That should be 4 cycles per loop, sorry.
> On Apr 29, 2024, at 7:24 PM, Lucier, Bradley J wrote:
>
> Specifically, a tight loop that was reported to be scheduled in 23 cycles (as
> I understand it) actually executes in a little over 2 cycles per loop
The question: How to interpret scheduling info with the compiler listed below.
Specifically, a tight loop that was reported to be scheduled in 23 cycles (as I
understand it) actually executes in a little over 2 cycles per loop, as I
interpret two separate experiments.
Am I misinterpreting somet
Hello,
I've proposed a patch [1] for condition coverage profiling in gcc,
implemented in the middle-end alongside the branch coverage. I've
written most of the tests for C and a few for C++ and finally got around
to try it with a toy example for D and go and noticed something odd
about Go's
On Apr 20, 2021, at 9:11 AM, Gabriel Paubert
mailto:paub...@iram.es>> wrote:
(lldb) di -s 0x000103d6 -c 10
libgambit.dylib`___SCMOBJ_to_NONNULLSTRING:
0x103d6 <+1504>: jl 0x103d60026 ; <+1542> at
c_intf.c:3282:9
0x103d60002 <+1506>: orb%al, 0x31(%rbp)
0
I’m seeing an “Illegal Instruction” fault and don’t quite know how to generate
a proper bug report yet.
This is the compiler:
[Bradleys-Mac-mini:~] lucier% /usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/l
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:41 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:37 AM Michael J. Baars
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
> > > wrote:
> > > &
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 10:50 +0100, Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
> On 2/22/21 10:37 AM, Michael J. Baars wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi,
&g
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:41 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:37 AM Michael J. Baars
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
> > > wrote:
> > > &
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both
> > malloc and calloc.
> >
> > If I allocate a t
Hi,
I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both malloc
and calloc.
If I allocate a the simplest memory region from main(), one out of three
optimization flags fail.
If I allocate the same region from a function, three out of three optimization
flags fail.
Does some
I know compiling is exponenental when considering it compiles operating
systems, but can someone either implement or help me implement some kind of
singular security feature for the stack so hacks dont access the heap? Im
thinking the first few bytes would be some security software or feature (w
That way we can have a clean subsystems of commands for easy processing
On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:11 AM Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> On Monday, 16 December 2019 14:51:38 CET J Decker wrote:
> > Here's the gist of what I would propose...
> > https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da
> >
> > In C, there are two o
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:03 PM J Decker wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:59 AM J Decker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:53 AM Florian Weimer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> * J. Decker:
>>>
>>> > Here&#
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:59 AM J Decker wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:53 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * J. Decker:
>>
>> > Here's the gist of what I would propose...
>> > https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280d
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:53 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> * J. Decker:
>
> > Here's the gist of what I would propose...
> > https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da
> >
> > In C, there are two operators . and -> used to access members
); // 'wrong' operators...
}
int main( void ) {
f();
return 0;
}
```
I haven't built the testsuite...
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:51 AM J Decker wrote:
> Here's the gist of what I would propose...
> https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7e
Here's the gist of what I would propose...
https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da
In C, there are two operators . and -> used to access members of struct and
union types. These operators are specified such that they are always paired
in usage; for example, if the left hand
be to resolve as many as one can over the summer.
Interesting!
>Would any of these ideas work as a GSoC project?
-> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-03/msg00016.html
-> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87210
Could this RFE be considered for a GSoC project?
Thank you.
---
-P J P
http://feedmug.com
On Tuesday, 19 February, 2019, 3:55:35 PM IST, P J P
wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
> -> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87210
>
>This RFE is about providing gcc option(s) to eliminate information leakage
>issues from programs. Information leakage via uninitialised me
n?
