Ok, thanks for the clarification jakub.
Umesg
On Mon, May 7, 2018, 2:08 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 01:58:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> > CCed Jakub,
>
> > > Agree that float division don't touch memory ,but fdiv result (stack
> > > register ) is stored back to a me
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 01:58:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> CCed Jakub,
> > Agree that float division don't touch memory ,but fdiv result (stack
> > register ) is stored back to a memory i.e fResult .
That doesn't really matter. It is stored to a stack spill slot, something
that doesn't h
CCed Jakub,
> Hi Alex,
> Agree that float division don't touch memory ,but fdiv result (stack
> register ) is stored back to a memory i.e fResult .
>
> So compiler barrier in the inline asm i.e ::memory should prevent the
> shrinkage of instructions like "fstps fResult(%rip)"behind the
Hi Alex ,
Agree that float division don't touch memory ,but fdiv result (stack
register ) is stored back to a memory i.e fResult .
So compiler barrier in the inline asm i.e ::memory should prevent the
shrinkage of instructions like "fstps fResult(%rip)"behind the
fence ?
BTW ,if we mak
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 01:34:21PM +, Vivek Kinhekar wrote:
> Hello Alexander,
>
> In the given testcase, the generated fdivrs instruction performs the
> division of a symbol ref (memory value) by FPU Stack Register and stores
> the value in FPU Stack Register.
The stack registers are not mem
Oh! Thanks for the quick response, Jakub.
Regards,
Vivek Kinhekar
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 7:08 PM
To: Vivek Kinhekar
Cc: Alexander Monakov ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC Compiler Optimization ignores or mistreats MFENCE memory
barrier
18 5:58 PM
To: Vivek Kinhekar
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC Compiler Optimization ignores or mistreats MFENCE memory
barrier related instruction
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Vivek Kinhekar wrote:
> The mfence instruction with memory clobber asm instruction should
> create a barrier betw
Thanks for the quick response, Alexander!
Regards,
Vivek Kinhekar
+91-7709046470
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Monakov
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 5:58 PM
To: Vivek Kinhekar
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC Compiler Optimization ignores or mistreats MFENCE memory
barrier
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Vivek Kinhekar wrote:
> The mfence instruction with memory clobber asm instruction should create a
> barrier between division and printf instructions.
No, floating-point division does not touch memory, so the asm does not (and
need not) restrict its motion.
Alexander
On 02/26/2018 02:41 AM, Mustafa i. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What exactly is the -Warray-bounds option to the GCC compiler supposed
> to warn about?
It's meant to warn for out of bounds array access.
For example, if you have a 10 element array, but try to access the 11th
element you should get a warnin
Hello,
What exactly is the -Warray-bounds option to the GCC compiler supposed to
warn about?
My g++ --version: g++ (GCC) 7.3.1 20180130 (Red Hat 7.3.1-2)
Regards,
Mustafa
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/21/2018 03:20 PM, Mustafa i. wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a qu
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:31:34PM -0800, Yun He wrote:
> Dear GCC development team,
>
> Richard and I working on updating the OpenMP Compilers Support page at
> http://openmp.org/wp/openmp-compilers. Our goal is to have the updated
> information from vendors published on the web site by SC15 (N
On 02/15/2013 01:13 PM, Jerome Huck wrote:
> There seems to be some versions of GCC for ANDROID C/C++/Pascal working
> or even Fortran, see the attached links. Can we hope one day to have
> some official release?
I can't see why not, but it'll require someone to contribute the code
and commit to m
On 14/06/2012 04:05, Chris Jones wrote:
David Brown wrote:
On 11/06/2012 09:45, Chris Jones wrote:
Is it possible to modify the source code of gcc to enable to compilation
of a completely new programming language, as yet unrecognized? How much
of a big job would I be looking at for such a task?
David Brown wrote:
On 11/06/2012 09:45, Chris Jones wrote:
Is it possible to modify the source code of gcc to enable to compilation
of a completely new programming language, as yet unrecognized? How much
of a big job would I be looking at for such a task?
I would think that would depend entir
On 11/06/2012 09:45, Chris Jones wrote:
Is it possible to modify the source code of gcc to enable to compilation
of a completely new programming language, as yet unrecognized? How much
of a big job would I be looking at for such a task?
I would think that would depend entirely on the language
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:45:12PM +1000, Chris Jones wrote:
> Is it possible to modify the source code of gcc to enable to
> compilation of a completely new programming language, as yet
> unrecognized? How much of a big job would I be looking at for such a
> task?
