On 24.06.2015 13:41, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Is nobody seeing this? Is it a known problem with parallel make check?
> If so, can we work-around it in compare_tests?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Manuel.
>
Actually I don't get such problem, but I run the testsuite in a slightly
different way, so you might
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20150624 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20150624/
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
On 06/24/2015 03:18 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
So in these examples we'd really like register moves to cost one
insn. Hmm, at least, moves from hard regs ought to cost something.
The more I think about it, the more I think that's a reasonable step.
Nothing should have cost 0.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Kenner
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:28 PM
To: l...@redhat.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: set_src_cost lying comment
> These are good examples of things the costing model simply w
> These are good examples of things the costing model
> simply wasn't ever designed to consider -- because they weren't
> significant issues on the m68k, vax and other ports in the gcc-1 era.
>
> So I don't really know how to tell you to proceed -- I've considered the
> costing models fundamen
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 10:36 AM
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: set_src_cost lying comment
On 06/21/2015 11:57 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> set_src_cost says it is supposed to
> /* Ret
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Andrew Senkevich wrote:
> Can anybody tell something about this difference in drivers?
libstdc++ uses libm - that's probably why g++ links it in by default.
Modern good practice would say that it should only be linked directly into
a program (should only end up listed in DT
On 06/24/2015 03:18 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:05:45PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
I certainly agree that the cost of a move, logicals and arithmetic is
essentially the same at the chip level for many processors. But a copy has
other properties that make it "cheaper" -- namely
On 06/24/2015 03:12 PM, Andrew Senkevich wrote:
> Can anybody tell something about this difference in drivers?
It's a UNIX tradition to require -lm for the floating-point
library in C programs. It doesn't make much sense now, but it's
hard to change it.
Andrew.
Hi,
Glibc 2.22 will have libm.so implemented as linker script helping to
link as needed against vector math library libmvec.so without addition
of -lmvec (for not static builds). Another words -lm is enough to link
against libmvec.so.
But g++ driver inserts -lm for linker command, gcc griver not.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:05:45PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> I certainly agree that the cost of a move, logicals and arithmetic is
> essentially the same at the chip level for many processors. But a copy has
> other properties that make it "cheaper" -- namely we can often propagate it
> away or arr
Since a few months, I'm having a lot of trouble comparing test results
using contrib/compare_tests because there are duplicated test results
when using parallel make check.
make -k -j10 check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=unix/\{-m32,-m64\}
will sometimes run:
Executing on host:
/home/manuel/te
12 matches
Mail list logo
