Function attribute((optimize(...))) ignored on inline functions?

2015-07-30 Thread Matt Turner
I'd like to tell gcc that it's okay to inline functions (such as rintf(), to get the SSE4.1 roundss instruction) at particular call sights without compiling the entire source file or calling function with different CFLAGS. I attempted this by making inline wrapper functions annotated with attribut

Re: Configure gcc with --multilib=... ?

2012-11-03 Thread Matt Turner
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Matt Turner wrote: > >> I say this mail http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00063.html >> suggesting the addition of a --multilib= configure option. Has such a >> thing been added? Is there a

Configure gcc with --multilib=... ?

2011-06-14 Thread Matt Turner
Hi, I'd like to ship multilib Gentoo/MIPS installations with only n32 and n64 ABIs (ie, no o32). The reasoning is that if your system can use either 64-bit ABI you don't have any reason to run o32, given that o32-only installation media also exists. I say this mail http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-

[RFC] alpha/ev6: model 1-cycle cross-cluster delay

2011-05-24 Thread Matt Turner
d for them. Can a (define_bypass ...) function specify a latency value greater than the default latency, or should I raise the default latency and special-case fst/ftoi consumers like I've done for cross-cluster delay? Thanks a lot! Matt Turner [1] http://www.compaq.com/cpq-a

missed optimization: transforming while(n>=1) into if(n>=1)

2011-05-20 Thread Matt Turner
never execute more than once, as n must be < 2, and in the body of the loop, n is decremented. The resulting machine code includes the backward branch to the top of the while (n >= 1) loop, which can never be taken. I suppose this is a missed optimization. Is this known, or should I make a new bug report? Thanks, Matt Turner

Re: [alpha] Wrong code produced at -Os, -O2, and -O3

2010-04-08 Thread Matt Turner
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > >> I was rewriting the Alpha sched_find_first_bit implementation for the >> Linux Kernel, and in the process I think I've come across a gcc bug. > > [...] > &

[alpha] Wrong code produced at -Os, -O2, and -O3

2010-04-07 Thread Matt Turner
T the program will produce incorrect results and assert(). At -O0 or -O1 or without one or both of the -D flags, it will produce correct results. I've tested with gcc-4.3.4 and gcc-4.4.2. Thanks. Let me know what I can do to help further. Matt Turner sched_find_first_bit.tar.gz Descriptio

[alpha] Request for help wrt gcc bugs 27468, 27469

2009-12-02 Thread Matt Turner
d I can get you access to a quad-833MHz ES40 to do testing on, if need be. Thanks, Matt Turner