On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 11:17 +0530, Mohsin Khan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am developing plugins for the GCC-4.8.2. I am a newbie in plugins.
> I wrote a plugin and tried to count and see the Goto Statements using
> the gimple_stmt_iterator. I get gimple statements printed on my
> stdout, but I am not abl
Hi,
I am developing plugins for the GCC-4.8.2. I am a newbie in plugins.
I wrote a plugin and tried to count and see the Goto Statements using
the gimple_stmt_iterator. I get gimple statements printed on my
stdout, but I am not able to find the line which has goto statements.
I only get other lin
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:42:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the intent is that you can't do value
> > speculation (except perhaps for the "relaxed", which quite frankly
> > sounds largely useless).
>
> Hm
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:24:56PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > One example that I learned about last week uses the branch-prediction
> > hardware to validate value speculation. And no, I am not at all a fan
> > of value specula
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell, the intent is that you can't do value
> speculation (except perhaps for the "relaxed", which quite frankly
> sounds largely useless).
Hmm. The language I see for "consume" is not obvious:
"Consume operation: no re
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> One example that I learned about last week uses the branch-prediction
> hardware to validate value speculation. And no, I am not at all a fan
> of value speculation, in case you were curious.
Heh. See the example I used in my reply to
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:18:21PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >
> > Which example do you have in mind here? Haven't we resolved all the
> > debated examples, or did I miss any?
>
> Well, Paul seems to still think that the standard pos
The way Intel present #pragma simd (to users, to the OpenMP committee, to the C
and C++ committees, etc) is that it is not a hint, it has a meaning.
The meaning is defined in term of evaluation order.
Both C and C++ define an evaluation order for sequential programs. #pragma simd
relaxes the sequ
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:18:52PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >
> > There's an underlying problem here that's independent from the actual
> > instance that you're worried about here: "no sense" is a ultimately a
> > matter of taste/objec
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> There's an underlying problem here that's independent from the actual
> instance that you're worried about here: "no sense" is a ultimately a
> matter of taste/objectives/priorities as long as the respective
> specification is logically co
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 14:32 -0800,
>
>> Stop claiming it "can return 1".. It *never* returns 1 unless you do
>> the load and *verify* it, or unless the load itself can be made to go
>> away. And with the code sequence given, that just doesn'
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
>
> You mean "unambiguous" - try reading a patent (Apple have 1000s of trivial
> ones, I tried reading one once thinking "how could they have phrased it so
> this got approved", their technique was to make the reader want to start
> cutting themsel
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 14:47 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 14:02 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>
> >> The argument was that an lvalue doesn't actually "access" the memory
> >> (an rvalue does), so this:
> >>
> >>
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 14:32 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 11:15 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> >
> >> > if (atomic_load(&x, mo_relaxed) == 1)
> >> > atomic_store(&y, 3, mo_relaxed));
> >>
> >> No, please don't u
On 17/02/14 20:18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
Which example do you have in mind here? Haven't we resolved all the
debated examples, or did I miss any?
Well, Paul seems to still think that the standard possibly allows
speculative writes or pos
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 18:59 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >
> > > glibc is a counterexample that comes to mind, although it's a smaller
> > > code base. (It's currently not using C11 atomics, but transi
> I presume these will be part of the headers for the library
> distributed for msp430 gcc by TI/Redhat?
I can't speak for TI's or Red Hat's plans. GNU's typical non-custom
embedded runtime is newlib/libgloss, which usually doesn't have that
much in the way of chip-specific headers or library fu
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 14:14 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:39:54PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On February 17, 2014 7:18:15 PM GMT+01:00, "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:12:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Feb 12, 201
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 14:02 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> The argument was that an lvalue doesn't actually "access" the memory
>> (an rvalue does), so this:
>>
>>volatile int *p = ...;
>>
>>*p;
>>
>> doesn't need to generate a l
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 11:15 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >
>> > if (atomic_load(&x, mo_relaxed) == 1)
>> > atomic_store(&y, 3, mo_relaxed));
>>
>> No, please don't use this idiotic example. It is wrong.
>
> It won't be useful in practic
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 14:02 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 12:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> and then it is read by people (compiler writers) that intentionally
> >> try to mis-use the words and do language-lawy
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:39:54PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On February 17, 2014 7:18:15 PM GMT+01:00, "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:12:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 09:42:09AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > You need volati
On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 11:15 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >
> > I think the example is easy to misunderstand, because the context isn't
> > clear. Therefore, let me first try to clarify the background.
