Mark Mitchell wrote:
However, I do think that it's important to eliminate some of the 139
open P2 and P1 regressions [2], especially those P1 regressions which
did not appear in GCC 4.1.x.
133, not 139. Your search url returns six P3 bugs, one of which (29441)
is not even a regression.
Does
Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
1. emit_insn to set the flag (moving data to special registers).
2. emit_insn for add_float insn.
3. DONE
> [...]
Any specific reason why these are getting deleted and how to overcome this?
I think its maybe because there is no connection between 1. and 2. (or
at least
hello all,
I would like to output a CFG (preferably in VCG format)
which describes the final binary.
Is it doable or do the last RTL passes change the CFG ?
I see that the last vcg outputable is file.c.49.stack.vcg - is it a good
description of the final binary flow ?
Thank you all
sunzir
On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous
status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead
with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4.2.0 release branch.
I ask special permission to apply this pat
On 04 Mar 2007 16:22:33 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Yes, we do plan to participate. That link goes to the SoC page for
gcc. Right now it's still the 2006 one, but I would assume it will
probably the right one once the 2007 setup gets going.
OK - I have updated
http://www.gnu.org/software
> I observe a massive compilation time regression for bootstrap on x86-64
> here, in particular libjava now appears to take *ages* to build:
I cannot reproduce today at the same revision:
real275m23.314s
user242m28.724s
sys 12m18.249s
Something went awry with kpowersave yesterday...
Hi,
I am porting/developing GCC onto a new platform.
This platform already have a cross tool chain.
Can anybody give me a roadmap to port GCC in native
environment from scratch? or
Way to convert, Croos-Compiler to Native-Compiler?
Thanks n Regards,
Kapil
_
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02.03.2007 19:10:58:
> > Devang Patel writes:
>
> >> Is there a reason why op0 is V4SF
> Devang> It is destination so, yes this is wrong.
>
> >> and op1 is V4SI (and not V8HI)?
>
> Devang> condition should be v4si, but it is not op1. So this is al
Just use your cross-compiler to build a compiler for the target system
that'll run on the target system. Then it could be good idea to use
new native compiler on its hardware to rebuild gcc once again natively.
Two compilers from last two steps should be identical. It's a good way
to make sure yo
On Mon, 4 Mar 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> FX Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd like to ping these two problems :)
> >
> > i386-unknown-netbsdelf2.0.2 (and possibly newer versions) and i386-pc-
> > mingw32 (latest released version) are still completely broken on
> > mainline, as t
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 09:47:41PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> Wouldn't it be great that we go one step further that we let ld look
> for libraries in the dir listed in $SYSROOT/etc/ld.so.conf, if this
> file ever exits? Of course for each entry in $SYSROOT/etc/ld.so.conf,
> we prefix $SYSROOT to it.
Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote on 03/05/07 02:14:
>o Fix passes that invalidate tree-ssa alias export.
Yes, this should be good and shouldn't need a lot of work.
>o { Fast but unsafe Gupta's aliasing patch, Unsafe tree-ssa alias
> export } in scheduler's data speculation.
"unsafe" alias export?
Hi,
The new subreg lowering pass seems to generate a bit worse code on m68k
than before, let's take simple example:
unsigned long long f(unsigned long long a, unsigned long long b)
{
return a + b;
}
where currently gcc generates code like this:
move.l 16(%sp),%d1
move.l
Hi, All
Try minimal reproducer for internal compiler error attached.
See go file for command line and report.log for issue reported by
trunk compiler/
-Vladimir
On 3/5/07, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I observe a massive compilation time regression for bootstrap on x86-64
> here,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> In addition, there are two trivial doc fixes for GCC 4.2, one in
> invoke.texi and another in opts.c, where it says -Werror- and it
> should say -Werror=
> Can I commit them as obvious or do I need to submit a patch?
Both. :-) That is, go ahead and
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
Good aliasing is very important for the scheduler. But I'd look at this
more wider. We need a good aliasing for many RTL optimizations. What's
happened to ISP RAS aliasing patch propagating SSA info to RTL? Why is
it stalled?
We'll plan to work on it further in th
Hi, All
Sorry for my previous post. It was into wrong place.
