This is just the case. The problem is not if I like or not. Actually, i am
happy with gfortran. But the package i want to use requires the specific
version g77 4.1.0-25.
If there is no solution, then i will uninstall gcc 4.1.0-25 and all
dependent components and will install gcc 3.3.4 for which i
Some people call this "uninlining". I've also heard the term
"procedural abstraction". The generalization is to identify common code
fragments that can be turned into functions. Then, replace the users of
the common code with function calls.
Is this the same as Code Factoring?
http://gcc.gnu.
Hello,
> Roberto COSTA wrote:
> > Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Roberto COSTA wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is it a bug... or am I trying to do something wrong?
> >>
> >> Why are you trying to regimplify something which is in gimple?
> >
> > I'm trying to generate new code, which ha
Joern Rennecke wrote:
> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00390.html, you write:
>
>> depending on what you are doing, you can update the solution in place.
>> The point of the dataflow talk was not to say that you cannot do
>> anything incremental, it was to say that there are no good GEN
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I suppose reg-live-at-start / reg-live-at-end information is actually easier
to maintain during if-conversion that def-use chains.
This is true, certainly in theory, a lot less so in practice.
The way that you order things is this.
while (something changes and we
Hi all!
I'm currently implementing code coverage analysis in an existing
build system. The code tree the system builds consists of "modules"
where some code (and files) is covered by tests and some are not. To
be able to present statistics "per module" I need to know how many
lines of source code
Hi,
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 7/16/06, Tim Prince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On my computer, the installed version of gcc is 4.1.0-25 and i could not
> > > find any compatible version of g77 to install. For the installation of
> > > octave, i need exactly gcc-g77 not
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>>> I suppose reg-live-at-start / reg-live-at-end information is
>>> actually easier
>>> to maintain during if-conversion that def-use chains.
>> This is true, certainly in theory, a lot less so in practice.
>> The way that you order things is thi
(I'm not on the list, so please Cc: me on replies, at least for now. This
is just a preliminary question. ;)
So, gcj still uses boehm-gc 6.3-hacked-to-bits. Is there any chance of
bringing it up to date (at least version 6.7)? Doing so *should* make gcj
threads [mostly, if not fully] work on N
Jason Merrill wrote:
OK, you've convinced me that the compiler shouldn't override or complain
about explicit visibility attributes. Do you have a problem with
implicit propagation of visibility in the absence of an attribute?
Specifically:
Do you agree with implicitly giving template instan
Rafael Espíndola wrote:
>> Some people call this "uninlining". I've also heard the term
>> "procedural abstraction". The generalization is to identify common code
>> fragments that can be turned into functions. Then, replace the users of
>> the common code with function calls.
>
> Is this the s
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
From that description I assumed that you really did care which uses
actually reached which other uses. The reaching uses problem tracks
each use separately. If this isn't what you need then you are free to
use LR which is certainly much cheaper than RU.
Yes, LR is perf
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Rafael Espíndola wrote:
>>> Some people call this "uninlining". I've also heard the term
>>> "procedural abstraction". The generalization is to identify common code
>>> fragments that can be turned into functions. Then, replace the users of
>>> the common code with functio
So, gcj still uses boehm-gc 6.3-hacked-to-bits. Is there any chance of
bringing it up to date (at least version 6.7)?
I suggest to use boehms-gc branch for public test of 6.7 import, this
way you could test how the newer collector operates as a libgcj
runtime while I could test it as a host GCC
On 7/17/06, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Rafael Espíndola wrote:
>>> Some people call this "uninlining". I've also heard the term
>>> "procedural abstraction". The generalization is to identify common code
>>> fragments that can be turned into functions. Then
Hi,
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | I don't see how they get past this issue. I've had some claim, but
> | it's a feature, not a bug.
