On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed an error in a part of the code that I converted, that
> looks this way:
>
> switch (gimple_assign_subcode (stmt))
> {
> case SSA_NAME:
> handle_ssa_name ();
> break;
>
> case PLUS_EXPR:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 19:29, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem of course is that for GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS, we do not maintain
> the invariant that
>
> gimple_assign_subcode (stmt) == TREE_CODE (gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt)),
>
> so gimple_assign_subcode typically will not be SS
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 08:15, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS after all?
Represents a "copy" operation, an operand with no operator (e.g., a = 3, b = c)
'3' and 'c' are "single" operands. There is no operator involved in
the assignment.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 08:15, Richard Guenther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What is GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS after all?
>
> Represents a "copy" operation, an operand with no operator (e.g., a = 3, b =
> c)
>
> '3' and '
On 3/9/08 9:24 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So as opposed to a unary operation which would look exactly the same apart
from having a subcode? So what does gimple_assign_subcode () return
for the GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS case? Some random garbage?
No. A unary operation is different. For instance, N
Hi,
based on the discussion, this is change I would like to do to the
passmanager. I am sending the header change only first, because the
actual change will need updating all PM datastructure initializers and
compensate testsuite and documentation for the removal of RTL dump
letters so I would rat
Hi,
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 08:15, Richard Guenther
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What is GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS after all?
> >
> > Represents a "copy" operation, an operand with no operator (e.g., a = 3, b
>
Hi,
> So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
> operands and used only for its numeric value.
another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an unary operator, and
get rid of the SINGLE_RHS case altogether (of course, unlike any other
unary operator, it would not requir
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
> > operands and used only for its numeric value.
>
> another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an unary operator, and
> get rid of the
On 3/9/08 10:46 AM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
Hi,
So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
operands and used only for its numeric value.
another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an unary operator, and
get rid of the SINGLE_RHS case altogether (of course, unlike any
On 3/9/08 11:31 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
> operands and used only for its numeric value.
another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an un
Jan Hubicka wrote:
This looks mostly fine to me. note that i added you to pr35094 since
this patch will resolve that issue.
I guess that one of the questions that i would have is why not have
there be a base structure for the core passmanager fields, and then a
union that contains a one of the
Hi,
> >>So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
> >>operands and used only for its numeric value.
> >
> >another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an unary operator, and
> >get rid of the SINGLE_RHS case altogether (of course, unlike any other
> >unary operator, it
Hello
I tried building a crosstoolchain with gcc-4.3. The way it worked with
earlier versions doesn't work with 4.3 anymore because make all-gcc
doesn't build libgcc at all. It doesn't fail, it just doesn't build
it.
If this is intended behaviour I'd be glad for anyhints how to
bootstrap a toolchai
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Jonas Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello
> I tried building a crosstoolchain with gcc-4.3. The way it worked with
> earlier versions doesn't work with 4.3 anymore because make all-gcc
> doesn't build libgcc at all. It doesn't fail, it just doesn't build
>
On Mar 8, 2008, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > the object referenced is of integral type
>> This would break the use of SRA to extract sub-objects of non-integral
>> type. IIRC Ada does such things.
> No frontend generates BIT_FIEL
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2008, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> > the object referenced is of integral type
>
> >> This would break the use of SRA to extract sub-objects of non-integral
> >> type. II
> I meant Ada can have non-integral members that are do not occupy an
> integral number of bytes.
Right, but the middle-end shouldn't need to touch them globally, the front-end
is supposed to break up the accesses.
--
Eric Botcazou
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> This looks mostly fine to me. note that i added you to pr35094 since
> this patch will resolve that issue.
>
> I guess that one of the questions that i would have is why not have
> there be a base structure for the core passmanager fields, and then a
> union that contai
On Mar 9, 2008, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Do you have any plans to recover the performance loss for machines
>> that have bit-field instructions that operate directly in memory?
>> Especially for writes, I don't see how this is goi
On 3/9/08 3:24 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
however, it would make things simpler. Now, we need to distiguish
three cases -- SINGLE, UNARY and BINARY; if we pretended that
GIMPLE_COPY is an unary operator, this would be reduced just
to UNARY and BINARY. Of course, GIMPLE_COPY would never be used
i
On Mar 9, 2008, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I meant Ada can have non-integral members that are do not occupy an
>> integral number of bytes.
> Right, but the middle-end shouldn't need to touch them globally, the
> front-end is supposed to break up the accesses.
My point is that
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2008, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Do you have any plans to recover the performance loss for machines
> >> that have bit-field instructions that operate directly in memory?
Hi,
> On 3/9/08 3:24 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
>
> >however, it would make things simpler. Now, we need to distiguish
> >three cases -- SINGLE, UNARY and BINARY; if we pretended that
> >GIMPLE_COPY is an unary operator, this would be reduced just
> >to UNARY and BINARY. Of course, GIMPLE_COPY wo
On Mar 9, 2008, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> AM33/2.0 and H8SX come to mind, although it's been a while since I
>> dealt with the memory bit-field operations of these two ports to have
>> the details handy.
> Ok, I would expect it a
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 9, 2008, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
AM33/2.0 and H8SX come to mind, although it's been a while since I
dealt with the memory bit-field operations of these two ports to have
the details handy.
Ok, I wo
26 matches
Mail list logo
