"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have noticed that when strict_low_part is used in a patten we need
> to use '+' as the constraint modifier if any constraints are used in
> the patterns.
> Why is this so?
Using strict_low_part implies that the register or memory location is
neither
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have noticed that when strict_low_part is used in a patten we need
> > to use '+' as the constraint modifier if any constraints are used in
> > the patterns.
> > W
I need to find out the alignment and size information for the standard
integral types and pointer types at GCC build time.
The information is needed to work out the sizes of data structures so
that warnings about size mismatches can be produced.
The information is needed at build time because th
Hi:
I am working on gcc-4.3.0 and Redhat ES 4. When I uses the compiler to
build specint-2006 benchmarks,
none passes the make with compiler option: -msched-control-spec
(enable control speculation on IA-64)
Here is part of the error log:
# Error 400.perlbench: Error with make!
-- Forwarded message --
From: 吴曦 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2008/4/11
Subject: Re: GCC-4.3.0 fails to compile SPECint-2006 with control
speculation on itanium processor
To: Eljay Love-Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2008/4/11 Eljay Love-Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi 吴曦,
>
> What vers
-- Forwarded message --
From: 吴曦 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2008/4/11
Subject: Re: GCC-4.3.0 fails to compile SPECint-2006 with control
speculation on itanium processor
To: Eljay Love-Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I turn on the verbose mode of spec, it really fails to compile the code
Please don't reply to an existing thread to post a new question.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 08:52:11PM +1000, Tim Josling wrote:
> I have found tm.h, and also bconfig.h, config.h and tconfig.h. The sizes
> are more or less OK as there are macros for sizes, apart from pointer
> sizes in some cases. Th
吴曦 wrote:
Hi:
I am working on gcc-4.3.0 and Redhat ES 4. When I uses the compiler to
build specint-2006 benchmarks,
none passes the make with compiler option: -msched-control-spec
(enable control speculation on IA-64)
Control speculation is disabled by default on IA-64, so I think one of
the sc
Mohamed Shafi wrote:
In cris i saw this patten
(define_insn "*andhi_lowpart"
[(set (strict_low_part
(match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "=r,r, r,r,r,r"))
(and:HI (match_operand:HI 1 "register_operand" "%0,0, 0,0,0,r")
(match_operand:HI 2 "genera
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> > Like you said i tried to split the move_immediate pattern after
> > reload. This is how i did this :
> >
> > (define_split
> > [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "register_
Robert C. Seacord wrote:
> Here is another version of the program (same compiler version/flags).
[...]
> void test_signed(char *buf) {
> signed int len;
[...]
> if((buf+len < buf) != ((uintptr_t)buf+len < (uintptr_t)buf))
> printf(" BUG!");
[...]
> void test_unsigned(char *buf) {
>
Gerald,
Comments below.
My
understanding is that it shouldn't, because the real issue here is
pointer arithmetic and the resulting type should always be a pointer.
I'm not sure what you mean by that last statement.
my understanding of the C99 standard is that adding an integer and a
Robert C. Seacord wrote:
> this was only one of several solutions listed, and not the first one
> listed.
Yes, CERT did the right thing by recommending first that the
code be changed (kudos for that).
>> What you really mean is,
>> "Use an older GCC or some other compiler that is known not to
>>
"Robert C. Seacord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What you really mean is,
>> "Use an older GCC or some other compiler that is known not to
>> take advantage of this optimization."
>>
> i think we mean what we say, which is "*Avoid newer versions of gcc"
> and *"avoiding the use of gcc versio
Stelian Pop wrote:
#define PREFERRED_RELOAD_CLASS(X, CLASS)\
((CONSTANT_P(X)) ? EIGHT_REGS : \
(MEM_P(X)) ? EVEN_REGS : CLASS)
#define PREFERRED_OUTPUT_RELOAD_CLASS(X, CLASS) \
((CONSTANT_P(X)) ? EIGHT_REGS : \
From: Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:04:38 -0700
> "Robert C. Seacord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> What you really mean is,
> >> "Use an older GCC or some other compiler that is known not to
> >> take advantage of this optimization."
