Re: How to force gcc to vectorize the loop with particular vectorization width

< 16? On 20/10/2017, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Denis Bakhvalov > wrote: >> Thank you for the reply! >> >> Regarding last part of your message, this is also what clang will do >> when you are passing vf of 4 (with the pragma from

Re: How to force gcc to vectorize the loop with particular vectorization width

mehow achieve this in gcc by tweaking the code or adding some pragma? On 19/10/2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:38:28AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Denis Bakhvalov >> wrote: >> > Hello! >> > >> >

How to force gcc to vectorize the loop with particular vectorization width

-unroll-times is not suitable for me, because it will affect other parts of the code. Is it possible to achieve this somehow? -- Best regards, Denis.

Re: split_live_ranges_for_shrink_wrap and !SHRINK_WRAPPING_ENABLED?

it when > optimizing for size (using the condition part in simple_return pattern) > - understandable. > > What do you guys think is the right way to deal with this? Should I look > into why range splitting helps reload and have reload itself handle this? It's a place for experiments. Generally, live range splitting must be very useful for targets with constrained register classes and for targets with small amount of registers. Denis.

Re: Second GCC 5.1 Release Candidate successful avr target build

ts to repeat it: > https://github.com/nerdralph/nerdralph/tree/master/avr/make-avr-gcc > Thank you for testing and reporting. Denis.

Re: RFA: Add avrtiny support

2014-10-21 21:18 GMT+04:00 Joern Rennecke : > In __do_global_dtors, I ended up changing the order of execution > in order to get back to the forwards/backwards order as found in > crtstuff.c > The patch I attached to target/63223 is actually an extract from this patch. Approved. Denis.

Re: INSN_CODE used on jump_table_data

2014-04-30 1:29 GMT+04:00 Tom de Vries : > Denis, > > when building gcc for avr with --enable-checking=yes,rtl , I run into the > following error: > ... > /home/vries/gcc_versions/devel/src/libgcc/unwind-c.c: In function > ‘__gcc_personality_sj0’: > /home/vries/gcc_versions

Re: [AVR] remove two maintainers

2014-03-03 21:01 GMT+04:00 David Edelsohn : > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Denis Chertykov wrote: >> 2014-03-03 15:35 GMT+04:00 David Brown : >>> On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote: >>>> I would remove two maintainers for AVR port: >>>> 1

Re: [AVR] remove two maintainers

2014-03-03 15:35 GMT+04:00 David Brown : > On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote: >> I would remove two maintainers for AVR port: >> 1. Anatoly Sokolov >> 2. Eric Weddington >> >> I have discussed the removal with Anatoly Sokolov and he is agree with it. &g

[AVR] remove two maintainers

just apply it) Denis.

Re: gcc 4.x and support of x87 FPU in libstdc++

eading to a failure. On 12 January 2014 15:50, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Denis K wrote: >> My settings were taken from the comment here: >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9450394/how-to-install-gcc-from-scratch-with-gmp-mpfr-mpc-elf-without-shared-lib

Re: gcc 4.x and support of x87 FPU in libstdc++

Lu wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Denis K wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I've been trying to compile gcc 4.5.4 from the sources using >> --with-fpmath=387 but I'm getting this error: "Invalid >> --with-fpmath=387". I looked in the confi

gcc 4.x and support of x87 FPU in libstdc++

Hello, I've been trying to compile gcc 4.5.4 from the sources using --with-fpmath=387 but I'm getting this error: "Invalid --with-fpmath=387". I looked in the configs and found that it doesn't support this option: case ${with_fpmath} in avx) tm_file="${tm_file} i386/avxmath.h" ;; sse)

Re: Inter register constraints

aints but only for specific > registers. If you have 64 registers that will give you 22 pairs. I could, of > course, create all of these by hand by defining 23 classes and define a > single constraint that matches these classes but I would like to know if > there's another way. You can try to play with DImode register and two SImode subregs of it. Denis.

Re: GCC 4.7.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

its on top of XP with always the latest cygwin packages (including cygwin1.dll), and it worked perfectly for me (as worked the snapshots i've tested before (20120526, 20120602) and after (20120609). I must however confess that i use --disable-bootstrap and --enable-languages=c,c++ (because otherwise it takes more than 26 hours to compile). I also use --disable-sjlj-exceptions, but i suppose it has become the default these days. Hope this helps, Denis Excoffier.

