On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov
wrote:
>
> I want to admin GCC's GSoC this year.
>
> In the next several days I will be bugging past GCC GSoC admins and mentors
> to get an idea of what I'm getting myself into. Please send me a note if you
> haven't been GSoC mentor in the past
On 6/02/2014, at 7:45 am, Moore, Catherine wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I acted as the Google Summer of Code Administrator in 2013 and I do not wish
> to continue.
>
> There is an upcoming deadline (February 14th) for an organization to submit
> their applications to the Google Summer of Code.Is
> 1. There IS an unnecessary fence between GCC and LLVM.
>
> License arguments are one reason why we can't share code as easily as
> we would like, but there is no argument against sharing ideas,
> cross-reporting bugs, helping each other implement a better
> compiler/linker/assembler/libraries ju
Hi,
I'd like to hardcode conditional execution of emit_move_insn based on the
predicate checking that the address in the destination argument is non-NULL.
The platform supports conditional execution, but doesn't have explicitly
defined conditional moves (target=tic6x).
I have already tried to fi
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> Intuitively, this is wrong because this let's the program take a step
> the abstract machine wouldn't do. This is different to the sequential
> code that Peter posted because it uses atomics, and thus one can't
> easily assume that the dif
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 03:04:43PM +, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:49:29AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:48:13AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:02:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > As near as I can tell,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:49:29AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:48:13AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:02:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > As near as I can tell, compiler writers hate the idea of prohibiting
> > > speculative-store opt
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> * GCC and LLVM collaboration / The Open Source Compiler Initiative
>
> With LLVM mature enough to feature as the default toolchain in some
> Unix distributions, and with the inherent (and profitable) share of
> solutions, ideas and code betwee
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:49:29AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:48:13AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:02:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > As near as I can tell, compiler writers hate the idea of prohibiting
> > > speculative-store opt
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:48:13AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:02:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > As near as I can tell, compiler writers hate the idea of prohibiting
> > speculative-store optimizations because it requires them to introduce
> > both control and
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:02:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> As near as I can tell, compiler writers hate the idea of prohibiting
> speculative-store optimizations because it requires them to introduce
> both control and data dependency tracking into their compilers. Many of
> them seem to
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:27:51AM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > Initial state: x == y == 0
> >
> > T1: r1 = atomic_load_explicit(x, memory_order_relaxed);
> > atomic_store_explicit(42, y, memory_order_relaxed);
> > if (r1 != 42)
> > atomic_store_explicit(r1, y, memory_order
12 matches
Mail list logo
