Re: Builtin functions?

On 4/16/07, Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you just want to scan every function you have around, the obvious > way to do it is > > For each function > FOR_EACH_BB_FN (function). > > This is probably slightly slower than > > For each function > if cgraph_function_body_availability

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-15)

On 4/17/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/17/07, Maxim Kuvyrkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a patch for this PR29841 in > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01134.html . The problem > is that I don't really know which maintainer ask to review it :( I think

GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Hiya, I'm doing research on which optimization passes to enable in the various -On flags, and I've stumbled onto a/some minor bug(s) and problems with the GCC documentation for the 4.1.2 version: * When using -falign-loops or -fno-align-loops the corresponding internal variable 'align-loo

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-15)

On 4/17/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Indeed. The patch is ok after a re-bootstrap and re-test. Actually, please don't commit that patch. Eric Botcazou has already proposed a fix that looks better: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg01065.html Gr. Steven

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/17/07, Kenneth Hoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * On x86, -fschedule-insns is disabled, but -fschedule-insns2 (or the corresponding internal flag flag_schedule_insns_after_reload) is still being used... The reason for disabling fschedule-insns is increased register pressure (and x86 has few

Re: EH references

Thank you for the references at Code Sourcery, regading SJLJ exception handling I found the paper (which references it): "Exception Handling in the Choices Operating System", is the reference for SJLJ EH? Cheers, -- Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm PhD

Re: Duplicate assembler function names in cgraph

On 4/16/07, Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure, however, I'm developing over 4.1.1, still you might still have > the error on current head, (I know 4.1.1 is quite old). What do you > mean by a test case? Do you want a short version of my IPA pass which > shows up the issue? Either th

RE: EH references

On 17 April 2007 11:08, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Thank you for the references at Code Sourcery, regading SJLJ exception > handling I found the paper (which references it): "Exception Handling > in the Choices Operating System", is the reference for SJLJ EH? Dunno about that, but I found this lin

TREE_CODE: arrays and variables

Hi all, I added a new gcc pass, in wich I've to elaborate GIMPLE code... for every GIMPLE statement I use TREE_CODE macro to know if is an assignment, an IF-THEN-ELSE, etc. and for every GIMPLE expression I use also TREE_CODE macro to know if it's an integer constant, an addition, etc. I know tha

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Kenneth Hoste [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:23 AM > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues > - finline-functions is enabled at -Os, but isn't listed so And it seems to have some issues:

Re: Splay Tree

Got the documents signed and they are now on their way. --- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/3/06, Ian Blanes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The original author of this patch said he sent his > copyright assignment. I > > only did minor modification to his work so I don't

Re: Duplicate assembler function names in cgraph

On Apr 17, 2007, at 3:11 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: I wonder, that if I am to use gcc head, how can I do that? This isn't a trick question is it? Anyway, it is answered by our web site. Briefly, you check out trunk and then you edit it. patch is one way to mass edit a source tree for exam

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Kenneth Hoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * When using -falign-loops or -fno-align-loops the corresponding > internal variable 'align-loops' should be set to 0 (= use default > setting) or 1 (= no aligning) resp. When parsing the various flags, a > variable 'value' is used to set (value=1) or un

Re: TREE_CODE: arrays and variables

Andrea Callia D'Iddio wrote on 04/17/07 08:30: > I know that if expression 'e' is a variable or an array element, then > TREE_CODE(e)==VAR_DECL. But how can I know if 'e' is a variable, or an > array element? and, if it's an array element, how can I know which is > the index value? can I have othe

Re: Duplicate assembler function names in cgraph

On 4/17/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 3:11 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > I wonder, that if I am to use gcc head, how can I do that? This isn't a trick question is it? Anyway, it is answered by our web site. Briefly, you check out trunk and then you edit it. patch

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 17 Apr 2007, at 18:18, Eric Weddington wrote: -Original Message- From: Kenneth Hoste [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:23 AM To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues - finline-functions is enabled at -Os, but isn't li

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/17/07, Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - finline-functions is enabled at -Os, but isn't listed so And it seems to have some issues: Comments #4 and #6. The only real issue here is a wrong expectation: That a certain combinat

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:52 PM > To: Eric Weddington > Cc: Kenneth Hoste; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues > > On 4/17/07, Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Eric Weddington wrote: > > > And it seems to have some issues: > > > Comments #4 > > > and #6. > > The only real issue here is a wrong expectation: That a certain > > combination of flags magically does the best thing for every > > target. N

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/17/07, Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > when perhaps they should > also notice that the efficiency of GCC for -Os has increased > tremendously in the past few years... That is what you think is important. To AVR users, compile time could increase by 100% and they wouldn't care,

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:52 PM > To: Eric Weddington > Cc: Kenneth Hoste; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues > > On 4/17/07, Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Also, as you mention the target code has a chance to tune this ..., can you > give me a hint about > where to look for these knobs? I might give it a try to see whether I > can find a more optimal set of parameters." > > This was in response to your

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Steven Bosscher wrote: > Maybe you can look at the development of code size of AVR over time, > and show a different trend, but I'd be surprised. Most AVR users use -Os, as small code is fast code in most of the cases on the AVR. The `overall summary' is that GCC continuously decreased its ef