Re: GCC 4.7 Status Report for *-rtems

intainers can look at this PR ? (Ulrich Weigand, Bernd Schmidt) Denis.

Re: [Patch,AVR] Was/Fix: error linking lto1 for target avr

with --enable-plugin. > > Maybe the patch can be pre-approved so that the others can proceed with their > work? Better to complete this work. Denis.

Re: Help: Register allocator sets up frame at low register pressure (PR 50775)

ollowing array. */ int num_objects; /* An array of structures describing conflict information and live ranges for each object associated with the allocno. There may be more than one such object in cases where the allocno represents a multi-word register. */ ira_object_t objects[2]; --^ The SImode for AVR consists of 4 words, but only 2 objects in allocno structure. Is this right ? Denis.

Re: [Patch,AVR]: Better log output with -mdeb

vr__set_caller_f): New functions. > > Sorry, picked the wrong ML. > I have no objections against the patch. May be better to put it in separate file. (avr-debug.c or avr-log.c) Denis.

Re: FDO and LTO on ARM

fy >> that I try some more with current GCC HEAD? Should I maybe try some more >> with the linaro GCC branch? Are there things we can do to help getting >> better ARM performance? > > It does not hurt to try it :) > Linaro android toolchain benchmarks: https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Android/AndroidToolchainBenchmarking/2011-07 Denis.

Re: Improve addsi3 for CONST_INT

2011/7/8 Georg-Johann Lay : > Denis Chertykov wrote: >> 2011/7/7 Georg-Johann Lay: >>> Hi Denis. >> >> I think that it's a good question to discuss inside gcc mailing list. >> May be somebody more qualified person give a better suggestion than me. >

Re: IRA/reload make bulky code: why stack slots where GPR is fine?

sable-shared > Thread model: single > gcc version 4.7.0 20110404 (experimental) (GCC) GCC 4.6 produces right code. b: /* prologue: function */ /* frame size = 0 */ /* stack size = 0 */ .L__stack_usage = 0 rcall a adiw r24,1 /* epilogue start */ ret Denis.

Re: Using secondary reload to reload CONST_INT?

2011/3/21 Georg-Johann Lay : > Denis Chertykov schrieb: >> 2011/3/20 Georg-Johann Lay : >>> The AVR controller basically has two kinds of hard registers: >>> >>> * LD_REGS (constraint "d") that can move immediates >>> * NO_LD_REGS (constraint

Re: Using secondary reload to reload CONST_INT?

uot;) (set (match_operand:SI 0 "l_register_operand" "") (match_operand:SI 1 "immediate_operand" "")) (match_dup 2)] "(operands[1] != const0_rtx && operands[1] != constm1_rtx)" [(parallel [(set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1)) (clobber (match_dup 2))])] "") > > The drawback is that this allocates 4 GPRs (AVR is 8-bit machine). Please, provide an example. Denis.

g++ 4.6 and suggested flags

downloaded gcc 4.6, and tried it. And I found something a little strange when I compile a file : g++ displayboard.cpp -lncurses -c displayboard.cpp: In constructor ‘DisplayBoard::DisplayBoard(int, int)’: displayboard.cpp:47:22: error: invalid conversion from ‘void (* (*)())(int)’ to ‘sighandler_t

Re: gcc-4.5/4.4: Bug in .subreg1 pass?

2011/2/28 Georg-Johann Lay : > Denis Chertykov schrieb: >> >> 2011/2/26 Georg-Johann Lay : >> >>> Ok, this is the patch I meant: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=86842 >>> >>> it allows just Pmod

Re: gcc-4.5/4.4: Bug in .subreg1 pass?

2011/2/26 Georg-Johann Lay : > Georg-Johann Lay schrieb: >> >> Denis Chertykov schrieb: >> >>> 2011/2/26 Georg Johann Lay >>> >>>> Eric Botcazou schrieb: >>>> >>>>>> What does "word" mean here?

Re: gcc-4.5/4.4: Bug in .subreg1 pass?

t; >>> So the same should be true for QI-subregs of scalar modes if >>> UNITS_PER_WORT = 1. Right? >> >> Right. > > Thanks for that definite clarification. As I understand PR46779 and PR45291 no longer an AVR port bugs. And the following comment is not a true anymore: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45291#c2 Am I right ? Denis.

