On 20/05/15 04:17 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 19 May 11:22, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 05/18/2015 08:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-05-06 17:18 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
Hi Vladimir,
Could you please comment on this?
Ilya, I think that the idea is worth to try but results might be
mixed
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20150520 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20150520/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
mark maule :
> On 5/20/2015 3:27 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mark maule wrote:
> > The usual issue with this kind of behavior is out-of-bound accesses of
> > arrays in a loop
> > or invoking undefined behavior when signed integer operations wrap.
> >
> >
> >
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:54:51PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/20/2015 04:46 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I'm not sure... you'd require the compiler to perform static analysis of
> > loops to determine the state of the machine when they exit (if they exit!)
> > in order to show whether or not
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:46:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:15:22PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:41:48AM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > If a pointer is p
> On May 20, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 05:19:28PM +, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
>>
>>> On May 20, 2015, at 1:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> By default, alignment of DImode and DFmode is set to 8 bytes.
>>
>> When did that change? I know it was 4
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 05:19:28PM +, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 2015, at 1:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > By default, alignment of DImode and DFmode is set to 8 bytes.
>
> When did that change? I know it was 4 in the past, unless you specifically
> passed a compile switc
> On May 20, 2015, at 1:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> By default, alignment of DImode and DFmode is set to 8 bytes.
When did that change? I know it was 4 in the past, unless you specifically
passed a compile switch to make it 8.
paul
By default, alignment of DImode and DFmode is set to 8 bytes.
Intel MCU psABI specifies alignment of DImode and DFmode
to be 4 bytes. I'd like to make get_mode_alignment to return
32 bits for DImode and DFmode. Is there a way to adjust alignment
of DImode and DFmode via ADJUST_ALIGNMENT?
--
H.J
On 05/20/2015 04:46 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> I'm not sure... you'd require the compiler to perform static analysis of
> loops to determine the state of the machine when they exit (if they exit!)
> in order to show whether or not a dependency is carried to subsequent
> operations. If it can't prove
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:15:22PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:41:48AM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > If a pointer is part of a dependency chain, and if the values
> > > added to or subtracted
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Ah, I was assuming between x and z. David, what was your intent? ;-)
Clarification.
David
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:15:48PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
>
> On 20/05/15 15:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:44:30PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 20/05/15 14:37, David Howells wrote:
> >>>Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>
> I was thi
On 20/05/15 15:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:44:30PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 20/05/15 14:37, David Howells wrote:
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I was thinking of "y" as a simple variable, but if it is something more
complex, then the compiler could do thi
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:44:30PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
>
> On 20/05/15 14:37, David Howells wrote:
> >Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> >>I was thinking of "y" as a simple variable, but if it is something more
> >>complex, then the compiler could do this, right?
> >>
> >>char *x
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:37:05PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > I was thinking of "y" as a simple variable, but if it is something more
> > complex, then the compiler could do this, right?
> >
> > char *x;
> >
> > y;
> > x = z;
>
> Yeah. I presume it
On 20/05/15 14:37, David Howells wrote:
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I was thinking of "y" as a simple variable, but if it is something more
complex, then the compiler could do this, right?
char *x;
y;
x = z;
Yeah. I presume it has to maintain the ordering, though.
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> I was thinking of "y" as a simple variable, but if it is something more
> complex, then the compiler could do this, right?
>
> char *x;
>
> y;
> x = z;
Yeah. I presume it has to maintain the ordering, though.
David
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:18:37PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > Additionally, what about the following code?
> > >
> > > char *x = y ? z : z;
> > >
> > > Does that extend a dependency chain from z to x? If so, I can imagine a
> > > CPU breaking that in practic
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Additionally, what about the following code?
> >
> > char *x = y ? z : z;
> >
> > Does that extend a dependency chain from z to x? If so, I can imagine a
> > CPU breaking that in practice.
>
> I am not seeing this. I would expect the compiler to optimize to
> som
On 05/20/2015 01:04 PM, mark maule wrote:
> Is this one of those areas where if
> there's a bug in the code all bets are off and your mileage may vary?
Yes. Do not access beyond the end of an array: daemons may fly out
of your nose. [1]
Andrew.
[1]
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:41:48AM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:10:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > > wrote:
> > > So I think you
On 5/20/2015 3:27 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mark maule wrote:
I have a loop which hangs when compiled with -O2, but runs fine when
compiled with -O1. Not sure what information is required to get an answer,
so starting with the full src code. I have not atte
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:03:00AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Jens Maurer wrote:
> > On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >>> - the "you can add/subtract integral values" sti
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:34:10AM +0200, Jens Maurer wrote:
> On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> >> - the "you can add/subtract integral values" still opens you up to
> >> language lawyers claiming "(char *)ptr
Hi Paul,
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:41:48AM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:10:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> > So I think you're better off just saying that operations designed to
> > drop significant
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Jens Maurer wrote:
> On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>>> - the "you can add/subtract integral values" still opens you up to
>>> language lawyers claiming "(char *)ptr - (intptr_t)
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mark maule wrote:
> I have a loop which hangs when compiled with -O2, but runs fine when
> compiled with -O1. Not sure what information is required to get an answer,
> so starting with the full src code. I have not attempted to reduce to a
> simpler test case ye
On 19 May 11:22, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 05/18/2015 08:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >2015-05-06 17:18 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> >Hi Vladimir,
> >
> >Could you please comment on this?
> >
> >
> Ilya, I think that the idea is worth to try but results might be
> mixed. It is hard to say until
On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> - the "you can add/subtract integral values" still opens you up to
>> language lawyers claiming "(char *)ptr - (intptr_t)ptr" preserving the
>> dependency, which it clearly doesn't
30 matches
Mail list logo