> >>
> > i think we
Mohamed Shafi wrote:
This looks like reordering is proper. When schedule-insn2 is run for
the above region/block the no:of instructions in the region
(rgn_n_insns) is 3.
Maybe bb reorder got the basic block structure wrong, and the barrier is
not supposed to be part of the basic block. In fac
Dasarath Weeratunge wrote:
In the following code I marked the tree 'node.0' as address taken using
'c_mark_addressable'. Now in the assembly code, isn't the return value of the
second call to malloc completely discarded?
c_mark_addressable is meant to be called during parsing. It may affect
t
Gerald,
There was a report (forwarded by Mark Mitchell) of Microsoft
Visual C++ 2005 performing that optimization (the resultant
object code was shown). Have you verified that this report
was false?
both chad and i have tested this with various options on Visual C++ 2005
and we have not found
Ian,
I know I'm biased, but I think "use a different compiler" is clearly
implied by the text of the advisory. If the advisory mentioned that
other compilers also implement the same optimization, then that
implication would not be there.
yes, i agree we should make this change, and warn again
> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> "Robert C. Seacord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> What you really mean is, "Use an older GCC or some other compiler
>>> that is known not to take advantage of this optimization."
>>>
>> i think we mean what we say, which is "
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 09:07 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Please don't reply to an existing thread to post a new question.
Sorry, I didn't realize that would cause a problem.
> Simply put, you can't do this. All of these things can depend on
> command line options.
It does seem you can only
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 06:59:28AM +1000, Tim Josling wrote:
> > Why not get it out of GCC later? You don't need to hack up GCC to do
> > that.
>
> Later is too late. I need to make decisions before the GCC back end gets
> involved (the back end is in a separate OS process). For example "Is
> thi
Robert C. Seacord wrote:
Gerald,
There was a report (forwarded by Mark Mitchell) of Microsoft
Visual C++ 2005 performing that optimization (the resultant
object code was shown). Have you verified that this report
was false?
both chad and i have tested this with various options on Visual C++ 2
Le vendredi 11 avril 2008 à 11:14 -0700, Jim Wilson a écrit :
> Stelian Pop wrote:
> > #define PREFERRED_RELOAD_CLASS(X, CLASS)\
> > ((CONSTANT_P(X)) ? EIGHT_REGS : \
> >(MEM_P(X)) ? EVEN_REGS : CLASS)
> >
> > #define PREFERRED_OUTPUT_RELOAD_CLASS(X, CL
On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 00:06 +0200, Stelian Pop wrote:
> I will still have the problems with the fact that my indirect addressing
> doesn't allow displacements, no ? (so I would need to implement
> LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS, in which I'll need a special reserved
> register to compute the full addres
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20080411 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20080411/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Stelian Pop wrote:
I will still have the problems with the fact that my indirect addressing
doesn't allow displacements, no ? (so I would need to implement
LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS, in which I'll need a special reserved
register to compute the full address by adding the base and the
displacement
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:28:04AM +0530, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> [ another "doubt" ]
You seem to be using the word "doubt" a lot whenever you don't completely
understand something, but this is not what the word means.
It means "to consider questionable or unlikely; to hesitate to believe; to
dist
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:00:14PM -0400, Robert C. Seacord wrote:
> Ian,
> >I know I'm biased, but I think "use a different compiler" is clearly
> >implied by the text of the advisory. If the advisory mentioned that
> >other compilers also implement the same optimization, then that
> >implication
Hello and welcome to the most advanced High Yield Investments portal:
hyipparena.com
Find different articles, strategies, hyip analitics, money exchange services
and more.
Update:
We're presenting new version of our famous product: ArenaPack.
Create your own HYIP in 15 minutes.
You will find ev
31 matches
Mail list logo
