>
> I am trying to access the virtual table.
> My pass is hooked after pass_ipa_pta.
>
> Consider Class A which contains virtual function.
> An object created as :
> A a;
> is translated in GIMPLE as
> struct A a;
>
> From variable "a" we can get its type which is "struct A".
> I tried t
>>> >For PR56408 we need some fix.
>> BTW, is there anything special about Fortran ? There are at least 180 test
>> files that contain 'dg-additional-sources' >some in a very non-local way:
>The current scheme comes at its limits in that case. . See the files listed in
>the PR for issues.
So, w
Hi,
I went through excercise of running LTO bootstrap with ODR verification on.
There are some typename clashes
I guess we want to fix. I wonder what approach is preferred, do we want to
introduce anonymous
namespaces for those?
Honza
../../gcc/tlink.c:62:16: warning: type ‘struct file_hash_e
I am trying to access the virtual table.
My pass is hooked after pass_ipa_pta.
Consider Class A which contains virtual function.
An object created as :
A a;
is translated in GIMPLE as
struct A a;
From variable "a" we can get its type which is "struct A".
I tried to see how the dump_vtab
On Sep 11, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> That is news to me, but given the amount of test -a/-o uses e.g. in
> gcc/configure and hundreds of places, I'd say what we care is what is more
> portable to old shells.
No, we can’t care about that. If that were true, the _ && _ in the compil
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140911 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140911/
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
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:24:08PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 11 September 2014 20:19:31 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 07:26:37PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> right now. The patch below intends to serialize the content of the
> >> problematic *.exp tests
On 11 September 2014 20:19:31 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 07:26:37PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> right now. The patch below intends to serialize the content of the
> problematic *.exp tests (the first runtest to reach one of those will simply
> run all the tests from that *.
Hi, I'm having trouble based on available docs like
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/LTO.html
in understanding just what the gcc LTO framework is
intended to be architecturally capable of.
As a concrete motivating example, I have a 32K embedded
program about 5% of which consists of seque
On 11.09.2014 20:33, VandeVondele Joost wrote:
>For PR56408 we need some fix.
BTW, is there anything special about Fortran ? There are at least 180 test
files that contain 'dg-additional-sources' some in a very non-local way:
Well, the question is what you want to do with the different files.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 06:33:27PM +, VandeVondele Joost wrote:
> > And these Fortran inter-test dependencies, which Tobias told me is
> > PR56408.
> > For PR56408 we need some fix.
>
> BTW, is there anything special about Fortran ? There are at least 180 test
> files that contain 'dg-additi
> And these Fortran inter-test dependencies, which Tobias told me is
> PR56408.
> For PR56408 we need some fix.
BTW, is there anything special about Fortran ? There are at least 180 test
files that contain 'dg-additional-sources' some in a very non-local way:
./objc.dg/foreach-2.m: /* {
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 07:26:37PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> right now. The patch below intends to serialize the content of the
> problematic *.exp tests (the first runtest to reach one of those will simply
> run all the tests from that *.exp file, others will skip it).
Forgotten patch below.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:04:56PM +, VandeVondele Joost wrote:
> > Here is a patch I'm testing now:
>
> I also tested your patch to compare timings vs a newer patch (v8) I'll send
> soon
>
> == patch v8 == make -j32 -k ==
> check-fortran 4m58.178s
> check-c++ ~10m
> check-c ~10
> Here is a patch I'm testing now:
Hi Jakub,
I also tested your patch to compare timings vs a newer patch (v8) I'll send soon
== patch v8 == make -j32 -k ==
check-fortran 4m58.178s
check-c++ ~10m
check-c ~10m
check 15m29.873s
== patch Jakub
check-c++ ~20m
check-fortran
> "Jakub" == Jakub Jelinek writes:
Jakub> I fear that is going to be too expensive, because e.g. all the
Jakub> caching that dejagnu and our tcl stuff does would be gone, all
Jakub> the tests for lp64 etc. would need to be repeated for each test.
In gdb I arranged to have this stuff saved i
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:06:40AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> There is an option to touch say *-parallel/finished file once any of the
> check-parallel-gcc-{1,2,...} goals is done (because when it finishes, it
> means all the tests for the particular check-$lang that are parallelizable
> have ei
On 11 September 2014 15:45, VandeVondele Joost
wrote:
>
>>> could it be that the pattern in normal1 should have been '[ab]*/ de*/
>>> [ep]*/*' ?
>>
>>Yes, we are running these tests multiple times:
>>
>>PASS: 23_containers/map/modifiers/erase/abi_tag.cc (test for excess errors)
>>PASS: 23_contai
>> could it be that the pattern in normal1 should have been '[ab]*/ de*/
>> [ep]*/*' ?
>
>Yes, we are running these tests multiple times:
>
>PASS: 23_containers/map/modifiers/erase/abi_tag.cc (test for excess errors)
>PASS: 23_containers/multimap/modifiers/erase/abi_tag.cc (test for excess
>erro
We are currently working on the implementation of MSA (SIMD) for MIPS
and are implementing vector interleave instructions which have a
combination of vec_select and vec_concat operators in their patterns.
The selectors for the vec_select operators depend on the vector mode
so to avoid writing multi
On 11 September 2014 07:22, VandeVondele Joost wrote:
> Jakub,
>
>> First of all, the -j2 testing shows more tests tested in gcc and libstdc++:
>>
>>-# of expected passes 10133
>>+# of expected passes 10152
>>
>>+PASS: 23_containers/set/modifiers/erase/abi_tag.cc (test for exce
On 20/08/14 16:22, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Hi,
Various targets implement -momit-leaf-frame-pointer to avoid using a frame
pointer in leaf
functions. Currently the GCC mid-end does not provide a way of doing this, so
targets have resorted
to hacks. Typically this involves forcing flag_omit_frame
Hello,
Kindly confirm availability in your place that could accommodate us.They are
coming for a Business research. The delegate will need 3 single rooms
/apartment that sleeps 3, but if the options are not available you can advise
on available options
The dates are 1st Nov 2014 to 9th Nov 201
> could it be that the pattern in normal1 should have been '[ab]*/ de*/
> [ep]*/*' ?
I've checked that this fixes the bug in the current trunk split. I.e. files are
stil tested, but now only once. Consider this change added to the previously
submitted patch.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:51:23AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I can't find how to query the -jN value passed to make check by the user
> though, both $(MFLAGS) and $(MAKEFLAGS) only contain something like
> --jobserver-fds=3,5 -j from which it is not possible to find out how many
> goals would b
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:23:34PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:08:22PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Perhaps better approach might be if we have some way how to synchronize
> > among
> > multiple expect processes and spawn only as many expects (of course, per
> > che
26 matches
Mail list logo