Re: GCC 4.6.0 Status *-rtems

2011/2/7 Joel Sherrill : > > There are two targets which cannot build C -- avr and lm32: > > + avr - http://gcc.gnu.org/PR47534 I have committed the fix r169896 Please somebody close the bug. I can't login to bugzilla. (Probably I forgot my login and password) Denis.

Re: Reload problems with only one base reg for "base + offset" addressing mode

2010/8/1 redriver jiang : > Hi Denis, > > I read the "out_movqi_r_mr" code of the AVR port. I see that following > exception are > > handled: > > 1. "REG_X+offset", which is not supported by AVR. > 2. "REGY+offset", with offset larger tha

Re: Reload problems with only one base reg for "base + offset" addressing mode

ill can't > work. > > Do I miss some "macro" definition? > > Could someone give some direction? I have a lot of experiments with reloading memory addresses while I debug AVR port. Finally I have emulated memory addressing with infinite displacement. Look carefully at avr.c: out_movhi_r_mr Denis.

RE: Request for suppressing "warn_unused_result" warnings

Okay, I guess we 'll just disable the __wur's by default then -- as introducing an unnecessary hard-to-avoid noise. I recon many other people do the same. Thanks nevertheless. It's still a useful feature, just not flexible enough to use it for *everyday* compilation. Denis

RE: Request for suppressing "warn_unused_result" warnings

reviewer still can see all such suppressed warnings. So, the regular developers will be able to see the warnings -- and either fix or easily suppress them. And the security (provided by the code reviewer armed with that other flag/macro) won't be compromised. Denis

RE: Request for suppressing "warn_unused_result" warnings

trust explicit developer's void-casting. Also, 'warn_unused_result' should be enough; there is no need to add more levels to this simple paradigm. Denis

RE: Request for suppressing "warn_unused_result" warnings

developers to easily handle any overreach in the application of __wur (by merely "voiding" the func call)... that will greatly diminish the adverse effect of the __wur overreachments. Thanks, Denis -Original Message- From: paolo.bonz...@gmail.com [mailto:paolo.bonz...@gmail.com] On

RE: Request for suppressing "warn_unused_result" warnings

ake the whole GCC warning mechanism less effective, and it diminishes the great effort that you GCC developers put into helping developers write cleaner code. Please make it simpler for the developers to write warning-free code! Thanks, Denis -Original Message- From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pa

Re: AVR gives weird error with LTO

2009/12/31 Weddington, Eric : > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Andrew Hutchinson [mailto:andrewhutchin...@cox.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4:34 PM >> To: Richard Guenther >> Cc: Dave Korn; Rafael Espindola; GCC Development; Weddington,

incorrect place for LTO options description

description of the LTO specific options (--enable-lto, --with-libelf and --enable gold) should be placed in "Options specification" section instead of "Java-Specific Options" section on http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html

Re: Error when building cross compiler

The error is also reproduced with gcc 4.5 revision 153504

Re: Error when building cross compiler

>> There is something peculiar going on, because a >> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu hosted compiler would not normally refer to >> libgcc_s.so.1 at all. Even if it did, nothing would normally direct >> the dynamic linker to look in the gcc build directory. Something is >> wrong but I don't know what i

Error when building cross compiler

I am getting the following error when compiling "x86_64 to powerpc64" cross gcc, as soon as the libgcc_s.so.1 has appeared in obj/gcc directory. ... # Now that we have built all the objects, we need to copy # them back to the GCC directory.  Too many things (other # in-tree libraries, and DejaGNU

Re: AVR C++ - how to move vtables into FLASH memory

the .rodata section which > holds read-only data.  All you should need to do it arrange for the > .rodata section to be placed in FLASH rather than SRAM.  This would > normally be done in your linker script. No, no. movMODE insns for AVR don't support FLASH (PROGMEM), only SRAM. Denis.

relative include search path

I have a problem with gcc not finding location for stddef.h include file when it is invoked from directory other than /bin. Output from gcc invocation with -v option contains the following: ignoring nonexistent directory "../lib/gcc..." i.e. gcc is trying to find include files in directory with r