It is certainly possible, and i
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:56:38 -0400, Alan Lehotsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Martin,
>
>I did a port of GCC to the Analog Devices SHARC chip. I ended up
supporting 3 >kinds of pointers for this chip (two for address
>spaces and one for byte pointers - the chip itself is only word
addressable >(alt
Martin,
I did a port of GCC to the Analog Devices SHARC chip. I ended up
supporting 3 kinds of pointers for this chip (two for address
spaces and one for byte pointers - the chip itself is only word
addressable (although words can be from 16 to 48 bits in size
depending on what memory is
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> It seems like we're getting consensus around that approach, despite the
>> initial sentiment in the other direction from Mike and Joe. Mike, Joe,
>> do either of you care to argue the point? If not, I'll volunteer to
>> write so
On Apr 10, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
It seems like we're getting consensus around that approach, despite
the
initial sentiment in the other direction from Mike and Joe.
Mike, Joe, do either of you care to argue the point?
I'm fine with the status quo. I think comp.compilers a
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Personally, I'd be in favor of GCC-releated internships and job offers on
> our lists, but I see that it may be difficult to draw a line. That said,
> I wonder how to handle .signatures: for example, if you added a line like
> "CodeSourcery is hiring. http://.../work4us
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Mike Stump wrote:
|
| >> 3. How do we enforce any of these rules?
| >
| > Shame on those that violate them.
|
| I think we need to do better than that.
I'll vote for keeping the current policy: not job ads on the
development list.
-- Gaby
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> It seems like we're getting consensus around that approach, despite the
> initial sentiment in the other direction from Mike and Joe. Mike, Joe,
> do either of you care to argue the point? If not, I'll volunteer to
> write some text for the web pages, a
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mark Mitchell:
1. What do we do if people do advertise jobs that are not free software
jobs, or not purely free software jobs? How pure is pure? Does "Port
GCC to proprietary OS" count as free or not?
And: Does porting GCC to a new processor, to run on a free operati
* Mark Mitchell:
> 1. What do we do if people do advertise jobs that are not free software
> jobs, or not purely free software jobs? How pure is pure? Does "Port
> GCC to proprietary OS" count as free or not?
And: Does porting GCC to a new processor, to run on a free operating
system, without e
On Apr 10, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Mike Stump wrote:
3. How do we enforce any of these rules?
Shame on those that violate them.
I think we need to do better than that.
If there's no viable enforcement mechanism, then people following the
policy are at a disadvantage to tho
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Here, if Company A and Company B both want to recruit, but A adheres
>> to the policy while B does not, A loses.
>
> I think that's a compelling reason to keep it at "no ads".
It seems like we're getting consensus around that approach, despite the
initial sentiment in the ot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/06 17:35, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Thus, I vote with Jeff.
>
Likewise. Companies ought to send job ads to comp.compilers or use the
FSF listing service.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOtFpUTa2oAUaiwQRAj
> Here, if Company A and Company B both want to recruit, but A adheres
> to the policy while B does not, A loses.
I think that's a compelling reason to keep it at "no ads". We've got
enough stress just developing gcc; we don't need the extra stress of
corporate pressure to act against our fellow
Mike Stump wrote:
>> 3. How do we enforce any of these rules?
>
> Shame on those that violate them.
I think we need to do better than that.
If there's no viable enforcement mechanism, then people following the
policy are at a disadvantage to those who are not. Traditional spam and
things bette
On Apr 10, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
1. What do we do if people do advertise jobs that are not free
software
jobs
Ask them not to, ultimately the same thing we do with spammers. :-)
or not purely free software jobs?
If on the wiki, edit out all the parts that aren't and tell
On Apr 10, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:29 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I'd rather not open the door to job postings, even for GCC
I see myself as a consumer of this list and not a producer so it is
hard to see myself as having a "vote". But if I do,
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:29 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> You and Mike have suggested that recruiting GCC developers is a
> reasonable use of the list. Before we go to the SC, asking for approval
> to change the policy, we should address some other issues:
>
> 1. What do we do if people do advert
Joe Buck wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that it serves gcc if the list can be used to
> recruit people to work on gcc for pay. Of course an FSF list cannot
> sanction offers for proprietary software development, and I wouldn't want
> to see offers for unrelated software work.
You and Mike have s
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:48:55AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> We have (had) a policy against these kinds of recruiting messages on the
> GCC lists...
>
> Recently, there has your message, and Benjamin Kosnik's message about
> internships -- so we need to either reconfirm the earlier policy, or
On Apr 10, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Thoughts?
We don't want to open the flood gates to random recruiters for random
software, however, I never saw the harm in solicitations from gcc
contributors for people to work on gcc. If we were to relax the
current policy, we can have
Rick Edwards wrote:
> We are a strong and growing company working in some very advanced DSP
> silicon.
We have (had) a policy against these kinds of recruiting messages on the
GCC lists. Instead, it was suggested that people work through the FSF's
job-listing service. Unfortunately, I can't fin
> I am doing a study about compilers. I have to monitor many existing
> compilers and benchmark them. After I have to modify and optimize the
> 'back-end' part for multithreads models.
>
You should go look at Scott's site (http://www.coyotegulch.com/) as he
does a lot of benchmarking.
> I have
39 matches
Mail list logo