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/18/07, Joerg Wunsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As Eric Weddington wrote: > > > And it seems to have some issues: > > > Comments #4 > > > and #6. > > The only real issue here is a wrong expectation: That a certain > > combination of flags

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > If the code size increases for AVR, when using -Os, when comparing an > older release to mainline or 4.2 branch, you should report that as a > regression in bugzilla. Thanks. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31528 -- cheers, J"org .-.-. -

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Apr 17, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Eric Weddington wrote: Well this begs the question of why, when there are so many different targets, are there are only 4 optimization flags (1,2,3,s), especially when they only get tuned to certain targets? If you count again, you'll see there are more than 4 op

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> No, the issue is that the -Os option is *documented* to *only* include > those optimizations that are known to not increase the code size. Where exactly is the documented? My documentation says It enables "optimisations that do not *typically* increase code size" (emphasis mine). Many optim

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:20 PM > To: Eric Weddington > Cc: 'Steven Bosscher'; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; 'Joerg Wunsch'; > 'Anatoly Sokolov' > Subject: Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues > > Eric

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Steven Bosscher wrote: > And now that you've shown that for this test case GCC actually may > have regressed on every target, you've shown that perhaps the global > inlining heuristics should be changed. May well be, for all I know. > Tuning heuristics is always hard and never provably optimal.

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Mike Stump [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:28 PM > To: Eric Weddington > Cc: 'Steven Bosscher'; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; 'Joerg Wunsch'; > 'Anatoly Sokolov' > Subject: Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues > > On Apr 17,

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Joerg Wunsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > If the code size increases for AVR, when using -Os, when comparing an > > older release to mainline or 4.2 branch, you should report that as a > > regression in bugzilla. Thanks. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 17 April 2007 23:27, Paul Brook wrote: >> No, the issue is that the -Os option is *documented* to *only* include >> those optimizations that are known to not increase the code size. > > Where exactly is the documented? My documentation says It > enables "optimisations that do not *typically* i

Segfault on OpenMP program

Someone reported on bug on a trivial statically-linked Fortran progam with OpenMP and a I/O operation. I can reproduce the segfault, which happens at: (gdb) where #0 0x in ?? () #1 0x0804cdbb in get_external_unit (n=6, do_create=1) at /home/fxcoudert/gfortran_nightbuild/trunk/li

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

increase code size? I feel I must be missing something really obvious... is it just that the other optimisations that become possible on inline code usually compensate? That or the savings from not having to save/restore registers, set up the frame, etc as well. -eric

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Apr 17, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: increase code size? I feel I must be missing something really obvious... is it just that the other optimisations that become possible on inline code usually compensate? That or the savings from not having to save/restore registers, s

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sorry for butting in, but I just can't follow the reasoning here. Unless a > function is only ever used once and is inlined at the single callsite, or > unless the prolog and epilog are several times the size of the function body, > isn't inlining /alwa

Recommend lecture about the meaning of PHI function from SSA.

For novice people, i recommend to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_single_assignment_form You see why the meaning of "y3 <- phi(y1,y2)" :)

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:44:36PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > The relevant code is in opts.c: > > if (optimize_size) > { > /* Inlining of very small functions usually reduces total size. */ > set_param_value ("max-inline-insns-single", 5); > set_param_value ("max-inl

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:32AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > Sorry for butting in, but I just can't follow the reasoning here. > Unless a function is only ever used once and is inlined at the single > callsite, or unless the prolog and epilog are several times the size of > the function body, isn

regression hunt tools

*** Warning: Your file, reghunt-20070417.tar.bz2, contains more than 32 files after decompression and cannot be scanned. *** Here's a set of my current regression hunt tools, along with a set of example configuration files and test scripts and a R

Re: CompileFarm and reghunt Was: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-15)

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:09:35PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 12:00 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > > I wonder whether there is a role for the gcc compile farm in this? > > For instance perhaps "someone" could keep a set of builds there and > > provide folks with a simple way t

HTML of -fdump-tree-XXXX proposal.

Hello, i've an idea to improve the report of -fdump-tree- using the HTML format for its output. I recommend XHTML-1.0 (26-Jan-2000) from http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ Note: HTML-4.01 (24-Dec-1999) from http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ is very popular but very old and it's not XML-1.0 (16-Aug-20

Re: HTML of -fdump-tree-XXXX proposal.

J.C. Pizarro wrote on 04/17/07 21:48: > The visual representation in HTML is more effective for humans than > in text. No. Heck, no.

Re: Call to arms: testsuite failures on various targets

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, FX Coudert wrote: > Hi all, > > I reviewed this afternoon the postings from the gcc-testresults > mailing-list for the past month, and we have a couple of gfortran > testsuite failures showing up on various targets. Could people with > access to said targets (possibly maintain

Re: HTML of -fdump-tree-XXXX proposal.

Diego Novillo wrote: J.C. Pizarro wrote on 04/17/07 21:48: The visual representation in HTML is more effective for humans than in text. No. Heck, no. I agree. PDF is clearly superior ;-) J.C., Please submit a patch for PDF support. David Daney

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/18/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps the number of arguments should be taken into account as well. We've been doing that for years. Gr. Steven