Thank you.---
-P J P
http://feedmug.com
Somewhat like assembly meets c99 /javascript with maybe an extended
preprocessor macro system (#declr? )
pointers rarely contain a single value, they either reference an array, or
a group of values. In the case of the latter, the pointerVarName.FieldName
pair specifies to get the value, and then a
Bruce Berman
Carlton Fields
Off: +1 (305) 539-7415
Cell: +1 (305) 975-3467
hi
i am a java developer, i want to install gnu java compiler on LINUX
7.2 for testing purpose. i already have gcc version 4.8.5 20150623
(Red Hat 4.8.5-4) (GCC) in my machine. now i want to add gcj in it.
how can i install it?
--
regards
jahanzeb
It's nice that GCC has included a constructor attribute, but it
doesn't work in complex scenarios.
I was considering tinkering with adding a 'initializer' and '?exiter'
or maybe 'deinitializer'? (not sure what to name the other side) But
on to the primary...
__attribute((initializer(priority)))
I request that Bug 53001 (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001) be mentioned in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
This change adds a flag -Wfloat-conversion to C-family gcc.
Possible text for the changes page:
The -Wfloat-conversion option has been added for the C and C++
On 06/03/14 21:03, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 03/06/2014 03:14 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Still, would you accept a patch to mark this flag as an optimization?
I think we should.
Submitted to gcc-patches for approval.
--
PMatos
On 06/03/14 15:15, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 03/06/2014 08:55 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
Hi,
Upon noticing ira-hoist-pressure in `gcc --help=optimizers` and not
ira-loop-pressure,
I am wondering why the latter is not marked as an Optimization in common.opt:
fira-loop-pressure
Common Report Var(f
On 18/01/14 20:11, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 12:04 PM, "Paulo J. Matos" wrote:
On 17/01/14 17:36, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I am not implying that this is a GCC bug, unless you think
WORD_REISTER_OPERATIONS should have avoided the creation of such
paradoxical su
Hello,
Do we care if trunk doesn't compile successfully with
--enable-werror-always?
Do we want to fix things like:
../../../../gcc-trunk/fixincludes/server.c: In function ‘server_setup’:
../../../../gcc-trunk/fixincludes/server.c:195:10: error: ignoring
return value of ‘getcwd’, declared wit
On 17/01/14 17:36, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I am not implying that this is a GCC bug, unless you think
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS should have avoided the creation of such
paradoxical subreg.
No, that's precisely the contrary, WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS tends to create
paradoxical subregs.
I might th
On 10/10/13 20:52, David Malcolm wrote:
I've added detailed information on the project to the wiki as:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/JIT
and added a link to that page to the front page's "Current Projects"
section.
For reasons unknown to me, check-parallel-jit has to be issues inside
build/jit/
Jakub et al,
Steffen has developed a nice fix [1] for GOMP_CPU_AFFINITY failing with
>1024 cores.
What steps are needed to get this into GCC 4.8.2?
Thanks,
Daniel
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57298
--
Daniel J Blueman
Principal Software Engineer, Numascale
On 27/06/2013 16:02, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
Paulo Matos writes:
That explains why GCC removes the condition but the main issue of the memset
recursion still stands.
Known problem. See GCC PR56888.
Thanks for the reference Mikael, that's exactly it.
--
Paulo Matos
On 08/05/13 23:10, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
Shouldn't we expect ires to be -1 (STORE_FLAG_VALUE)
??? Boolean expressions in C evaluate to 0/1.
Andreas.
Agreed, I worked till too late yesterday, I am sorry.
Further to this matter, can you explai
On 08/05/13 21:29, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
As I expected. That doesn't sound good
In which way is it not good?
Andreas.
Shouldn't we expect ires to be -1 (STORE_FLAG_VALUE) and therefore the
condition of the if be false if everything is
On 08/05/13 14:54, Andreas Schwab wrote:
I'm getting "1 != ((2 >= 2 ? -1 : 0)" with 4.7.3.
Andreas.
As I expected. That doesn't sound good but I am unsure on what to do
about it. I will investigate the case further tomorrow.
I expect m68k to also fail the vector-compare-1.c gcc test, is t
Mikael,
I haven't really tried m68k and I can't say I know anything about it but
it will only be affected by this issue I am seeing if it generates
instructions of the form:
(set (reg:BI ...)