Re: GCC 4.5: "nonconstant array index in initializer" error

> Is the kernel using this sort of non-integer-constant-expression in > bit-field widths as well?  Sizes of file-scope arrays (OK, a special case > for that was added for WINE)?  Null pointer constants (that's much more > problematic to add special cases for)?  __builtin_choose_expr conditions? > I

Re: GCC 4.5: "nonconstant array index in initializer" error

) : __invalid_size_argument ) enum { ENUM_VALUE_NAME = TYPECHECK(int), }; int main() { return 0; } The error is following: test.c:5: error: enumerator value for 'ENUM_VALUE_NAME' is not an integer constant GCC 4.4.0 compiles this code without any error. 2009/4/24 Joseph S. Myers : > On Thu, 23 Ap

Re: GCC 4.5: "nonconstant array index in initializer" error

4.5.0 revision 146607 compiles this code with following errors: test.c:5: error: nonconstant array index in initializer test.c:5: error: (near initialization for 'arr') released GCC 4.4.0 compiles without any errors 2009/4/23 Joseph S. Myers : > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Denis Oni

Re: GCC 4.5: "nonconstant array index in initializer" error

integer constant expression 2009/4/23 Joseph S. Myers : > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Denis Onischenko wrote: > >> The following errors appears when I tried to compile linux kernel >> 2.6.30-rc2 with GCC 4.5: >> >> >> linux-2.6/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c:59: error: nonconstan

GCC 4.5: "nonconstant array index in initializer" error

The following errors appears when I tried to compile linux kernel 2.6.30-rc2 with GCC 4.5: linux-2.6/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c:59: error: nonconstant array index in initializer linux-2.6/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c:59: error: (near initialization for 'drm_ioctls') ... compiled code looks like this

Re: help for arm avr bfin cris frv h8300 m68k mcore mmix pdp11 rs6000 sh vax

> arm, 6 bits for m68k). > > This information is particularly important for targets that do not > have a simulator in src. AVR don't have a hardware instructions for variable shifts. While AVR port emulate such shifts the 8bits register used for shift count. AVR port truncate shift counter to 8 bits. Denis.

Re: IRA conflict graph & alternative selection

#x27;s constraints.) Because of that idea I have realised pre-relod in new-ra. (I'm agree that pre-reload is an ugly pieces of code) Even more, today I have a set of experiments with pre-reload pass before IRA. I have founded that IRA costs calculation process work better if I have a right insn's before IRA. Denis.

Re: having trouble with define_split

ure what I'm doing wrong, > but I don't have a good reference example for this. I can implement > these routines in a library, that might end up being better in terms > of space, but I would like to know what I am doing wrong and how to > use define_split correctly. May be better to define expand like this: (define_expand "fractqqsf2" [(set (match_dup 2) (fract_convert:SA (match_operand:QQ 1 "register_operand" ""))) (set (match_operand:SF 0 "register_operand" "") (fract_convert:SF (match_dup 2)))] "" " operands[2] = gen_reg_rtx (SAmode); ") Denis.

Re: [avr]: potential runtime bug in insn andsi3?

contain the MSB of the result. > > I did not try to find a source that produces a bug basing on that, > but obviously the insn does not do what it states algebraically. > > Besides that, andhi3 says cc=clobber in the similar case "d,0,i", > which is correct IMHO. Thank you. Will be fixed tomorrow. Denis.

Re: Help with reload and naked constant sum causing ICE

2008/5/29 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Again thank you and Denis for your comment. > > Here is what I deduce from code and Denis comments - I am sure he (and > others) will correct me if wrong :-) > > > The main issue is that we have one pointer register that cannot take off

Re: Help with reload and naked constant sum causing ICE

and Z are base pointers. Y is a frame pointer, so only one general base pointer - Z. Offset also very limited -63 to +63. In L_R_A I play with POINTER_REGS (X,Y,Z) and BASE_POINTER_REGS (Y,Z). My experiments with reload show me that reload can't handle all difficult situations. Also, Jeff I know that you think that reload can. GCC havn't something like (define_address ...) and reload can't handle POINTER_REGS and BASE_POINTER_REGS differently. In my version of L_R_A I tried to do it. Denis.

