Hello!
Maybe such optimization isn't turned on for mingw. I updated the patch
to force this by using -minline-all-stringops.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13189
Any developer to have a look at this?
Please post the patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also add appropriate
ChangeLog an
Hi,
2007/5/21, Uros Bizjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hello!
>> Maybe such optimization isn't turned on for mingw. I updated the patch
>> to force this by using -minline-all-stringops.
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13189
>
> Any developer to have a look at this?
Please post the
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 04:27:21PM +0100, Mark Shinwell wrote:
> Part of the reason for starting this thread was that I was concerned
> about invalidating reloads that could be re-used later. However, it
> seems to me that in every circumstance where the reload register is a
> hard register and t
Hello all,
According to GNU gprof manual
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/manual/gprof-2.9.1/html_chapter/gprof_5.html#SEC18
basic-block counting can be analyzed with gprof if a program is
augmented for that.For this the program is to be compiled with `gcc
... -g -pg -a' option . But '-a' o
Hi,
I'd like to get an explanation why ifcvt.c checks whether 1 of the 2
successors of the IF-header block has a stmt that exits from the loop?
Why does it prevent the if-conversion?
I'm referring to the following code:
/* Nor exit the loop. */
if ((then_edge->flags & EDGE_LOOP_EXIT)
||
I think push_reload() is doing something weird with this insn:
Breakpoint 1, find_reloads (insn=0xb7f7e348, replace=0, ind_levels=0,
live_known=0, reload_reg_p=0x8878a7c) at ../../../cvssrc/gcc/gcc/reload.c:2535
2535{
(gdb) call debug_rtx(insn)
(insn 12 10 16 2 /tmp/ashiftsi3_1.c:3 (parall
Hello,
We have a large app with a lot of static libraries in it (and I mean a
lot, about 20) and it compiles and links successfully. If I compile it
without optimiztion turned on
(-O2 or some more subtle with -O and others), the program also runs.
With optimizations, though, the program woul
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 07:06:47PM +0200, Thomas Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have a large app with a lot of static libraries in it (and I mean a
> lot, about 20) and it compiles and links successfully. If I compile it
> without optimiztion turned on
> (-O2 or some more subtle with -O a
On May 19, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
We tried to be polite
And we should go back to being polite... He's email a patch
recently. That's buys him more niceness in my book. I think he does
want to help, he just needs more guidance. Our goal is to turn him
into a usef
On May 19, 2007, at 3:57 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that
transliterates the logic
of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and
consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
functions.
Please resubmit against 4.3 (the top of the svn tree)... This is the
cano
On 5/21/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please resubmit against 4.3 (the top of the svn tree)... This is the
canonical place where developers should be doing development. Thanks.
Except loop.c has been removed already which has mentioned like 5 time already.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:00:17AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 19, 2007, at 3:57 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> >you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that
> >transliterates the logic
> > of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and
> >consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
> > functions.
>
Tehila Meyzels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to get an explanation why ifcvt.c checks whether 1 of the 2
> successors of the IF-header block has a stmt that exits from the loop?
> Why does it prevent the if-conversion?
> I'm referring to the following code:
>
> /* Nor exit the loop. */
Brooks Moses wrote:
>> What about moving 4.3 to stage 3 *now* and moving everything
>> else in 4.4 instead? Hopefully, it will be a matter of just
>> a few months. From http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html,
>> it looks like it would already be quite a juicy release.
>
> Why?
>
> I mean, I su
On 5/21/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And also: why not?
I had hoped to get my pointer plus branch merged in which should
improve code gen and memory usage and compile time.
-- Pinski
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:31:19AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And also: why not?
>
> I had hoped to get my pointer plus branch merged in which should
> improve code gen and memory usage and compile time.
There seem to be quite a larg
On May 21, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
The reason _we_ care to get 4.3 sooner rather than later
is that we'd like to have the AMD Geode tuning
Submit to gcc 4.2. Tuning seems to be the type of thing that should
be safe to backport, if you really must have it.
Anyway, these
On 5/21/07, Tehila Meyzels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to get an explanation why ifcvt.c checks whether 1 of the 2
successors of the IF-header block has a stmt that exits from the loop?
Why does it prevent the if-conversion?
I'm referring to the following code:
/* Nor exit the loop
On 5/21/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/21/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please resubmit against 4.3 (the top of the svn tree)... This is the
> canonical place where developers should be doing development. Thanks.
Except loop.c has been removed already which has
Joe Buck wrote:
>> I had hoped to get my pointer plus branch merged in which should
>> improve code gen and memory usage and compile time.
