This is something I've had on my disk for a few months; committed and
also activated on gcc.gnu.org.
In case anyone wonders, the reason why some snapshot was created earlier
during the day was due to me debugging something at one point. :-)
Gerald
2007-01-05 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:31:46PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> Here is one implementation of ELF sharable section proposal:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/generic-abi/browse_thread/thread/bca08f6560f61b0d
>
> Several people have expressed interests. I post it here for comments.
> I used OS
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:53:07AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:31:46PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Here is one implementation of ELF sharable section proposal:
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/generic-abi/browse_thread/thread/bca08f6560f61b0d
> >
> > Sev
Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
discontinued.
David
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:19:39AM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Not much. I'm convinced it would be feasible, but definitely not easy,
> > so I wanted to see how much interest there was - seems like some, but
> > not a lot.
>
> Would this comprise retrofitting the support into the 4.2 branch?
This is from the gcc-help mailing list. It's mentioned there for ARM,
but it's just as bad for x86-64.
It appears that memory references to arrays aren't being hoisted out
of loops: in this test case, gcc 3.4 doesn't touch memory at all in
the loop, but 4.3pre (and 4.2, etc) does.
Here's the t
> > Not much. I'm convinced it would be feasible, but definitely not easy,
> > so I wanted to see how much interest there was - seems like some, but
> > not a lot.
>
> Would this comprise retrofitting the support into the 4.2 branch?
I don't think it's needed in the 4.2 branch since you can get
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:23:56AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > Not much. I'm convinced it would be feasible, but definitely not easy,
> > > so I wanted to see how much interest there was - seems like some, but
> > > not a lot.
> >
> > Would this comprise retrofitting the support into the 4
> Please does anyone know the answer to the following questions?
>
> 1. The operating system (OS) schedules tasks, but gnat allow us to set
> schedule policies such as Round Robin, then how does gnat tell the OS to
> start doing Round Robin scheduling?
>
> 2. If someone wants to write a new sch
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears that memory references to arrays aren't being hoisted out
> of loops: in this test case, gcc 3.4 doesn't touch memory at all in
> the loop, but 4.3pre (and 4.2, etc) does.
>
> Here's the test case:
>
> void foo(int *a)
> { int i;
>
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> discontinued.
4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a
4.0.4 release?
Ian
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote on 12/30/06 02:08:
Once upon a time, the --disable-bootstrap configure option wasn't
necessary. "make" built gcc, and "make bootstrap" bootstrapped it.
Is this behavior useful? Should we have it back again?
That'd be great. I miss the old behaviour.
On 05 Jan 2007 07:18:47 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At the tree level, the problem is that the assignment to a[0] is seen
as aliasing a[1]. This causes the use of a[1] to look like a USE of
an SMT, and the assignment to a[0] to look like a DEF of the same
SMT. So in tree-
On 1/5/07, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is from the gcc-help mailing list. It's mentioned there for ARM,
but it's just as bad for x86-64.
It appears that memory references to arrays aren't being hoisted out
of loops: in this test case, gcc 3.4 doesn't touch memory at all in
the
> Steven Bosscher writes:
Steven> What does the code look like if you compile with -O2 -fgcse-sm?
Yep. Mark and I recently discussed whether gcse-sm should be
enabled by default at some optimization level. We're hiding performance
from GCC users.
David
Steven Bosscher writes:
> On 1/5/07, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is from the gcc-help mailing list. It's mentioned there for ARM,
> > but it's just as bad for x86-64.
> >
> > It appears that memory references to arrays aren't being hoisted out
> > of loops: in this test
On 1/5/07, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven Bosscher writes:
Steven> What does the code look like if you compile with -O2 -fgcse-sm?
Yep. Mark and I recently discussed whether gcse-sm should be
enabled by default at some optimization level. We're hiding performa
, (%ecx)
but now I get (gcc version 4.3.0 20070105 (experimental)) (rev 120486
(this would be interesting in the output of gcc -v, is there a way to
put the revision there?))
call__sync_bool_compare_and_swap_4
Now, reading the manual suggests that if I use the wrong architecture I
should
> I have no intention of touching the build system for the release
> branch, in any case.
