On 3/23/2015 12:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/22/2015 09:31 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> On 03/20/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> We've come a long way towards the release criteria of zero P1 bugs.
>>>
>> I thought I would pass along a couple of data points from
>> the *-rtems targets.
>
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 20:10 +0100, Erik Varga wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > The PBQP approach is indeed very tempting, but there
> > are a lot more things to it than just the solver. To get good
> > improvements of the generated code, the optimization also has to
Hello, I was just reading through the current projects wiki page and I
noticed how out of date pretty much all of them are. So I was
planning on doing "spring cleaning" by going down the list tracking
down what has been and what needs to be down and updating all the
wikis. Do you think this is so
A first draft of TS 18661-5 (Floating-point extensions for C:
Supplementary attributes) is now available. Note that this does yet not
include alternate exception handling, which is likely to be the most
problematic area for this part.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1919.pdf
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> The PBQP approach is indeed very tempting, but there
> are a lot more things to it than just the solver. To get good
> improvements of the generated code, the optimization also has to be able
> to reorder memory accesses and perform other trans
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Shawn Landden
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Shawn Landden
>>> wrote:
direct-declarator:
( type-qualifier[opt] t
On 03/23/2015 07:34 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> __alignof__ (max_align_t) appears to be stuck at 16, even though some
>> AVX512 operations require 512 byte alignment.
>>
>> Is this intentional? There are arguments for (more ABI compatibility)
>> and a
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Shawn Landden wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Shawn Landden
>> wrote:
>>>direct-declarator:
>>> ( type-qualifier[opt] type-specifier *[opt] identifier[opt] ) .
>>> function-definition
>
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Florian Weimer wrote:
> __alignof__ (max_align_t) appears to be stuck at 16, even though some
> AVX512 operations require 512 byte alignment.
>
> Is this intentional? There are arguments for (more ABI compatibility)
> and against (max_align_t is misleading) this behavior.
m
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Shawn Landden wrote:
>>direct-declarator:
>> ( type-qualifier[opt] type-specifier *[opt] identifier[opt] ) .
>> function-definition
>>
>>
>> call like so:
>>
>>
>> type.foo(baz);
>> typep->foo(baz);
__alignof__ (max_align_t) appears to be stuck at 16, even though some
AVX512 operations require 512 byte alignment.
Is this intentional? There are arguments for (more ABI compatibility)
and against (max_align_t is misleading) this behavior.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
Hi Kirill,
Thread hierarchy management and creation policy is very interesting
topic for me as well. I came across that paper couple weeks ago.
Creating more threads in the beginning and applying suchlike
busy-waiting or if-master algorithm generally works better than
dynamic parallelism due to th
On 20/03/15 16:02, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
Hi Joern,
I have a small patch for ARC backend that fixes the value of instruction length
attribute when the instruction is predicated. Ok to apply?
Assuming you tested it, this patch is OK.
Hi Joern,
> >
> > I have a small patch for ARC backend that fixes the value of instruction
> length attribute when the instruction is predicated. Ok to apply?
> Why would the arc_bdr_iscond test have any effect?
> arc_predicate_delay_insns should render the issue moot.
>
I need to double check th
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:07:28PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Hi All ,
>
> GCC 4.8.3 ,pop up with below error
>
> /home/i16382/an.c:13:18: error: duplicate member 'bOriginator'
> unsigned bOriginator;
> ^
>
> for the case
>
> union
> {
> struct
> {
>
Hi All ,
GCC 4.8.3 ,pop up with below error
/home/i16382/an.c:13:18: error: duplicate member 'bOriginator'
unsigned bOriginator;
^
for the case
union
{
struct
{
unsigned bStatusType;
unsigned bOriginator;
};
struct
{
unsigne
16 matches
Mail list logo