Re: How to legitimize the reload address?

le (spill to stack slot) and you have an insn with address like [SP+0xff]. Denis.

Library not loaded

Hi all I am having problem starting my application that is successfully built. I am using boost to serialize/deserialize data. I have link boost library and my project is built successfully, but I cannot run it. Running the project (build&go in xcode) I receive this error: dyld: Library not loa

Re: How to Install GCC

On Sunday 11 March 2007 16:01, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 10:45:53AM -0400, Sadri SARRAY wrote: > > Please, Would you like to send me a procedure to install the GCC > > compiler on a Linux-Ubuntu OS ? > > With a power screwdriver. Granted, poster was totally new to Linux and

Re: 40% performance regression SPEC2006/leslie3d on gcc-4_2-branch

0.0% 481.wrf -0.6% -0.3% 482.sphinx3 0.0%0.0% SPECfp_base2006 -3.5% -3.5% Denis

gcc 4.1.1: char *p = "str" puts "str" into rodata

char p; int main() { p = ""; return 0; } Don't you think that "" should end up in rw data? /* .file "t.c" .section.rodata.str1.1,"aMS",@progbits,1 .LC0: .string "" .text .globl main .type main, @function main: pushl %eb

Re: GCC4 makes off by ones more exploitable again, misuse of padding?

On Thursday 25 January 2007 01:43, In Cognito wrote: > > > 0x080483a7 :sub$0x208,%esp > > > 0x080483ad :mov0x8(%ebp),%eax > > > 0x080483b0 : mov%eax,0x4(%esp) > > > 0x080483b4 : lea0xfe00(%ebp),%eax > > > 0x080483ba : mov%eax,(%esp) > > > 0x080483bd : call

Re: GCC4 makes off by ones more exploitable again, misuse of padding?

On Thursday 25 January 2007 01:22, In Cognito wrote: > Hello, > > It's nice to see a more security-minded release of gcc with v4. > Variables are moved around to reduce chances for exploitation, > -fstack-protector, etc. Great! > > Why are local variables once-again adjacent to the saved frame po

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

On Saturday 23 December 2006 10:06, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: >No, because you'd read past the end of the array: > > #include > > int main (int argc, char *argv[]) > { > char *a; > if ((a == malloc (sizeof (char > { > int r; > > a[0] = 1; > r = f (a); >

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

On Friday 22 December 2006 03:03, Paul Brook wrote: > On Friday 22 December 2006 00:58, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:39, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > There are a lot of 100.00% safe optimizations which gcc > > > can do. Value range propagation

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:39, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > There are a lot of 100.00% safe optimizations which gcc > can do. Value range propagation for bitwise operations, for one Or this, absolutely typical C code. i386 arch can compare 16 bits at a time here (luckily, no alighment worr

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:46, Paul Brook wrote: > > Compiler can optimize it any way it wants, > > as long as result is the same as unoptimized one. > > We have an option for that. It's called -O0. > > Pretty much all optimization will change the behavior of your program. Even x*2 -> x+x? O

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 20:05, Andrew Haley wrote: > Denis Vlasenko writes: > > > > I wrote this just a few days ago: > > > > do { > > int32_t v1 = v << 1; > > if (v < 0) v1 ^= mask; > >

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 11:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > By the way, as I've tried to describe here: > > > > variable range tracking can result in reintroduction of > > supposedly-fixed security vulnerabilities. 8-( > > Interes

Re: distributing g++

On Friday 15 December 2006 22:30, Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote: > Hi > > > What are the standard practices with installing multiple versions of gcc > > on a system. I renamed this gcc to be gcc-4.1. However, it looks like it > > will still overwrite some files when I do 'make install'. Is this true? >

Re: distributing g++

On Friday 15 December 2006 22:30, Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote: > Hi > > > What are the standard practices with installing multiple versions of gcc > > on a system. I renamed this gcc to be gcc-4.1. However, it looks like it > > will still overwrite some files when I do 'make install'. Is this true? >

Re: g++ doesn't unroll a loop it should unroll

Disclaimer: I am not a compiler developer. On Wednesday 13 December 2006 12:44, Benoît Jacob wrote: > I'm developing a Free C++ template library (1) in which it is very important > that certain loops get unrolled, but at the same time I can't unroll them by > hand, because they depend on templat