(:BI (reg:SI ...) (const_int ...)))
If you have something like this then as soon as you expand t
On 2013-04-16 15:00, Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm trying to build and install GCC 4.7.2, and I'm getting the following
> error from the "install-mkheaders" target of gcc/Makefile:
[...]
>
> The deletion of syslimits.h, movement of
e? Why is
gcc/include-fixed/limits.h being moved when updating the "install"
target?
Let me know if I can provide any other information that may help.
My build system:
* Linux 3.2.0
* EGLIBC 2.13
* GCC 4.7.2
* Binutils 2.22
Thanks,
--
Patrick "P. J." McDermott
http://www.pehjota.net/
http://www.pehjota.net/contact.html
I NEED A DRIVER FOR MY WIFE
On 22/12/12 10:13, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Dec 20, 2012, "Paulo Matos" wrote:
This doesn't look sensible to me (but I might be overlooking a reason why we
want to do so) in the context of cselib_record_sets, however, I think
cselib_record_sets should instead have the patch applied:
- for_e
On 24/10/12 17:30, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Paulo Matos wrote:
Conversions of target macros to hooks are generally of interest.
I don't think we want a stream-of-consciousness sequence of messages about
successive aspects of the issue.
I apologize if my messages became a nu
On 09/08/12 17:54, Aaron Gray wrote:
Hi,
I have developed several patches for GCC and am wondering as a purely
open source non commercial developer whether there are any issues
regarding getting patches into GCC. Do I need to sign an agreement at
all ?
If you want the copyright assignment for
Hi,
Can someone please clarify some policies with GCC contribution. If I
have a patch with a GCC enhancement, do I need to obtain a bug report
for it and then submit the patch or I can submit a patch to the patch
mailing list without opening a bug report?
Cheers,
--
PMatos
loyer disclaimer, if an employer or school
owns work created by the developer. "
Cheers,
Paulo
--
Patrick
On 08/02/2012 09:14 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hello,
Could someone please send me the copyright assignment forms for single
contributions and for all future contribution
Hello,
Could someone please send me the copyright assignment forms for single
contributions and for all future contributions?
Cheers,
--
PMatos
On 26/07/12 15:04, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
My target has 16bit chars.
As I explained before, support for such targets is extremely limited and
bitrotten (this applies whether it is BITS_PER_UNIT, CHAR_TYPE_SIZE or
both that are not 8) and a large
On 26/07/12 13:27, Richard Guenther wrote:
Why would the fill value in a memset call be required to fit in a host char?
Obviously because of the implementation detail of its caller.
Richard.
Richard, I am sorry if I was not more clear. I understand that this is
required because the caller
Hi,
My target has 16bit chars.
What I am seeing is that in a memset call, the call is not inlined by
GCC whenever fill value is bigger than host char.
This seems to be due to the code (GCC 4.6.5) in target_char_cast
(builtins.c), called from expand_builtin_memset_args:
static int
target_cha
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 01:00 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Andreas Enge wrote:
> >
> > powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0, s390-linux-gnu,
>
> Perhaps Bill Schmidt can help here?
>
Unfortunately not, at least not directly. David Bernstein and Andreas
Krebbel, respectively, might be able to point you to t
On 12/07/12 12:19, Richard Guenther wrote:
Look into the tree dumps and look where the ={v} disappears. That
will point to the pass that breaks it and eventually help track down the
fixing patch.
Thanks for the tip Richard. Tracked it down to PHI prop pass in
tree-ssa-phiprop.c, not yet wha
Hello,
As far as I know 4.3 and 4.4 are no longer maintained and 4.3.6 and
4.4.7 were the last of their respective lines however if someone is kind
enough to look at the following, I would be extremely grateful. I found
a bug in 4.3.6 and 4.4.7 fixed in 4.5.0 but I am having a hard time
pinpo
The output is still the same but the spill is fixed in 4.7.1.