> >
> > (1) The abstract machine does
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 12:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> and then it is read by people (compiler writers) that intentionally
>> try to mis-use the words and do language-lawyering ("that depends on
>> what the meaning of 'is' is").
>
> Tha
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 12:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >
> > Which example do you have in mind here? Haven't we resolved all the
> > debated examples, or did I miss any?
>
> Well, Paul seems to still think that the standard possibly a
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 12:23 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 08:55:47PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 10:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Torvald Riegel
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think a major benefit of C
>
> Yeah, ok. But we treat those types (B and C) TBAA equivalent because
> structurally they are the same ;) Luckily C has a "proper" field
> for its base (proper means that offset and size are correct as well
> as the type). It indeed has DECL_ARTIFICIAL set and yes, we treat
> those as "real"
Greetings,
I am the named maintainer of the freebsd port. I have been for
approximately twelve years; although I haven't been very active the
last four years.
The last major work I put into the freebsd port was at the end of
2009. I have reviewed others' patches since then; but it really
hasn't
On February 17, 2014 7:18:15 PM GMT+01:00, "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:12:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 09:42:09AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > You need volatile semantics to force the compiler to ignore any
>proofs
>> > it might oth
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 08:55:47PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 10:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > >
> > > I think a major benefit of C11's memory model is that it gives a
> > > *precise* specification for how a
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> Which example do you have in mind here? Haven't we resolved all the
> debated examples, or did I miss any?
Well, Paul seems to still think that the standard possibly allows
speculative writes or possibly value speculation in ways that b
On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 10:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >
> > I think a major benefit of C11's memory model is that it gives a
> > *precise* specification for how a compiler is allowed to optimize.
>
> Clearly it does *not*. This whole d
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 18:59 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> > glibc is a counterexample that comes to mind, although it's a smaller
> > code base. (It's currently not using C11 atomics, but transitioning
> > there makes sense, and some thing I want t
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:59:31PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> > glibc is a counterexample that comes to mind, although it's a smaller
> > code base. (It's currently not using C11 atomics, but transitioning
> > there makes sense, and some thing I
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> glibc is a counterexample that comes to mind, although it's a smaller
> code base. (It's currently not using C11 atomics, but transitioning
> there makes sense, and some thing I want to get to eventually.)
glibc is using C11 atomics (GCC builtins rath
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:12:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 09:42:09AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > You need volatile semantics to force the compiler to ignore any proofs
> > it might otherwise attempt to construct. Hence all the ACCESS_ONCE()
> > calls in my em
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Dominik Vogt
>>> wrote:
>>> > Given a specific VAR_DECL tree node, I need to find
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:59:16PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> On 14 Feb 16:43, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > So, perhaps we should just stop for now oring the copyfrom in and just use
> > the copyfrom from the very first mapping only, and wait for what the
> > committee
> > actually agrees on.
> >
>
On 14 Feb 16:43, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, perhaps we should just stop for now oring the copyfrom in and just use
> the copyfrom from the very first mapping only, and wait for what the committee
> actually agrees on.
>
> Jakub
Like this?
@@ -171,11 +171,16 @@ gomp_map_vars_existing (splay
On 17 February 2014 14:47, Tim Prince wrote:
> I'm continuing discussions with former Intel colleagues. If you are asking
> for insight into how Intel priorities vary over time, I don't expect much,
> unless the next beta compiler provides some inferences. They have talked
> about implementing a
On 2/17/2014 4:42 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
On 16 February 2014 23:44, Tim Prince wrote:
I don't think many people want to use both OpenMP 4 and older Intel
directives together.
I'm having less and less incentives to use anything other than omp4,
cilk and whatever. I think we should be able to
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Dominik Vogt
>> wrote:
>> > Given a specific VAR_DECL tree node, I need to find out whether
>> > its type is built in or not. Up to now I ha
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Given a specific VAR_DECL tree node, I need to find out whether
> > its type is built in or not. Up to now I have
> >
> > tree tn = TYPE_NAME (TREE_TYPE (var_decl));
> >
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > > > This smells bad, since it is given a canonical type that is after the
> > > > > structural equivalency merging that ignores BINFOs, so it may be
> > > > > completely
> > > > > different class with c
On 16 February 2014 23:44, Tim Prince wrote:
> I don't think many people want to use both OpenMP 4 and older Intel
> directives together.
I'm having less and less incentives to use anything other than omp4,
cilk and whatever. I think we should be able to map all our internal
needs to those pragma
45 matches
Mail list logo