Re: AVR byte swap optimization

On Saturday 18 November 2006 00:30, Shaun Jackman wrote: > The following macro expands to some rather frightful code on the AVR: > > #define BSWAP_16(x) \ > x) >> 8) & 0xff) | (((x) & 0xff) << 8)) Sometimes gcc is generating better code if you cast values instead of masking. Try:

Re: problem piping stdout

On Sunday 01 October 2006 15:34, Owen Lucas wrote: > > Im doing a program that reads in stuff from the serial port under linux. > Once read in there is a bit of formatting and it then needs to get piped > to something else. At the end is the cut down code. > > anyway the interesting part is in th

how to change avr maintainer ?

Hi All. Right now the AVR port have two maintainers Denis Chertykov and Marek Michalkiewicz. The AVR community ask me to add Anatoly Sokolov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as avr maintainer and Marek asked to remove him. How to do that ? Denis.

gcc-4.2-20060805: make bootstrap fails

Hello people, I tried to build and install gcc-4.2-20060805 snapshot. First, I needed to add some initializers. gcc seem to use -Werror at some stage and "might be used uninitialized" warnings were terminating the build. The patch is attached. Then "make bootstrap" failed in a different way: Th

Re: [PATCH] improved algorithm for gcc/expmed.c::choose_multiplier()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28417 On Thursday 03 August 2006 06:55, Roger Sayle wrote: > As mentioned by Jim, the current GCC algorithm is based upon the > paper by Torbjorn Granlund and Peter Montgomery, "Division by > Invariant Integers using Multiplication", PLDI-94. > http://sw

Re: [PATCH] improved algorithm for gcc/expmed.c::choose_multiplier()

On Tuesday 01 August 2006 00:34, Jim Wilson wrote: > Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > I still cannot figure out what precision is, so I restricted new code to > > (n == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT && precision == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) case. > > Need help here. > > At t

Re: [PATCH] improved algorithm for gcc/expmed.c::choose_multiplier()

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 08:30, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28417 > > > > Right now Bugzilla internal problem prevents me from creating > > an attachement there. So it goes here. > > What problem

Re: if() and trailing ;

On Tuesday 01 August 2006 16:54, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > "Denis Vlasenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | if() > | (void)0; /* do nothing */ > | > | will make you happy. > > No, I'm not. I find it Very Silly. Do you prefer buggy code like this?

Re: if() and trailing ;

On 7/30/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:33:03PM -0400, Simon Boulet wrote: > After a couple hours debugging code, I figured our an if() somewhere > had a trailing ; like this: > > if (memcmp(p, COMMUNITY, strlen(COMMUNITY)) != 0); >

[PATCH] improved algorithm for gcc/expmed.c::choose_multiplier()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28417 Right now Bugzilla internal problem prevents me from creating an attachement there. So it goes here. Not nice enough to go into release. I still cannot figure out what precision is, so I restricted new code to (n == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT && preci

Re: sorry, unimplemented: 64-bit mode not compiled in - ?!

On Thursday 27 July 2006 15:44, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:56:14PM +0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > does it mean I need a cross-compiler (to x86_64) to use -m64? > > It's strange because then -m64 is not useful at all > > - x86_64 cross compiler

building cross-compiler to x86_64. pthread.h: No such file

Hi, I am building gcc-4.1.1 like this: $SRC/configure \ --enable-languages="c,c++" \ --disable-nls \ --build=i386-pc-linux-gnu \ --host=i386-pc-linux-gnu\ --target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

sorry, unimplemented: 64-bit mode not compiled in - ?!

I imagine a lot of you gcc people will laugh at me now, but I finally bought amd64 machine and want to compile 64-bit Linux kernel. I am not able to do it. Tracked it down to a simple thing. My gcc cannot compile any .c file with -m64 flag: # gcc -m64 -c t.c t.c:1: sorry, unimplemented: 64-bit mo

Little help in understanding expmed.c::choose_multiplier()

I noticed that gcc's div-by-constant optimization is a bit suboptimal and want to improve it. I submitted it to bugzilla: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28417 but I think "big guys" have no time for such a low-impact thing. I want to do it myself. However, I need a little helt in und

AVR port have a problem with reload

Hi Ulrich. Few months ago I has analyzed PR19636 (avr specific bug) and found that it's a reload related problem. I has started the thread http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-02/msg00213.html but nobody commented the problem. Can you comment the problem as reload maintainer ? Denis.