There is minimal reproducer for cpu2006/h264ref is attached
use
gcc -O2 -c ./image.c
Compiler from trunk produces:
image.c: In function 'UnifiedOneForthPix':
image.c:35: internal compiler error: in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:267
Diego Novillo wrote:
Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote on 03/05/07 02:14:
o Fix passes that invalidate tree-ssa alias export.
Yes, this should be good and shouldn't need a lot of work.
o { Fast but unsafe Gupta's aliasing patch, Unsafe tree-ssa alias
export } in scheduler's data speculation.
"un
Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
Good aliasing is very important for the scheduler. But I'd look at
this more wider. We need a good aliasing for many RTL
optimizations. What's happened to ISP RAS aliasing patch propagating
SSA info to RTL? Why is it stalled?
We'll p
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I investigated a bit, and it seems that unlike gcc.gnu.org, www.gnu.org
> lacks the latest revision (at least) of the bin/preprocess script in our
> wwwdocs module:
>
> revision 1.43
> date: 2006/06/10 21:52:24; author: gerald; state: Exp; lines
hi all,
these are the last passes:
NEXT_PASS (pass_stack_regs); // last pass to generate VCG file
NEXT_PASS (pass_compute_alignments);
NEXT_PASS (pass_duplicate_computed_gotos);
NEXT_PASS (pass_variable_tracking);
NEXT_PASS (pass_free_cfg);
NEXT_PASS (pass_machine_reorg);
NE
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:45:13AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> One of the bugzilla quips (the headlines appearing at random for each
> bug list) is actually the head of gcc/reload.c (full text below).
That is really obnoxious and should be removed.
Maxim Kuvyrkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So basically here are three Google Summer of Code projects:
>
>o Scheduler -> RA
>o Fix passes that invalidate tree-ssa alias export.
>o { Fast but unsafe Gupta's aliasing patch, Unsafe tree-ssa alias
> export } in scheduler's data speculat
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > FX Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I'd like to ping these two problems :)
> > >
> > > i386-unknown-netbsdelf2.0.2 (and possibly newer versions) and i386-pc-
> > > mingw32 (latest rele
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The new subreg lowering pass seems to generate a bit worse code on m68k
> than before, let's take simple example:
>
> unsigned long long f(unsigned long long a, unsigned long long b)
> {
> return a + b;
> }
>
> where currently gcc generates code
First of all, my apology. It seems that I should have posted this
email to binutils's ML.
On 3/5/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 09:47:41PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> Wouldn't it be great that we go one step further that we let ld look
> for libraries in the
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:05:06AM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> I have used "strace -f" to check where linker looked for -lqt-mt. From
> what I have observed, it seems that ld didn't use
> $SYSROOT/etc/ld.so.conf.
Well, it's supposed to, so I suggest you check what's happened in ld.
--
Daniel Jacobo
On 3/6/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:05:06AM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> I have used "strace -f" to check where linker looked for -lqt-mt. From
> what I have observed, it seems that ld didn't use
> $SYSROOT/etc/ld.so.conf.
Well, it's supposed to, so I s
> Hi,
>
> I'mm currently looking at the dataflow branch for m68k mainly because of
> the new auto-inc-dec pass, I worked a bit on the old code in flow.c, but
> considering the new pass, I think it doesn't make much sense to continue
> it.
>
I agree. With high probability the auto inc detectio
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I only made one of the changes Jakub suggested: I fixed a typo in the
> documentation. So I didn't bother sending another copy.
>
> For clarity, here is the current version of the patch.
This patch is OK.
--
Joseph S. Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > whereas with -fno-split-wide-types it generates this:
> >
> > move.l 16(%sp),%d0
> > move.l 20(%sp),%d1
> > move.l 8(%sp),%d2
> > add.l 12(%sp),%d1
> > addx.l %d2,%d0
> >
> > How can I get rid of these e
On 04/03/2007, at 12:25 AM, FX Coudert wrote:
I'd like to ping these two problems :)
i386-unknown-netbsdelf2.0.2 (and possibly newer versions) and i386-
pc-mingw32 (latest released version) are still completely broken on
mainline, as they have been for more that three months.
I spent some
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:44:20AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> The dataflow porting document mentions other possible, but doesn't mention
> any examples. Anything I might have to look out for regardings the m68k
> post_inc/pre_dec addressing modes?
