On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:52:43AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
>
> >Was this repo made with svnimport or git-svn? svnimport is faster but
> >chooses bad delta bases as a result. git repack -a -d -f would allow
> >git to choose better deltas rather than reusing the de
Hello,
Can someone tell me the back-end optimizations available for itanium
(IA64)?
We (HP) may be able to contribute to this from our side.
Thanks
-kamal
> Like e.g. the generated code
>IF match-char1 THEN ..
>ELSIF match-char2 THEN ..
>ELSIF match-char3 THEN ..
>..
>END
> ?
Similar. It identifies ranges of character point sets and
brackets them via binary bracketting.
> Why to complicate the things? The determinist finite autom
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-31 21:34:33 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've set up a Git mirror of the entire GCC history on
server space kindly provided by David Woodhouse.
You can clone it with:
git-clone git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
How often will it
Hello all,
I am working with a private target(GCC v4.1.1).
For my target the function arguments are passed through registers.
For this purpose 4 registers are used. If the no. of arguments are
more than 4, the remaining arguments are passed through stack.
But for varargs the arguments are pushed
On Fri, 2007-06-01 04:47:11 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-05-31 21:34:33 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > I've set up a Git mirror of the entire GCC history on
> > > server space kindly provided by Dav
Gabriel Paubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, there is a strange line in the current ChangeLog, between May 30th
> and May 31st entries: ">>> .r125234". Is it just me, a subversion
> glitch or something else?
It's a leftover conflict marker, I have removed it.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schw
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 10:39 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> How often will it be synced with upstream SVN? While you're at it,
> would David mind to also place a binutils, glibc and glibc-ports GIT
> repo next to it? That way, there would be a nice single point of GIT
> repos for the whole tool
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:47:11AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >On Thu, 2007-05-31 21:34:33 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >>I've set up a Git mirror of the entire GCC history on
> >>server space kindly provided by David Woodhouse.
> >>
Hi,
my questions is, why not use the element construction algorithm? The Thomson
Algorithm creates an epsilon-NFA which needs quite a lot of memory. The
element construction creates an NFA directly and therefor has fewer states.
Well, this is only interesting in the scanner creation which is no
On Thu, 2007-05-31 21:34:33 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've set up a Git mirror of the entire GCC history on
> server space kindly provided by David Woodhouse.
>
> You can clone it with:
>
> git-clone git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
How often will it be synced with up
2007/6/1, Frank Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To obtain 200-250% in speed gain won't be possible for this GCC
> optimizing compiler because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
Amdahl's Law talks about paralellism. That is not the case here.
He apply a different approach for le
On Fri, 2007-06-01 12:12:59 +0200, Gabriel Paubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:47:11AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> > Be our guest, and let me know if you find a way to
> > repack the repo to a smaller size.
>
> I just upgraded my git to 1.5.2 and repacked the git
Hi all,
please don't panish me, I know there were plenty of discussions concerning
this subject, however I'm a newbie in multi-threaded programming :-) and
couldn't find a good explanation to my problem in former discussions..
so, perhaps somebody could "redirect" my question to the appropriate
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:51:15PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-01 12:12:59 +0200, Gabriel Paubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:47:11AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> > > Be our guest, and let me know if you find a way to
> > > repack the repo t
Hi,
While working on a vdso for Linux/m68k I stumbled again on a problem, I
already had with the fallback unwind handler in gcc, where I'd like to
hear some opinions.
I'm looking at the i386 unwind handler and that doesn't bother to restore
any fp registers. On m68k it's a little more difficult
"Prasad, Kamal R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can someone tell me the back-end optimizations available for itanium
> (IA64)?
> We (HP) may be able to contribute to this from our side.
GCC implements more or less the same set of optimizations for all
targets. I don't think there are any IA64 s
"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am working with a private target(GCC v4.1.1).
> For my target the function arguments are passed through registers.
> For this purpose 4 registers are used. If the no. of arguments are
> more than 4, the remaining arguments are passed through stack.
>
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While working on a vdso for Linux/m68k I stumbled again on a problem, I
> already had with the fallback unwind handler in gcc, where I'd like to
> hear some opinions.
> I'm looking at the i386 unwind handler and that doesn't bother to restore
> any fp
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
This may be the pack depth which was increased to 50 according
to 1.5.2 release notes:
I've repacked with 1.5.2, and it doesn't seem to decrease
the repo size considerably.
I'm now repacking with "git-repack -a -d -f --window=20 --depth=100",
but it takes a lot of time
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
I just upgraded my git to 1.5.2 and repacked the git repository
with git-gc --aggressive. It is quite impressive: the size of
the pack file was almost cut in half, from ~23MB to ~12MB!