Re: CAN_ELIMINATE question

Denis Chertykov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor writes: > > > Denis Chertykov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > I think that better to call update_eliminables() somewhere after > > > > > setup_save_areas() >

Re: CAN_ELIMINATE question

Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Denis Chertykov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I think that better to call update_eliminables() somewhere after > > > > setup_save_areas() > > > > > > Exactly. We do that. About 15 lines after the lines

Re: PATCH: [4.1/4.2 Regression]: Miscompiled FORTRAN program

. -- Pinski I'll do it. Denis

Re: PATCH: [4.1/4.2 Regression]: Miscompiled FORTRAN program

preprocessor too. I feared to overburden code by preprocessor expressions. What is you opinion? Denis.

Re: PATCH: [4.1/4.2 Regression]: Miscompiled FORTRAN program

James E Wilson wrote: Yes, that is what I was suggesting. It's corrected and tested on ia64 and x86-64. I've attached new version. Denis. Index: reload.c === *** reload.c(revision 35) --- reload.c(wo

Re: CAN_ELIMINATE question

need in call to update_eliminables() somewhere between setup_save_areas() and calculate_needs_all_insns() (Not "about 15 lines after" ;) because all bad things happened inside calculate_needs_all_insns(). calculate_needs_all_insns() collect wrong reloads because reg_eliminate structure for FP->SP have wrong can_eliminate field. Denis.

Re: PATCH: [4.1/4.2 Regression]: Miscompiled FORTRAN program

n you comment new patch version. It isn't fully tested but am I going in right direction? 2006-02-13 Denis Nagorny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR rtl-optimization/25603 * reload.c (reg_inc_found_and_valid_p): New. Check REG_INC note. (regno_clobbered_p): Use it. Reusi

Re: CAN_ELIMINATE question

Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Feb 13, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Denis Chertykov wrote: > > > Hi All. > > > > While I have debugging AVR target bug I found that something wrong in > > port code or in reload. > > > > Is it right to us

CAN_ELIMINATE question

Hi All. While I have debugging AVR target bug I found that something wrong in port code or in reload. Is it right to use of get_frame_size() inside CAN_ELIMINATE macro valid ? If yes then reload have a bug. If no then AVR and probably MIPS ports have invalid definitions of CAN_ELIMINATE. Denis.

Re: Contributing to GCC (for avr target).

tches. > If for incorporate contributions in gcc it is required to sign > copyright assignment, I would like them to sign. Yes, you must sign copyright assignment first. Denis.

Re: Register Allocation

, and how? The rable.pdf completely miss description of registers elimination. It's important and difficult part of RA. (The "old new-ra" also havn't eliminatin) Denis.

Re: cross builds to avr fail

newlib/libc/misc/init.c:56 (set > (mem/c:HI (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 28 r28) > (const_int 1 [0x1])) [5 S2 A8]) > (reg:HI 24 r24)) 12 {*movhi} (nil) > (nil)) > ../../../../../../gcc-head-test/newlib/libc/misc/init.c:59: internal > compiler error: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:1890 Please send a preprocessed init.c Denis.

Re: [BUG] gcc-3.4.5-20050531 (i386): __FUNCTION__ as a part of the printf's format argument

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 11:35:27AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > Ok, but such a code used to be compiled succesively with gcc for > > years. Then, some change _in_ gcc has occured. That is why I've > > posted to here. > > Yes, it was deprecated in 3.1 (released three years ago) and removed in

Re: [BUG] gcc-3.4.5-20050531 (i386): __FUNCTION__ as a part of the printf's format argument

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:51:23AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On 7/25/05, Denis Zaitsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Such an example can't be compiled: > > > > > > #include > > > > void x() > > { > > printf(__F

[BUG] gcc-3.4.5-20050531 (i386): __FUNCTION__ as a part of the printf's format argument

Such an example can't be compiled: #include void x() { printf(__FUNCTION__ "\n"); } $ gcc printf.c -o fprintf printf.c: In function `x': printf.c:5: error: syntax error before string constant Then, the problem is not printf-specific and is not depend of . The next example gives the sam

  1   2   >