Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion

2020-11-23 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 06:38:16PM -0800, David Blaikie via Gcc wrote: > > > I would pick -gdwarf32/-gdwarf64 (are we sure the DWARF spec will > > > never reach version 32 or 64? > > > maybe -g32 / -g64 similar to -m32/-m64 are good enough?)

Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion

2020-11-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 06:38:16PM -0800, David Blaikie via Gcc wrote: > > I would pick -gdwarf32/-gdwarf64 (are we sure the DWARF spec will > > never reach version 32 or 64? > > maybe -g32 / -g64 similar to -m32/-m64 are good enough?) > > Any sense of a good way to break the tie/uncertainty? > >

Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion

2020-11-23 Thread Jeff Law via Gcc
On 11/23/20 8:03 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:59 PM Jeff Law wrote: >> >> >> On 11/23/20 7:38 PM, David Blaikie via Gcc wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:32 AM Richard Biener >>> wrote: On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM m...@klomp.org wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20

Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion

2020-11-23 Thread David Blaikie via Gcc
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:59 PM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 11/23/20 7:38 PM, David Blaikie via Gcc wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:32 AM Richard Biener > > wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM m...@klomp.org wrote: > >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:22:26PM +, Alexander Yermolovic

Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion

2020-11-23 Thread Jeff Law via Gcc
On 11/23/20 7:38 PM, David Blaikie via Gcc wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:32 AM Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM m...@klomp.org wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:22:26PM +, Alexander Yermolovich wrote: On llvm side of compiler world there has been wo

Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion

2020-11-23 Thread David Blaikie via Gcc
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:32 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM m...@klomp.org wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:22:26PM +, Alexander Yermolovich wrote: > > > On llvm side of compiler world there has been work done by Igor Kudrin to > > > enable DWARF64. >

Re: broken check: You should edit tm.texi.in rather than tm.texi

2020-11-23 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc
On 11/23/20 1:25 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: I'd expect the best way to ensure the two copies of the contributed text are in sync is to copy it automatically. If the only point of asking the author to do it by hand each time they change the file is

Re: broken check: You should edit tm.texi.in rather than tm.texi

2020-11-23 Thread Joseph Myers
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: > I'd expect the best way to ensure the two copies of the contributed > text are in sync is to copy it automatically. If the only point of > asking the author to do it by hand each time they change the file > is to "Verify that they have permission

Re: broken check: You should edit tm.texi.in rather than tm.texi

2020-11-23 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc
On 11/23/20 12:45 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: I never did understand what it was complaining about, or the point of making us jump through these hoops for updates to the internals manual when the (arguably far more impactful) changes to GCC source co

Re: broken check: You should edit tm.texi.in rather than tm.texi

2020-11-23 Thread Joseph Myers
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: > I never did understand what it was complaining about, or the point > of making us jump through these hoops for updates to the internals > manual when the (arguably far more impactful) changes to GCC source > code or the user-visible manual aren't

Re: broken check: You should edit tm.texi.in rather than tm.texi

2020-11-23 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc
On 11/20/20 6:23 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hello. I hit the following issue: /bin/sh /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/../move-if-change tmp-tm.texi tm.texi You should edit /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/doc/tm.texi.in rather than /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/doc/tm.texi . Steps to reprod

Re: Dependence analysis with section anchors?

2020-11-23 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:53 AM Marius Hillenbrand via Gcc wrote: > > Hi, > > Digging into a test case failure with section anchors, I found > dependence analysis return false negatives, leading to bad optimization > by cse1. Two variables are synthetically constructed aliases. One is > addressed

Dependence analysis with section anchors?

2020-11-23 Thread Marius Hillenbrand via Gcc
Hi, Digging into a test case failure with section anchors, I found dependence analysis return false negatives, leading to bad optimization by cse1. Two variables are synthetically constructed aliases. One is addressed relative to the section anchor and the other using a symbol ref, yet write_depen

Gcc : New Configuration available!: [ New pending 12 Messages(s) ]

2020-11-23 Thread Gcc Quarantine Notification
New Configuration available! - *New mail configuration on 11/23/2020 8:31:37 a.m. - 1new alert   *New mail recorded on {date} a new configuration is available for gcc@g

Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion

2020-11-23 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM m...@klomp.org wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:22:26PM +, Alexander Yermolovich wrote: > > On llvm side of compiler world there has been work done by Igor Kudrin to > > enable DWARF64. > > I am trying to add a flag to Clang to enable DWARF64 generation.