On Wed, 2021-08-04 at 21:32 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> - From observation, a typical vfunc call that isn't devirtualised by
> the compiler's front end looks something like this
> "OBJ_TYPE_REF(_2;(struct A)a_ptr_5(D)->0) (a_ptr_5(D))"
> where "a_ptr_5(D)" is pointer that is being
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021, at 10:48 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> ... the 'as' and 'ld' executables should be simply found within the
> version and target specific GCC libexecsubdir, possibly by being symlinks
> to whatever you want. That's at least how my crosss are configured and
> installed, without a
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 07:08:08PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Segher Boessenkool:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >> On 04/08/2021 14:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> >On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 02:00:42PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >> >>We don'
* Segher Boessenkool:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 04/08/2021 14:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> >On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 02:00:42PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> >>We don't want to have to resort to macros. Not least because at some
>> >>point we
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 04/08/2021 14:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 02:00:42PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >>We don't want to have to resort to macros. Not least because at some
> >>point we want to replace the content
AIM for today:
- Extract out the pointer that is being used to call the vfunc from the current
region.
- Search it's regions to find out which subclass the pointer is actually
pointing to.
- Make use of this information to filter out one most probable call to function
out of all of the possibl
Hello,
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021, John Ericson wrote:
> > Doesn't GCC automatically look for those commands in the --prefix
> > directory that you configure GCC with? Or is that only for native
> > compilers?
>
> It will search only if --with-*=... was not passed, and it will never
> prefix the quer
On 04/08/2021 14:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 02:00:42PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
We don't want to have to resort to macros. Not least because at some
point we want to replace the content of arm_neon.h with a single #pragma
directive to remove all the parsing o
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 02:00:42PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> We don't want to have to resort to macros. Not least because at some
> point we want to replace the content of arm_neon.h with a single #pragma
> directive to remove all the parsing of the header that's needed. What's
> more, if
> On Aug 4, 2021, at 3:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021, 08:26 John Ericson wrote:
>
>> Problem:
>>
>> It's somewhat annoying to have to tell GCC --with-as=... --with-ld=...
>> just to prefix those commands the same way GCC is prefixed.
>>
>
> Doesn't GCC automa
On 04/08/2021 13:46, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 05:20:58PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 15:49, Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>>> Both __builtin_constant_p and __is_constexpr will not work in your use
>>> case (since a function argument is not a
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 05:20:58PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 15:49, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > Both __builtin_constant_p and __is_constexpr will not work in your use
> > case (since a function argument is not a constant, let alone an ICE).
> > It only becomes a
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 15:49, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 03:20:45PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 03:27, Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > The Linux kernel has a macro __is_constexpr to test if something is an
> > > integer constant expres
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 03:20:45PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 03:27, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > The Linux kernel has a macro __is_constexpr to test if something is an
> > integer constant expression, see . That is a much
> > better idea imo. There could be a
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 2:07 AM Aaron Sawdey wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> So, I’m noticing that in get_reassociation_width() we know how many ops
> (ops_num) are in the expression being considered for parallel reassociation,
> but this is not passed to the target hook. In my testing this seems like it
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 03:27, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 04:23:42PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote:
> > The constraint here is that, vshl_n intrinsics require that the
> > second arg (__b),
> > should be an immediate value.
>
> Something that matches the
On 03/08/2021 18:44, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/3/21 4:11 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 13:49, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:06 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 23:29, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 20
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 08:41, John Ericson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021, at 3:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't GCC automatically look for those commands in the --prefix directory
> > that you configure GCC with? Or is that only for native compilers?
> >
>
> It will search only
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021, at 3:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> Doesn't GCC automatically look for those commands in the --prefix directory
> that you configure GCC with? Or is that only for native compilers?
>
It will search only if --with-*=... was not passed, and it will never prefix
the
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021, 08:26 John Ericson wrote:
> Problem:
>
> It's somewhat annoying to have to tell GCC --with-as=... --with-ld=...
> just to prefix those commands the same way GCC is prefixed.
>
Doesn't GCC automatically look for those commands in the --prefix directory
that you configure GCC wi
Problem:
It's somewhat annoying to have to tell GCC --with-as=... --with-ld=... just to
prefix those commands the same way GCC is prefixed.
In particular, when doing host-only build (skipping all target libraries), one
otherwise doesn't need the target-specific binutils to be yet built, but
--
How hard would it be to add a tree-like structure and headers/sections to
the -v gcc option so you can see the call structure. Would this be a
reasonable first contribution/customization for a noob? It'll be a while
before I can reasonably work on this.
GCC
version
config
| cc1 main.c
| c
22 matches
Mail list logo
