[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 17/07/2005 08:30:26:
> Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote on 17/07/2005 06:07:29:
> |
> | > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | Anything it sees anything in a statement with volatile, it marks
the
> | > | stat
| From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| | | From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| |
| | | After many exchanges via private mails and
| | | looking at the various reports related to this issue, it has become
| | | clear to me t
On Jul 16, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20222
Andrew Pinski has declared this to be a bug, but the audit trail
isn't clear as to why.
Because the abs is a function call, there is only one load and should
be only
one load as
| From: Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 21:36 -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| > | From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >
| > | After many exchanges via private mails and
| > | looking at the various reports related to this issue, it has become
| > | clear to
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In other words, we're asked to agree that the type of an object
> > changes depending on how it is accessed.
> > For the benefit of readers, only the first sentence of this para is
> > the language of the standard; the rest isn't.
> >
> > That an ob
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > | There is no point in type qualifiers if they can be simply changed at
> | > | will. Do not lie about your objects, and you will not be screwed over.
> | >
> | > only if the language you're implementing the compi
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I know have a problem building gcc mainline with a parallel build on
>> Linux/x86-64:
>>
>> /usr/include/java/net/URL.h:25: error: global qualification of class name is
>> inva
>> lid before ':' token
>>
R Hill wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
On 7/14/05, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As subject says - on x86_64 it takes a whopping 30 minutes to
compile said with -fprofile-generate!
It's caused by -frename-registers enabled by -funroll-loops. Compiling
with -O2 -fno-unroll-loops
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Jul 16, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20222
| >
| >Andrew Pinski has declared this to be a bug, but the audit trail
| >isn't clear as to why.
|
| Because the abs is a function
"D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| | At this point we need:
| | (1) agreement from C and C++ maintainers on access through volatile
| | lvalue
|
| I don't know C++ well enough to say whether the analogous optimization
| is wrong for C++.
C++ has resisted, for two
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| You know, the more this goes on the more I believe we should send
| X3J11 a request for clarification. Perhaps X3J11 has been disbanded,
| so there may be problems. But we should ask.
I don't know whether X3J11 is disbanded. However, at the las
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | | From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |
> | | After many exchanges via private mails and
> | | looking at the various reports related to this issue, it has become
> | | clear to me tha
% ../gcc-4.0.1/config.guess
powerpc-apple-darwin6.8
% /usr/local/bin/g++-4.0.1 -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-apple-darwin6.8
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.1/configure --program-suffix=-4.0.1
--enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-threads=posix : (reconfigured)
../gcc-4.0.1/configure --program-
Tom Tromey dixit:
>I'm finally ready to check in the big classpath merge, and I wanted to
>post a short warning before I went ahead with it.
Is it possible to use a current libgcj or classpath with gcc 3.4?
Thanks,
//mirabile
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 08:18 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote:
>
>
>
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote on 17/07/2005 06:07:29:
>
> > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > | Anything it sees anything in a statement with volatile, it marks the
> > | statement as volatile, which should stop things f
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 17/07/2005 17:33:17:
> On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 08:18 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote:
[...]
> > I can't agree with that as is. I would refine it to:
> > Anything that *does* optimizes away visible reads or writes of
> > something marked volatile is bugg
I'm looking at holding the CV qualifiers of a member function on the MEMBER_TYPE
node itself, rather than only on the this pointer argument.
this brings up a design issue of what TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT should be of a cv
qualified member function. Should it be itself (thereby breaking the invariant
tha
I've got no interest in reading a thread with 250 messages wherein
language lawyers battle it out in a no-holds-barred grudge match.
Would someone like to summarize, preferably with a test case that
one side assumes to be miscompiled?
Speaking with the optimizer hat on, we *don't* do much optimiza
Richard Henderson wrote:
> I've got no interest in reading a thread with 250 messages wherein
> language lawyers battle it out in a no-holds-barred grudge match.
yeah, I can understand that :)
> Would someone like to summarize, preferably with a test case that
> one side assumes to be miscompiled?
stats
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000/gcc/log/20050717/spec-20050717.stats
Sadly, the SPEC box only measures rounded numbers for the build times, so
the places where there is no measured slowdown may actually have slowed
down as well, but there is no way to tell from this data.