I have not checked what GCC currently gen
"Vladimir Sysoev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is minimal reproducer for cpu2006/h264ref is attached
> use
> gcc -O2 -c ./image.c
>
> Compiler from trunk produces:
> image.c: In function 'UnifiedOneForthPix':
> image.c:35: internal compiler error: in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:267
I j
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 02:29:05PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> challenges, as m68k is still a cc0 target and with instructions like
> addx.l above, so far I avoided splitting these at all.
It would be possible to add an X register to model that one
bit from the flags, since X is generally preser
I'd like to backport the set of signed overflow patches for 4.2, now
that they are (almost) all in mainline. These are the patches which
add -fstrict-overflow and -Wstrict-overflow. It was the additional
reliance of strict signed overflow in 4.2 which led to a long
discussion a couple of months a
On 05 Mar 2007 12:00:20 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This would be a new feature for 4.2, of course. Is it OK to do the
backport?
Way too late. Didn't Mark say he wanted to release a prelease soon?
Also isn't there still some regressions associated still with this change
What is the recommended order of building gcc, gmp, mpfr?
I notice that now gcc depends on gmp and mpfr to build.
I believe the gmp recommends using gcc to build (although
it may build with other compilers).
What is the recommended order of building gcc, gmp, mpfr?
I can think of two options:
"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 05 Mar 2007 12:00:20 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This would be a new feature for 4.2, of course. Is it OK to do the
> > backport?
>
> Way too late. Didn't Mark say he wanted to release a prelease soon?
If Mark agrees w
gcc-help is a more appropriate list...
On Mar 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Kate Minola wrote:
What is the recommended order of building gcc, gmp, mpfr?
Any ordering is probably fine.
I notice that now gcc depends on gmp and mpfr to build.
Yes.
What is the recommended order of building gcc, gmp,
On 05 Mar 2007 12:24:18 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If Mark agrees with you, then I'm unfortunately going to have to lobby
to disable VRP by default in 4.2.
Then it should also be disabled by default also in 4.1.3 and should
ha
> Then it should also be disabled by default also in 4.1.3 and should
> have been disabled in 4.1.2 which was only released last month so
> there is no reason why it has to be disabled in 4.2.0 if everyone is
> using 4.1 anyways.
VRP has become more aggressive in 4.2.x than in 4.1.x though.
--
E
Eric Botcazou wrote on 03/05/07 15:59:
>> Then it should also be disabled by default also in 4.1.3 and should
>> have been disabled in 4.1.2 which was only released last month so
>> there is no reason why it has to be disabled in 4.2.0 if everyone is
>> using 4.1 anyways.
>
> VRP has become more a
"Kate Minola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Option A. Use the bootstrap compiler to first build gmp and mpfr,
> then build gcc.
>
> Option B. Build gcc without gmp and mpfr. Then use it to
> build gmp and mpfr. Now rebuild gcc using gmp and mpfr.
>
> Are there other options?
Option C: unpack
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070305 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070305/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric Botcazou wrote on 03/05/07 15:59:
> >> Then it should also be disabled by default also in 4.1.3 and should
> >> have been disabled in 4.1.2 which was only released last month so
> >> there is no reason why it has to be disabled in 4.2.0 if everyone
On Monday 05 March 2007 22:00, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Kate Minola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Option A. Use the bootstrap compiler to first build gmp and mpfr,
> > then build gcc.
> >
> > Option B. Build gcc without gmp and mpfr. Then use it to
> > build gmp and mpfr. Now rebuild gcc usi
Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 03/05/07 18:23:
> I gather you are saying here that it is OK with you to backport
> -fstrict-overflow/-Wstrict-overflow to 4.2.
Yes.
Diego Novillo wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 03/05/07 18:23:
>
>> I gather you are saying here that it is OK with you to backport
>> -fstrict-overflow/-Wstrict-overflow to 4.2.
It is OK with with me to backport the changes, even though this is
clearly late in the cycle. None of the choices a
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Vladimir Sysoev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is minimal reproducer for cpu2006/h264ref is attached
I just committed a patch for PR 31034 which may fix this.
Ian
Hi Ian,
patch for PR31034 fixes cpu2006/464.h264ref ICE only. Others are still
failing - the root cau
50 matches
Mail list logo