> |
> | The basic question is, are two unrelated types in different dlls the
> | same, just because they have the same name? How do you preve
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>> From that description I assumed that you really did care which uses
>> actually reached which other uses. The reaching uses problem tracks
>> each use separately. If this isn't what you need then you are free to
>> use LR which is certainly much
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:05:32PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Here we have the same scope_labelno. The first dbxout_begin_prologue
> > comes from calling rs6000_output_mi_thunk. The normal way
> > scope_labelno gets incremented is via the
> >
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
You should do this starting from the dataflow branch. The version of
if-cvt there works as I have mentioned in the previous mail and does not
use propagate block at all.
if-conversion always joins blocks. But cross-jumping merges blocks or
partial blocks.
If the la
Todd Vierling wrote:
(I'm not on the list, so please Cc: me on replies, at least for now. This
is just a preliminary question. ;)
So, gcj still uses boehm-gc 6.3-hacked-to-bits. Is there any chance of
bringing it up to date (at least version 6.7)? Doing so *should* make gcj
threads [mostly,
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You should do this starting from the dataflow branch. The version of
>> if-cvt there works as I have mentioned in the previous mail and does not
>> use propagate block at all.
>>
>>
> if-conversion always joins blocks. But cross-jumping
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Updating the LR dataflow when splitting a basic block is generally
pretty easy.
You start from the end of the block and just interpret the uses and defs
for each insn.
This means duplicating this aspect of the propagate_block functionality.
If we really have to do thi
> "Kevin" == Kevin F Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kevin> Hi. Recently (at least in 4.1.1), the classpath pieces bundled with gcc
Kevin> include /usr/lib/classpath/libgjsmalsa.so (JNI midi-alsa). This
Kevin> creates a conflict when installing gnu-classpath itself.
In 4.2 these have move
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>> Updating the LR dataflow when splitting a basic block is generally
>> pretty easy. You start from the end of the block and just interpret
>> the uses and defs
>> for each insn.
>>
>>
> This means duplicating this aspect of the propagate_block fun
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
is it really necessary to do your pass after reg stack. Given that
there is no if conversion that runs after regstack what is your point?
I am talking about cross-jumping after regstack.
I should point out that there are no passes that currently use any
dataflow a
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> is it really necessary to do your pass after reg stack. Given that
>> there is no if conversion that runs after regstack what is your point?
>>
>>
> I am talking about cross-jumping after regstack.
>
>> I should point out that there are
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I would be very careful to tread here. regstack is a can of worms and
not very good worms. We have had a lot of trouble retrofitting better
dataflow into regstack because of the fragile nature of it's
implementation.
Well, the approach so far has been 'don't touch cha
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:05:32PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Previously, scope_labelno was referenced in dbxout_block and
> incremented in dbxout_function_end. Both functions are called only by
> dbxout_function_decl (a debug hook). So it was always consistent.
>
> Now scope_labelno is us
"Carlos O'Donell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2006-07-17 Carlos O'Donell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * dbxout.c (dbxout_function_end): Do not increment scope_labelno.
> (dbxout_begin_prologue): Increment scope_labelno.
This is OK. Thanks.
Isn
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Then why does config/rs6000/gnu.h have one, it is more trivial than
the others.
Different people writing different files at different times making
different interpretations of the same rule.
Also, sometimes it happens that a file will start as
trivial/non-trivial, and t
Ling-hua Tseng wrote:
> Should I write a violent algorithm to scan these data dependencies?
> Are there any better solutions for this problem?
Another example to look at might be the ia64 port. It reruns flow and
sched during the machine dependent reorg pass, so we can get the
dependencies right.
sean yang wrote:
The GCC internals explicitly introduced code manipulation APIs in TREE
representation (bsi_insert_before, bsi_remove etc). But I did not see
the equivalent for RTL representation.
There is emit_insn_after, emit_insn_before.
There is also the sequence stuff: start_sequence, en
On Jul 17, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
Also, sometimes it happens that a file will start as trivial/non-
trivial, and then later modifications will change it to non-trivial/
trivial, but the patcher doesn't bother to add/remove the copyright
notice. Just like sometimes people forget t
I'd like to ask a question about difference of SSA-form representation and
GIMPLE representation. I thanks you for your answer.
My understanding is that any stmt node insertion operation in a pass between
building-SSA pass and un-SSA pass should uses SSA-form representation. But
the following
34 matches
Mail list logo