The --aggressive option is undocumented in 1.5.2. What
is it supposed to do?
--
/
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:00:29AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>
> >I just upgraded my git to 1.5.2 and repacked the git repository
> >with git-gc --aggressive. It is quite impressive: the size of
> >the pack file was almost cut in half, from ~23MB to ~12MB!
>
> The
Hi,
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I don't know the answer. But I do know that you need to think about
> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables, and you need to think about how your
> kernel handles registers when calling a handler, and you need to think
> about what unwind information is a
Prasad, Kamal R wrote:
Hello,
Can someone tell me the back-end optimizations available for itanium
(IA64)?
We (HP) may be able to contribute to this from our side.
Sorry, it is ambiguous question. There are a lot of optimizations in
GCC. Most of them are available for Itanium.
If you a
Hi!
Has there been any contribution from HP at all on itanium specific
optimizations? I am referring to instruction scheduling and stuff at
that level.
Our interfaces are derived largely from stanford (SUIF) -but if I had
to contribute, I can contribute to the existing environment. It is a
ques
Prasad, Kamal R wrote:
Hi!
Has there been any contribution from HP at all on itanium specific
optimizations? I am referring to instruction scheduling and stuff at
that level.
Please, ask Steve Ellcey [EMAIL PROTECTED] about this. He is most active
developer of GCC from HP.
Our interfac
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:00:29AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
I just upgraded my git to 1.5.2 and repacked the git repository
with git-gc --aggressive. It is quite impressive: the size of
the pack file was almost cut in half, from ~23MB to ~
The predictive commoning patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01061.html
miscompiles 482.sphinx3 in SPEC CPU 2006 with -O2 -ffast-math on
Linux/x86-64. Zdenek, do you have any ideas?
BTW, we are working on a small testcase.
H.J.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:37:54AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> The predictive commoning patch:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01061.html
>
> miscompiles 482.sphinx3 in SPEC CPU 2006 with -O2 -ffast-math on
> Linux/x86-64. Zdenek, do you have any ideas?
>
Something is wrong. Pred
On 6/1/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:37:54AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> The predictive commoning patch:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01061.html
>
> miscompiles 482.sphinx3 in SPEC CPU 2006 with -O2 -ffast-math on
> Linux/x86-64. Zdenek, do y
Hi,
addition of alloc_size attribute to the changes.html.
Ciao, Marcus
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.3/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.3/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.57
diff -u -r1.57 changes.html
--- htdocs/gc
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:28:52PM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> addition of alloc_size attribute to the changes.html.
>
> Ciao, Marcus
Less plugging of examples as suggested by Dirk...
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.3/changes.html
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:55:53AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Because the patch had other effects like adding a DCE after Copyprop
> in the loop optimizer section.
>
Disable DCE after Copyprop in the loop optimizer section fixes my
problem. Any idea why?
Thanks.
H.J.
On 6/1/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:55:53AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Because the patch had other effects like adding a DCE after Copyprop
> in the loop optimizer section.
>
Disable DCE after Copyprop in the loop optimizer section fixes my
problem. Any
Hi.
What is purpose of introducing numbered variables kind of a.0 a.1...in
pre-SSA pass, which are actually copies of local variable say a.
I observed them specially in array references.
In case of global variable it is fine as we have to re-read global
variable and globals are treated as memory op
Prasad, Kamal R wrote:
Hello,
Can someone tell me the back-end optimizations available for itanium
(IA64)?
We (HP) may be able to contribute to this from our side.
To add to the summary Vlad already did, you may want to take a look at
the notes from the last meeting of the Gelato GCC Itanium g
Hello,
> > Because the patch had other effects like adding a DCE after Copyprop
> > in the loop optimizer section.
> >
>
> Disable DCE after Copyprop in the loop optimizer section fixes my
> problem. Any idea why?
no, not really; it could be anything (it may even have nothing to do
with dce, pe
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:30:52PM +0200, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > > Because the patch had other effects like adding a DCE after Copyprop
> > > in the loop optimizer section.
> > >
> >
> > Disable DCE after Copyprop in the loop optimizer section fixes my
> > problem. Any idea why?
>
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070601 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070601/
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
On 01 Jun 2007 07:22:39 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am working with a private target(GCC v4.1.1).
> For my target the function arguments are passed through registers.
> For this purpose 4 registers are used. If the no. of arg
"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 01 Jun 2007 07:22:39 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I am working with a private target(GCC v4.1.1).
> > > For my target the function arguments are passed through registers
41 matches
Mail list logo