CFP2000
Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've got no interest in reading a thread with 250 messages wherein
> language lawyers battle it out in a no-holds-barred grudge match.
> Would someone like to summarize, preferably with a test case that
> one side assumes to be miscompiled?
Case 1:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 05:03:55PM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Issue 1.
> void Foo (char *ptr) {
> *(volatile char *)ptr;
> }
...
> char c;
> *(volatile char *)&c; // can this read be deleted?
...
> void Foo (volatile char *ptr) {
> *(char *)ptr;
I did see Ian's summary,
http://gcc.gnu.o
Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've got no interest in reading a thread with 250 messages wherein
> language lawyers battle it out in a no-holds-barred grudge match.
> Would someone like to summarize, preferably with a test case that
> one side assumes to be miscompiled?
As I rea
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:18:01AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> This is PR 22278. DannyB posted a simple, untested, patch here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00699.html
Thanks. I think Danny's patch attacks this too late. The
following patch appears to do the right thing with
Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 05:03:55PM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
| > Issue 1.
| > void Foo (char *ptr) {
| > *(volatile char *)ptr;
| > }
| ...
| > char c;
| > *(volatile char *)&c; // can this read be deleted?
| ...
| > void Foo (volatile char *ptr
> "Vincent" == Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vincent> On 2005-07-12 23:42:23 +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
>> Pointer subtraction is only well defined if both pointers point to
>> elements in the same array (or one past the end of the array).
Vincent> I don't know what you mea
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 18:05 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are some huge compile time regressions between 16/7 and 17/7, most
> likely due to the IPA work from Kenny and Dan.
Definitely.
The peak compile time slowdown is due to the promote statics pass, which
in term causes more w
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 18:05 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are some huge compile time regressions between 16/7 and 17/7, most
> likely due to the IPA work from Kenny and Dan. These are the build times
> in seconds, taken from Diego Novillo's nightly SPEC tester box:
As i expected,
> I did see Ian's summary,
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00714.html
>
> wherein he ascribed the semantics of the volatile qualifier to the
> access, and not to the object. I agree with his description completely,
> as I believe it embodies the intuition that C programmers have used
> w
On Sunday 17 July 2005 19:48, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 18:05 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There are some huge compile time regressions between 16/7 and 17/7, most
> > likely due to the IPA work from Kenny and Dan. These are the build times
> > in seconds, taken
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 01:48:44PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> As i expected, the sixtrack slowdown is entirely in global-alloc, in
> daten.f
>
> with -fno-tree-promote-statics
> global alloc : 0.23 ( 4%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.24 ( 3%)
> wall 448 kB ( 3%) ggc
>
> without:
>
> 200.sixtrack 74 258 348.65%
I can get this down to something slightly more sane (cut down
global-alloc time by 80%) by upping the global var threshold.
The problem is that the global var threshold causes us to make all the
promoted statics touch the global var.
# .GLOBAL_VAR_2
Tut mir leid ich glaube ich habe die email an den falschen geschickt sorry
vielmalls wird nicht wieder vorkommen ich habe ein problem mit meinem outlok
express sorry vielmalls der link
http://search.ebay.de/_W0QQsassZwww_get-time_deQQhtZ-1 war nicht für dich
gedacht .
Tut mir leid !!
Tut mir leid ich glaube ich habe die email an den falschen geschickt sorry
vielmalls wird nicht wieder vorkommen ich habe ein problem mit meinem outlok
express sorry vielmalls der link
http://search.ebay.de/_W0QQsassZwww_get-time_deQQhtZ-1 war nicht für dich
gedacht .
Tut mir leid !!
> Would you care to characterize the number of extra variables created
> at the tree level and the number of extra pseudos created at the rtl
> level?
We only create as many variables as we have statics we promote right
now.
At the RTL level, global reg has 6373 regs to allocate with promote
st
Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I'm looking at holding the CV qualifiers of a member function on the MEMBER_TYPE
node itself, rather than only on the this pointer argument.
I don't think that's a good idea. The "const" on the member function
really does apply to the type pointed to be the "this" pointe
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 05:13 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > I think that is urgent.
| No offense, but everyone thinks the problems that affect them are the
| most urgent.
miscompilation of KDE was declared urgent; I ho
I have some problems with using inline PowerPC assembly in GCC (4.0.1).