So, assuming we go back to the old behaviour, 4.2.x would be the only series
for which 'make' performs a complete bootstrap? Seems a little odd. I think
we need a clear cut here: either automatic bootstra
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 06:00:53PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> So, assuming we go back to the old behaviour, 4.2.x would be the only series
> for which 'make' performs a complete bootstrap? Seems a little odd. I think
> we need a clear cut here: either automatic bootstrap is a good feature an
ns did the same)
>
> lock
> cmpxchgl%edx, (%ecx)
>
> but now I get (gcc version 4.3.0 20070105 (experimental)) (rev 120486
> (this would be interesting in the output of gcc -v, is there a way to
> put the revision there?))
>
> call
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 05:05:41PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> But it can't unless you use an architecture that has cmpxchgl.
> cmpxchgl is a 486 instruction; if you compile for 386, we have to
> generate the call because there is no such instruction.
And the older compiler was a Debian packaged
Hi all!
I don't know exactly if I've understood all your previous explanation (excepted
the load & store motion part), but we pointed out 2 different problems:
Pb n°1: depending on the optimization level -03, a[0] and a[1] are being loaded
and stored on each loop iteration
Pb n°2: depending on t
Please don't top-post. It's very confusing.
Mick CORNUT writes:
> I don't know exactly if I've understood all your previous
> explanation (excepted the load & store motion part), but we pointed
> out 2 different problems:
>
> Pb n°1: depending on the optimization level -03, a[0] and a[1] a
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > discontinued.
>
> 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
>
> I don't mind closing it, myself. D
On 1/5/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > discontinued.
>
> 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active br
> I'd like to see it closed, too, all Linux/BSD vendors I know of are either
> still using 3.x or have switched to 4.1 already.
Yes, 4.1.x seems to have been selected by various vendors as the codebase for
their first GCC4-based release.
--
Eric Botcazou
> > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > > > discontinued.
> > >
> > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
> > >
> > > I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a
> > > 4.0.4 release?
> >
> > I'd like to see it closed. W
On 1/5/07, David Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > > > discontinued.
> > >
> > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
> > >
> > > I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a
> > > 4
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:23:36PM -0500, David Fang wrote:
> User chiming in: before retiring 4.0, one would be more easily convinced
> to make a transition to 4.1+ if the regressions from 4.0 to 4.1 numbered
> fewer. In the database, I see only 79 (P3+) regressions in 4.1 that are
> not in 4.0 (
[ omitting gcc-patches ]
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
If there is consensus, I'll be happy to take the appropriate steps,
which include:
1. Updating o
>
> [ omitting gcc-patches ]
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> > because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
>
> If there is consensus, I'll be happy to take the appropriate steps,
> which inclu
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
| > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
| > > discontinued.
| >
| > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an activ
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:02:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > [ omitting gcc-patches ]
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> > > because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
> >
> > If
>
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> | > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> | > > discontinued.
> | >
> | > 4.0 still seems
On fre, 2007-01-05 at 17:05 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Magnus Fromreide writes:
>
> But it can't unless you use an architecture that has cmpxchgl.
> cmpxchgl is a 486 instruction; if you compile for 386, we have to
> generate the call because there is no such instruction.
Sigh - I failed to tel
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:02:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| > >
| > > [ omitting gcc-patches ]
| > >
| > > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
| > > > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
| > > > because they are targeted fo
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:27:35PM +0100, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> On fre, 2007-01-05 at 17:05 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Magnus Fromreide writes:
> >
> > But it can't unless you use an architecture that has cmpxchgl.
> > cmpxchgl is a 486 instruction; if you compile for 386, we have to
> > g
On fre, 2007-01-05 at 12:53 -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:27:35PM +0100, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > On fre, 2007-01-05 at 17:05 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Magnus Fromreide writes:
> > >
> > > But it can't unless you use an architecture that has cmpxchgl.
> > > cmpxchgl
On 05 Jan 2007 07:18:47 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears that memory references to arrays aren't being hoisted out
> of loops: in this test case, gcc 3.4 doesn't touch memory at all in
> the loop, but 4.3pre (and 4.2, etc) d
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070105 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070105/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> We're planning to merge the 'gcj-eclipse' branch back to the
Tom> trunk this week.
We discovered a couple libjava test suite failures in the merged tree.
I'm holding off committing this merge until Andrew investigates them a
bit more.
Me
Chris,
I see you have not received any response to this yet, so let me give
it a try.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Chris Pickett wrote:
1. Create a default section, at the top, and put all options enabled by
default there.
This sounds like an interesting proposal. Gaby, Joseph, what do you
think?
43 matches
Mail list logo
