The failures below have all come up in the last few days using
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.3.0 20070815 (experimental)
on Cygwin_NT/amd64
Cheers
Paul
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/980310-3.f (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/980310-3.f (test for excess errors)
Running /svn/trunk/gcc/testsuite
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/980310-3.f (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/980310-3.f (test for excess errors)
I saw this one on x86_64-linux with -m32, and filed it as PR33074. I
asked about it on IRC yesterday, and if I understood Andrew Pinksi, it
probably is a middle-end problem, as
Paul Thomas wrote:
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/980310-3.f (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/980310-3.f (test for excess errors)
I get the same error on x86-64/openSUSE with "-m32 -O" with -m64 and
without "-O" it works.
FX reported it yesterday as PR 33074.
> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-to
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > One thing I would like to see in is the sharing checker. The criteria
> > of bootstrap/regtesting on primary platforms is almost met now with
> > exception of regmove pass that I sent patch for some time ago.
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01441.html
>
Hi,
I'm trying to bootstrap (parloop branch) with -ftree-parallelize-loops=4,
which requires also -fopenmp.
I'm using: make BOOTCFLAGS="-O2 -ftree-parallelize-loops=4 -fopenmp"
bootstrap -j 16
I'm failing at the begining of stage2 because the compiler can't find
libgomp.spec
How do I bootstra
Hi All,
In file treelang.h structure token_part is defined as follows:
struct token_part GTY(())
{
location_t location;
unsigned int charno;
unsigned int length; /* The value. */
const unsigned char *chars; <-- HERE
};
'unsigned char *chars' is used instead of just 'char *chars'.
Is-the
Razya Ladelsky wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to bootstrap (parloop branch) with -ftree-parallelize-loops=4,
which requires also -fopenmp.
I'm using: make BOOTCFLAGS="-O2 -ftree-parallelize-loops=4 -fopenmp"
bootstrap -j 16
I'm failing at the begining of stage2 because the compiler can't find
libgomp
Dave Korn wrote:
> But consider also
> http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/README.SCO
Which calls them "not a serious threat." I hadn't been closely
following this, but that sure seems to be the case given last
week's ruling.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070812-sco-never-owned-unix-copyr
On 8/15/07, Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is popcount really slow on PowerPC? (Compared to clz?)
popcount is really popcount in bytes and then you do a multiple to get
the real popcount. This is why it is slower than count leading zeros.
Also popcount does not exist in most powerpc'
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On 8/15/07, Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is popcount really slow on PowerPC? (Compared to clz?)
popcount is really popcount in bytes and then you do a multiple to get
the real popcount. This is why it is slower than count leading zeros.
Also popcount does not
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
* I would like to do the same for __builtin_ctz, but there is a catch.
The synthetic ctz sequence in terms of popcount (as presently
implemented by ia64.md, and potentially usable for at least i386 and
rs6000 as well if moved to optabs.c) produces the canonical behavior
Joern Rennecke wrote:
The score, sh and sparc instructions may or may not display canonical
behavior; their ports do not define CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO and I was
not able to find documentation of the relevant instruction.
The operation the nsb instruction of the SHmedia instruction set perfor
Moin,
On Sunday 12 August 2007 20:11:34 Tels wrote:
> Moin,
The signature on my email was bad/broken, when it came back to me from the
mailing-list. Did this happen to anybody else?
Since this never happened to me before, here is another email, as test.
Let's see if the signature is still bad
I think the cost would be something like:
Index: rs6000.c
===
--- rs6000.c(revision 127484)
+++ rs6000.c(working copy)
@@ -20292,10 +20292,15 @@
*total += COSTS_N_INSNS (2);
return false;
+case CTZ
I suppose you're using (assuming 32-bit)
ctz(x) := 31 - clz(x & -x)
now, which gives -1 for 0; and the version you're looking for is
ctz(x) := 32 - clz(~x & (x-1))
which gives 32 for 0.
Thanks! That's, unfortunately, one more instruction, although I guess
a lot of chips have "a & ~b" a
> Zack Weinberg writes:
Zack> Makes sense. I don't suppose I could persuade you to teach rs6000
Zack> RTX_COSTS about clz and popcount...?
Sure. It's not that difficult to add to the table.
David
>
> Is popcount really slow on PowerPC? (Compared to clz?) Ideally one
> would choose between the two expansions based on RTL costs, but the only
> architectures it matters for are i386 and powerpc, and neither of them
> define the cost of either clz or popcount.
Of course adding a popcount
On Sun, 2007-08-12 23:45:09 +0200, Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The signature on my email was bad/broken, when it came back to me from the
> mailing-list. Did this happen to anybody else?
>
> Since this never happened to me before, here is another email, as test.
> Let's see if the signa
I think the cost would be something like:
+case POPCOUNT:
+ *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (3);
+ return false;
Is that the cost when using popcountb? It is a lot more
expensive when that instruction isn't available (like on
most current machines).
The rest (i.e. CLZ, CTZ) loo
Moin,
On Wednesday 15 August 2007 21:30:16 Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-08-12 23:45:09 +0200, Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > The signature on my email was bad/broken, when it came back to me from
> > the mailing-list. Did this happen to anybody else?
> >
> > Since this never happe
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> I think the cost would be something like:
>> +case POPCOUNT:
>> + *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (3);
>> + return false;
Segher> Is that the cost when using popcountb? It is a lot more
Segher> expensive when that instruction isn't available (like on
Segh
I think the cost would be something like:
+case POPCOUNT:
+ *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (3);
+ return false;
Segher> Is that the cost when using popcountb? It is a lot more
Segher> expensive when that instruction isn't available (like on
Segher> most current machines).
Yes, bu
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> Yes, but do we even create POPCOUNT rtx if the insn isn't
>> supported? Wouldn't we expand or create libcall early?
Segher> I don't know, there's only one way to find out... :-)
I did check. Didn't you?
David
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:55:02AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Joern Rennecke wrote:
> >The operation the nsb instruction of the SHmedia instruction set performs
> >is 'count number of sign bit copies'.
> >[...]
>
> It sounds like the SH should probably be lumped in with the x86 as not
> doing
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20070815 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20070815/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
25 matches
Mail list logo