Consider the following code:
void save_fp_register(double* buffer)
{
asm("stfd F0, 0(%0)" : : "r" (buffer) );
}
When compiled with -Os the generated code becomes
save_fp_register:
stfd F0, 0(3)
> Stefan writes:
Stefan> I have some problems with using inline PowerPC assembly in GCC (4.0.1).
Stefan> Consider the following code:
Stefan> void save_fp_register(double* buffer)
Stefan> {
Stefan> asm("stfd F0, 0(%0)" : : "r" (buffer) );
Stefan> }
Use constraint "b".
David
Hi All,
What is the best way of including target-specific files in the
version-specific gcc library directory? I need to include a
file that will be referenced from LINK_SPEC as "gcc.map%s".
IE, in the same place the startup files are located. So
really I need to know two things:
1) How to I pers
Hello Everyone,
I am porting some machine-dependent code from GCC 3.4.2 to GCC 4.0,
and I was using a function called
int insn_dependent_p(rtx insn1, rtx insn2);
- this function will take in two "rtx" and see if there is any form of
- dependency between them.
I saw that in the ChangeLog
On Jul 17, 2005, at 19:15, Stefan wrote:
I have some problems with using inline PowerPC assembly in GCC
(4.0.1). Consider the following code:
void save_fp_register(double* buffer)
{
asm("stfd F0, 0(%0)" : : "r" (buffer) );
}
Try using 'b' for the constraint - that selects fo
> Note that I'm explicitly not taking a position on what the standard says.
> The standard is notoriously incomplete with respect to object model issues,
> including volatility, so I think that trying particularly hard to parse its
> words in this area is probably not a good use of time for people
On 2005-07-17 12:55:38 -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> Are you sayinvg that a-b is not always "guaranteed to work" when a
> and b point to elements of the same array? That sounds wrong; can
> you given an example or standards text that supports this?
6.5.6 Additive operators
[...]
[#9]
| From: Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
| Subject: Re: Pointers in comparison expressions
|
| On 2005-07-17 12:55:38 -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
| > Are you sayinvg that a-b is not always "guaranteed to work" when a
| > and b point to elements of the same array? That sounds
I have recently been noticing inconsistent warnings when building GCC (for
example,
warnings about uninitialised variables in gcc/ddg.c). I had not realised it,
but the
top-level CFLAGS defaults to "-g -O2" whereas gcc's Makefile sets CFLAGS to
"-g" by
default. So, if you compile this way:
On Jul 18, 2005, at 12:32 AM, Ben Elliston wrote:
I have recently been noticing inconsistent warnings when building GCC
(for example,
warnings about uninitialised variables in gcc/ddg.c). I had not
realised it, but the
top-level CFLAGS defaults to "-g -O2" whereas gcc's Makefile sets
CFLAGS
/include
/home/bje/source/gcc-mainline/gcc/ddg.c -o ddg.o
(using GCC 4.0.2 20050717)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/build/gcc-mainline/gcc$ gcc -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall
-Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic
-Wno-long-long
-Wno-variadic-macros -Wold-style-definition -
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:10:19PM -0500, Justin Thomas wrote:
I am a big fan of the GNU project and would really like to use
gfortran for Fortran development work on my 64-bit AMD Opteron machine
running Red Hat Linux. I cannot find any documentation on your
website at all,
Kean Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the best way of including target-specific files in the
> version-specific gcc library directory? I need to include a
> file that will be referenced from LINK_SPEC as "gcc.map%s".
> IE, in the same place the startup files are located. So
> really
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 10:31:03PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:10:19PM -0500, Justin Thomas wrote:
> >>I am a big fan of the GNU project and would really like to use
> >>gfortran for Fortran development work on my 64-bit AMD Opteron machine
> >>runn
Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Note that I'm explicitly not taking a position on what the standard says.
| > The standard is notoriously incomplete with respect to object model issues,
| > including volatility, so I think that trying particularly hard to parse its
| > words in this ar
Hi,
The nios2.md has a define_insn "indirect_call"
(define_insn "indirect_call"
[(call (mem:QI (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "r"))
(match_operand 1 "" ""))
(clobber (reg:SI RA_REGNO))]
""
"callr\\t%0"
[(set_attr "type" "control")])
But I find that in test.c.26.flow2
53 matches
Mail list logo
