Regression [v850,mep...]: sign_extend in loop breaks zero-overhead
loop generation
Paulo Matos writes
On 01/30/2014 12:41 PM, Alangi Derick wrote:
GCC Version 4.9.0
email: alangider...@gmail.com
Index: gcc/README.Portability
===
--- gcc/README.Portability (revision 206579)
+++ gcc/README.Portability (working copy)
@@ -6,7
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:sch...@linux-m68k.org]
> Sent: 30 January 2014 15:15
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Regression [v850,mep...]: sign_extend in loop breaks
> zero-overhead
> loop generation
>
> Paulo Matos writes:
>
> > If instead
Paulo Matos writes:
> If instead I write:
> void
> foo (short blockSize)
> {
> short i;
> unsigned short loopCount;
> loopCount = (unsigned short) (blockSize + delayLength) % 8;
> for (i = 0; i < loopCount; i++)
> *temp_ptr++ = x ^ *temp_ptr;
> }
This is still undefined.
Andreas.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Conrad S wrote:
> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Only if you don't read the pages properly.
>> "Important: GCC's support for C++11 is still experimental. "
>> "GCC provides experimental support for the 2011 ISO C++ standard."
>> Anyway, removing it from the list would a
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Only if you don't read the pages properly.
> "Important: GCC's support for C++11 is still experimental. "
> "GCC provides experimental support for the 2011 ISO C++ standard."
> Anyway, removing it from the list would achieve nothing.
Eh? thread_local doesn't work. Stating
Paolo Carlini wrote:
> .. if you are willing to concretely help, please open a meta-bug with
> "[meta-bug] thread_local" in the summary and blocked by all the issues you
> mentioned.
Done:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59994
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:sch...@linux-m68k.org]
> Sent: 30 January 2014 14:29
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Regression [v850,mep...]: sign_extend in loop breaks
> zero-overhead
> loop generation
>
> Paulo Matos writes:
>
> > void
> > f
.. if you are willing to concretely help, please open a meta-bug with
"[meta-bug] thread_local" in the summary and blocked by all the issues
you mentioned.
Thanks,
Paolo.
Paulo Matos writes:
> void
> foo (short blockSize)
> {
> short i;
> unsigned short loopCount;
>
> loopCount = (unsigned short) (blockSize + delayLength) % 8;
> for (i = 0; i < loopCount; i++)
> *temp_ptr++ = x ^ *temp_ptr++;
> }
You know that this is undefined code?
Andreas.
--
On 30 January 2014 13:40, Conrad S wrote:
> The page covering C++0x/C++11 support in GCC, ie.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
> states that the "thread_local" keyword is supported since GCC 4.8.
>
> However, thread_local is currently (gcc 4.8.2) too broken to be of real use:
> http://gcc.g
Hello,
I am tracking a performance and size regression from 4.5.4 present in trunk.
Consider the following function:
==
extern short delayLength;
typedef int Sample;
extern Sample *temp_ptr;
extern Sample x;
void
foo (short blockSize)
{
short i;
unsigned short loopCount;
loopCount = (unsig
The page covering C++0x/C++11 support in GCC, ie.
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
states that the "thread_local" keyword is supported since GCC 4.8.
However, thread_local is currently (gcc 4.8.2) too broken to be of real use:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59364
http://gcc.gnu.
GCC Version 4.9.0
email: alangider...@gmail.com
Index: gcc/README.Portability
===
--- gcc/README.Portability (revision 206579)
+++ gcc/README.Portability (working copy)
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
The problem is that many ISO-standard
Hi,
I notice that, libgcc has fp emulation libraries written in C for
armv6-m architecture which is quite big in size. Also I see that other
architecture like armv7-m has these libraries written in assembly for
smaller size lib.
I wanted to know, is there anybody working on this feature supporting
18 matches
Mail list logo