>
> There seem to be quite a large number of not-yet-merged projects
> on the wiki page at
Never mind, I just did some investigation and it appears that
the
2007/5/21, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 19, 2007, at 3:57 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that
> transliterates the logic
> of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and
> consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
> functions.
Please resubmit agains
I need to edit a gcc source code, then recompile. My goal is to change what
gets output in the assembly file, when using the '-S' flag.
I figured a good first step would be, being able to print out "Hello World!"
somewhere in the '.s' file. I'm having trouble finding which source code
file I ne
On May 21, 2007, at 2:43 PM, AaronCloyd wrote:
I need to edit a gcc source code, then recompile.
Wrong list... gcc-help is closer that what you want...
2007/5/21, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 21, 2007, at 2:04 PM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> I hate the '-b-r-a-i-n [ ... ]
We don't use that sort of language around here...
Don't you understand the b-r-a-i-n-f-u-c-k-e-d source code?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
I'm saying i
Thomas Mittelstaedt wrote:
Hello,
We have a large app with a lot of static libraries in it (and I mean a
lot, about 20) and it compiles and links successfully. If I compile it
without optimiztion turned on
(-O2 or some more subtle with -O and others), the program also runs.
With optimizatio
I've received some feedback suggesting that some contributors may not
always be aware of what open issues are available to work on, and,
perhaps more importantly, what regressions they may have caused.
Is there a volunteer who would like to help prepare a regular list of
P3-and-higher PRs, togethe
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:35:53PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Is there a volunteer who would like to help prepare a regular list of
> P3-and-higher PRs, together with -- where known -- the name of the
> person responsible for the checkin which caused the regression? Or, is
> this something that
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070521 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070521/
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
Mike Stump wrote:
> Submit to gcc 4.2. Tuning seems to be the type of thing that should
> be safe to backport, if you really must have it.
I extracted the relevant patches that would apply
to 4.2 as they were. Currently regtesting just in
case.
--
// Bernardo Innocenti
\X/ http://www.c
Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> I extracted the relevant patches that would apply
> to 4.2 as they were. Currently regtesting just in
> case.
Err, allow me to rephrase that more clearly: I have
extracted the Geode patches from the trunk and they
applied without modification to the 4.2 branch.
I'm c
is is very difficult work? i did't know whether i can competent for it.
i'.m a volunteer.
On 5/22/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've received some feedback suggesting that some contributors may not
always be aware of what open issues are available to work on, and,
perhaps more imp
I've been using Google Talk and thought you might like to try it out.
We can use it to call each other for free over the internet. Here's an
invitation to download Google Talk. Give it a try!
---
Wei Chen wants to stay in better
On 5/21/07, Wei Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been using Google Talk and thought you might like to try it out.
I would suggest that you use the public IRC channel on irc.oftc.net.
See the GCC wiki page for details (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCConIRC)
Mike Stump wrote:
On May 21, 2007, at 2:43 PM, AaronCloyd wrote:
I need to edit a gcc source code, then recompile.
Wrong list... gcc-help is closer that what you want...
Is it? Changing the internals of what GCC puts into .s files seems a
topic that's more appropriate here, I would think.
i think you can read GCC backend to understand GCC how to
write .s files.
On 5/22/07, Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 21, 2007, at 2:43 PM, AaronCloyd wrote:
>> I need to edit a gcc source code, then recompile.
>
> Wrong list... gcc-help is closer that what yo
i think http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html have a error.
"Using the SVN repository
Assuming you have version 1.0.0 and higher of Subversion installed,
you can check out the GCC sources using the following command:
svn -q checkout svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc "
the right is
svn -q chec
On 5/21/07, Wei Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
svn -q checkout svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc "
the right is
svn -q checkout svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Not really, the syntax mentioned in the page is correct. The
additional argument 'gcc' merely means that on checkout,
Wei Chen wrote:
i think http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html have a error.
"Using the SVN repository
Assuming you have version 1.0.0 and higher of Subversion installed,
you can check out the GCC sources using the following command:
svn -q checkout svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc "
I think you
On 5/22/07, David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wei Chen wrote:
> i think http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html have a error.
>
> "Using the SVN repository
>
> Assuming you have version 1.0.0 and higher of Subversion installed,
> you can check out the GCC sources using the following command:
>
>svn
Wei Chen wrote:
i think http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html have a error.
"Using the SVN repository
Assuming you have version 1.0.0 and higher of Subversion installed,
you can check out the GCC sources using the following command:
svn -q checkout svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc "
the right is
40 matches
Mail list logo