On 14/06/12 13:47, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hi,
I found a problem with my port where IRA generates a spill error. After
looking at the logs I get this kind of output for the best class for the
pseudo regs:
Pass 0 for finding pseudo
I forgot to mention this is in 4.7.0.
4.6.3 happily assigns the right classes to the registers. I wonder if
there's any new macro in 4.7 that I haven't defined...
On 14/06/12 13:47, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hi,
I found a problem with my port where IRA generates a spill error. After
Hi,
I found a problem with my port where IRA generates a spill error. After
looking at the logs I get this kind of output for the best class for the
pseudo regs:
Pass 0 for finding pseudo/allocno costs
a2 (r30,l0) best NO_REGS, allocno NO_REGS
a3 (r29,l0) best NO_REGS, allocno NO_REG
On 21/05/12 15:21, Christian Bruel wrote:
Options not explicitly described in the compiler before their use in a
spec rules are now rejected. So you probably need to describe it into
your target optimization file, (something like xap.opt).
OK, thanks for letting me know about this.
Cheers,
On 17/05/12 17:08, Richard Henderson wrote:
My question is, why are you generating compares in two different
modes early, before compare-elim runs? If you hadn't done that,
your redundant compare would already be eliminated.
I just looked at the rx code and it seems to be doing something sim
On Thu, 17 May 2012 09:08:26 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> My question is, why are you generating compares in two different modes
> early, before compare-elim runs? If you hadn't done that, your
> redundant compare would already be eliminated.
>
Good question. I tried to follow the example s
Hi,
I am looking at a missed optimization and I think this is something that
could be added to compare-elim, if it's not already done somewhere else.
I have a double word comparison to zero, so in C it's:
int le(long a) { return a <= 0; }
My expand uses the following transformation (in my cur
,
Manuel.
On 14 May 2012 10:49, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hi Alberto,
As far as I understand it you want to know if a statement was expanded from
a preprocessor macro, right?
This isn't possible. The preprocessor is a separate thing altogether and I
doubt any preprocessing information remain
Hi Alberto,
As far as I understand it you want to know if a statement was expanded
from a preprocessor macro, right?
This isn't possible. The preprocessor is a separate thing altogether and
I doubt any preprocessing information remains for the compiler proper to
deal with.
Cheers,
Paulo M
Hi,
MULTILIB_OPTIONS containing options defined in DRIVER_SELF_SPEC seemed
to be fine in GCC46 but fail in GCC47.
For example, I have:
xap.h:
#define DRIVER_SELF_SPECS \
"%{help:-v} %"%{mno-args-span-regs-and-mem:-mno-split-args}
%"%{mno-inline-block-copy-mod
I'm investigating another build failure for Fedora 17 (based on 4.7).
The failing compile from the build log is as follows:
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC
--mode=compile
/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.7.0-20120504/obj-ppc64-redhat-linux/./gcc/xgcc
-B/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.7.0-20120504/obj-ppc64-r
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 13:47 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM, William J. Schmidt
> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I've been debugging a Fedora 17 build problem on ppc64-redhat-linux, and
> > ran into an issue with bitsizetype. I have
Greetings,
I've been debugging a Fedora 17 build problem on ppc64-redhat-linux, and
ran into an issue with bitsizetype. I have a patch that fixes the
problem, but I'm not yet convinced it's the right fix. I'm hoping
someone here can help me sort it out.
The problem occurs when compiling some Ja
Forget about this question. Doesn't make sense at all.
I wonder if the thing I drank during lunch was really water...
On 09/05/12 14:40, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hi,
While debugging an issue related to my movmem rule, I noticed that
fwprop seems to be doing some really strange.
The pr
Hi,
While debugging an issue related to my movmem rule, I noticed that
fwprop seems to be doing some really strange.
