I think this is a very important point. If it didn't block a previous
release, it shouldn't block the current release. It doesn't mean it
shouldn't get looked at, but it also shouldn't be a blocker. I think
the high priority regressions should be ones that are new to 4.3 because
they have c
I still think that is too strong a position. A good fraction
of compiler time is spent bugging out user code.. one could
even say the job of a compiler is not generating machine code,
but telling programmers they're idiots :)
Every compiler version I've tried has been telling me this for years.
For those interested in OpenMP.
Tobias
-- Forwarded Message --
From: Meadows, Lawrence F
Date: Sun Oct 21 19:12:10 PDT 2007
Subject: [Omp] Announcing OpenMP 3.0 draft for public comment
21 October 2007
The OpenMP ARB is pleased to announce the release of a draft of Version
3.0
Tomash Brechko writes:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 18:48:02 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Err, not exactly. :)
> >
> > See http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/c++mm/why_undef.html
>
> Why, I'd say that page is about original races in the program, not
> about what compiler should do w
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 03:05 -0400, David Fang wrote:
> > I still think that is too strong a position. A good fraction
> > of compiler time is spent bugging out user code.. one could
> > even say the job of a compiler is not generating machine code,
> > but telling programmers they're idiots :)
>
Mark Shinwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - 64-bit arguments are aligned on 64-bit boundaries -- which may mean
> that padding is inserted beneath them (for example if there is a
> 32-bit argument aligned to a 64-bit boundary beneath the 64-bit
> argument). No more padding than is require
Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| But in any case, nobody has code that relies on getting an error from
| a previous version of the compiler that would be broken by moving to
| 4.3. Only regressions on valid code seem serious enough to me to
| warrant blocking a release.
I strongly agre
Hello,
I am porting GCC4.2.1 to our 2-issue VLIW processor and encounter the
following problem.
Source code:
#define MIN(a, b) (a:
D.1510 = snr + (short int *) ((unsigned int) toneIx * 2);
*D.1510 = (short int) ((short unsigned int) *D.1510 + 5);
return;
}
Note that D.1510 is extracted a
In RTL level, it is difficult to reverse the optimization. In our 3.4.6
-based porting, the GCC actually generates the latter code. How to
avoid CSE under such situation? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.
You are probably not defining the ADDRESS_COST or (if you have no
ADDRESS_COST hook
I'm a guy working on IA64 and I need to compile glibc with gcc4.2.
I tried gcc version 4.2.2 to build glibc 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7, all failed with:
internal compiler error: RTL flag check: INSN_DELETED_P used with
unexpected rtx code 'plus' in output_constant_pool_1, at varasm.c:
3393
I also tried gc
Hi Ian,
have you had time to look at this? Or does anyone else like to
comment?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-10/msg00092.html
Bye,
-Andreas-
Is the new RTL of a define_peephole2 substitution subject to further
peepholing? From the code, it appears the answer is no. The
internals doc doesn't say.
Thanks,
Brian
On Monday 22 October 2007, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > It is also worth noting that just declaring a variable 'volatile' does
> > not help all that much in making it safer to use in a threded environment
> > if you have multiple CPUs. (There is nothing that says that a multi-CPU
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I think that the release process for recent releases has given undue
>> priority to bugs marked as regressions. I agree that it's important
>> for things that worked in the previous release to keep working in the
>> new rele
In
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.2/gcc/Explicit-Reg-Vars.html#Explicit-Reg-Vars
it explains how to use register variables .. but doesn't list them.
Is there a document somewhere which lists
a) each CPU macro name
b) all the registers supported
?
I need to get the stack pointer when __
On 23 October 2007 18:25, skaller wrote:
> In
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.2/gcc/Explicit-Reg-Vars.html#Explicit-Re
g-Vars
>
> it explains how to use register variables .. but doesn't list them.
>
> Is there a document somewhere which lists
>
> a) each CPU macro name
Don't at a
Mark Mitchell wrote:
When I mark a PR as "P1", that means "This is a regression, and I think
it's embarrassing for us, as a community, to have this bug in a
release." Unfortunately, every release goes out with P1 bugs open, so
we can't really call them "release blockers". My judgment isn't alwa
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:20:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >When I mark a PR as "P1", that means "This is a regression, and I think
> >it's embarrassing for us, as a community, to have this bug in a
> >release." Unfortunately, every release goes out with P1 bugs open,
Hi list,
I have a need to understand some call RTL instructions,
but I have difficulties to understand some of them.
Here are two examples of the challenging RTL instructions:
(call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI (\"stpcpy\") [flags 0x41] ) [0 S1 A8])
(const_int 8 [0x8]))
Q: does this instructi
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:54:55AM +0800, Franklin wrote:
> Hi, list.
>
> Right now I'm building new toolchain using old one provided by our vendor. I
> have built binutils and gcc-4.1.1 successfully. However while building
> glibc-2.4 it always told me:
>
> running configure fragment for npt
> Here are two examples of the challenging RTL instructions:
>
> (call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI (\"stpcpy\") [flags 0x41] 0x401f000 0 __builtin_stpcpy>) [0 S1 A8])
> (const_int 8 [0x8]))
>
> Q: does this instruction call the function stpcpy or __builtin_stpcpy ?
The compiler will emit a cal
> (call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI (\"check_match.7758\") [flags 0x3]
0x404a3e80 check_match>) [0 S1 A8])
> (const_int 0 [0x0]))
>
> Q: does this instruction call the function check_match.7758 or
check_match ?
I think that when we do function specialization/cloning (for the IPA
constant pro
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 18:44 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 23 October 2007 18:25, skaller wrote:
>
> > In
> >
> >
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.2/gcc/Explicit-Reg-Vars.html#Explicit-Re
> g-Vars
> >
> > it explains how to use register variables .. but doesn't list them.
> >
> > Is there
Jason Merrill wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> When I mark a PR as "P1", that means "This is a regression, and I think
>> it's embarrassing for us, as a community, to have this bug in a
>> release." Unfortunately, every release goes out with P1 bugs open, so
>> we can't really call them "release b
24 matches
Mail list logo