The problem occurs when setting the argument to the block copy
instruction. The full C code is:
int **
t25 (int *d, int **s)
{
memcpy (d, *s, 16);
return s;
}
Before fwpr
On 09/05/12 11:53, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
He was showing the RTL expansion of the example he gave:
Ah, right. I interpreted it as if it was what the movmem expanded to.
--
PMatos
On 08/05/12 21:57, Jan Hubicka wrote:
In expanded form it is
(set (reg5) (const 10))
(parallel [(set (reg2) (const 0))
(set (reg0) (plus (reg3) (reg5)))
(set (reg1) (plus (reg4) (reg5)))
(set (mem (reg3)) (mem (reg4)))])
(set (reg0) (plus (reg0) (cons
On 04/05/12 19:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The i386 rep_movqi insn is an example:
(define_insn "*rep_movqi"
[(set (match_operand:P 2 "register_operand" "=c") (const_int 0))
(set (match_operand:P 0 "register_operand" "=D")
(plus:P (match_operand:P 3 "register_operand" "0")
On 04/05/12 14:44, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I agree that there is something wrong here. I agree that as written
the constraints for operands 0, 1, and 2 should have a '+'.
That said, a '+' constraint is most useful for a pattern that expands
into multiple instructions. I think this would be bet
Hi,
I was just trying to understand exactly what constraint modifiers + and
= mean. I have read the manual but I am uncertain about their meaning in
the context of the following rule (without any modifiers):
Expand generates:
(define_insn_and_split "movmem_long"
[(set (match_operand:QI 2 "
On 30/04/12 13:01, Peter Bigot wrote:
I would like to see the technical details, if your code is released somewhere.
Hi Peter,
Sorry for the delay.
The code is not released, however I can send you a patch against GCC
4.6.3 sources (our GCC 4.7.0 port is not yet stable) of our changes and
wi
Peter,
We have a working backend for an Harvard Architecture chip where
function pointer and data pointers have necessarily different sizes. We
couldn't do this without changing GCC itself in strategic places and
adding some extra support in our backend. We haven't used address spaces
or any
On 27/04/12 11:49, Richard Guenther wrote:
Yes, it inlines it. You may want to look at s390 which I believe has
a similar block-copy operation.
Richard.
I looked at s390 and even though the block copy instruction seems
similar ours is much more restrictive since it expects values in
speci
On 27/04/12 11:49, Richard Guenther wrote:
It feels to me that GCC46 version is better:
* no branch to subroutine memcpy;
* less stack usage (argument to enterl);
So, using our block copy (bc2) instruction is an optimisation, don't you
think?
Yes, it inlines it. You may want to look at s390 w
On 27/04/12 09:21, Richard Guenther wrote:
This differs from what GCC47 does and seems to work better.
I would like help on how to best handle this situation under GCC47.
Not provide movmem which looks like open-coded and not in any way
"optimized"?
Thanks Richard, however I don't understan
Hi,
I am facing a problem with the GCC47 register allocation and my
movmemqi. GCC46 dealt very well with the problem but GCC47 keeps
throwing at me register spill failures.
My backend has very few registers. 3 chip registers in total (class
CHIP_REGS), one of them (XL) is used for memory ref
On 03/04/12 15:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Paulo J. Matos" writes:
>
>
> Hmmm, you're right, I didn't notice those. You said that on your system
> QImode is 16 bits. These modes are being used to efficiently load
> 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit values, in
On 30/03/12 05:11, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
I am porting my backend to GCC47 and have been jumping through some
hurdles. libgcc is trying to compile unwind*.c files which I can't
remember being there for GCC46.
They were there. In 4.6 they
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:10:11 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> *** Configuration xap-local-xap not supported
>
> You will have to find out where that last error message is coming from.
> It's not happening because of errors in configure tests. It's most
> likely coming from libgcc/config.host
Hi,
I am porting my backend to GCC47 and have been jumping through some
hurdles. libgcc is trying to compile unwind*.c files which I can't
remember being there for GCC46. I deduce this files have to do with
exception support GCC47 seems to want to make exceptions mandatory even
though my backe
Hello,
I am porting my backend to GCC47 and during libgcc configuration I get:
configure:4511: checking whether to use setjmp/longjmp exceptions
configure:: /home/pm18/p4ws/pm18_binutils/bc/main/result/linux/
intermediate/FirmwareGcc47Package/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/pm18/p4ws/
pm18_binutils/bc/main/res
Vladimir,
Thanks for for the explanation.
Cheers,
Paulo Matos
On 23/03/12 16:08, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 03/23/2012 11:04 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to find exactly what happened to IRA_COVER_CLASSES in
gcc47. From what I have seen it seems that it was simply removed
Hello,
I am trying to find exactly what happened to IRA_COVER_CLASSES in gcc47.
From what I have seen it seems that it was simply removed. Does the
register allocator now automatically computes the cover classes?
Cheers,
--
PMatos
On 22/03/12 13:58, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 01:36:58PM +, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
I notice that on ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.7.0/
there's no gcc-core tarball. Is this still going to show up or will
it not be released anymore?
They won't be provid
I notice that on ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.7.0/
there's no gcc-core tarball. Is this still going to show up or will it
not be released anymore?
On 22/03/12 09:49, Richard Guenther wrote:
Status
==
The GCC 4.7.0 release will be announced soon. The branch is open for
regres
I notice that on ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.7.0/
there's no gcc-core tarball. Is this still going to show up or will it
not be released anymore?
On 22/03/12 09:49, Richard Guenther wrote:
Status
==
The GCC 4.7.0 release will be announced soon. The branch is open for
regres
On 20/03/12 10:30, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
Like any other builtin expander? There are many dozens of examples in
builtins.c. It is called with the tree argument, so you verify it, complain
if the argument is not the one you are expecting, and just expand it as the
symbol instead of expanding the
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:49:39 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you are folding the builtin to, but perhaps you could
> retain a reference to the function.
>
I am folding the function call __function_size(foobar) to a new symbol
foobar@size. The reference to function foobar d
Hi,
I have builtin __function_size(foobar) that is applied to functions.
This should be folded to a symbol foobar@size.
The problem comes when I mark in the fold_builtin function in my backend
that DECL_PRESERVE(foobar) = 1;
The reason I need to do this is so that foobar is not removed if we
h
Yes,
I replicated this on an Ubuntu 11 distro with GCC 4.6.x
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello J. K.,
> Have you tried with a newer version of GCC? GCC 4.1 is pretty old
>
> Thanks,
>
> Balaji V. Iyer.
>
> -Original
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 11:52 -0600, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 11:03 -0600, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > I think this is probably a problem with how cprop_into_successor_phis
> > works. It only propagates into immediate successors of a block. In
&g
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 11:03 -0600, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> I think this is probably a problem with how cprop_into_successor_phis
> works. It only propagates into immediate successors of a block. In
> this case copies are propagated from bb12 into phis in bb13 and bb14 (of
> whi
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 11:21 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Jiangning Liu
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:07 PM
> >> To: Jiangning
gt; void test_func(int n)
> {
> int i;
> static int j;
> static int pos, direction, direction_pre;
>
> pos = 0;
> direction = 1;
>
> for ( i = 0; i < n; i++ )
> {
> direction_
Posted in the Intel forums but this may be more of a GCC issue.
Please advise if I should post elsewhere.
Compiling a C module in with a large app (>2GB data) and getting
relocatable errors with GCC and
not ICC.
./classification_dpr_BB.o: In function `BB_detection_dpr':
/homedata/johnk/dpr/sr
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:00:43 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 08:57 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> However, there's a failure to combine looking like: (parallel [
>> (set (reg:QI 1 AL)
>> (ior:QI (mem/c/i:QI (re
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:57:48 +, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> However, duplicating the instructions and inverting operand order seems
> to defeat the purpose of '%'. So, what's the catch? Or is it a genuine
> bug?
I just understood my miss understanding above. '%&#
1 - 100 of 820 matches
Mail list logo
