Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> For a function call will i be able to implement long call/short call
> for the same function at different locations?
> Say fun1 calls bar and fun2 calls bar. I want short-call to be
> generated for bar in fun1 and long-call to be generated in fun2.
> Is to possible to implem
Hi,
I have transferred all the statements of one BB( header of one loop)
to another BB. After that I have updated SSA information too.
But I get this error-
definition in block 6 does not dominate use in block 3
for SSA_NAME: i_25 in statement:
# VUSE
D.1189_10 = a[i_25];
loop.c:8: internal com
Hello
I'm having problem when making apache 2.0.63.
Im using the configure command like this:
CC="gcc" CFLAGS=" -O2 -mcpu=v9 -m64" CPPFLAGS=" -m64 -I/usr/sfw/include"
LDFLAGS="-m64" \
./configure --prefix=/usr/apache2 --enable-mods-shared=most --with-mpm=prefork
And the problem I got looks li
Hello all,
For a function call will i be able to implement long call/short call
for the same function at different locations?
Say fun1 calls bar and fun2 calls bar. I want short-call to be
generated for bar in fun1 and long-call to be generated in fun2.
Is to possible to implement this in the back
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Sandeep Maram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have transferred all the statements of one BB( header of one loop)
> to another BB. After that I have updated SSA information too.
> But I get this error-
>
> definition in block 6 does not dominate use in b
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:29:24PM -0500, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> I am a beginner interested in learning gcc internals and contributing
> to the community.
Thanks for showing interest in this area!
> I have started implementing PR35423 - omp workshare in the fortran
> front-end. I have
>> (as an aside, as most target implementations treat pointers as unsigned
>> values, its not clear that presuming signed integer overflow semantics are
>> a reasonable choice for pointer comparison optimization)
>
> The point is not of presuming signed integer overflow semantics (I was
> correcte
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >> (as an aside, as most target implementations treat pointers as unsigned
> >> values, its not clear that presuming signed integer overflow semantics are
> >> a reasonable choice for pointer comparison optimization)
>
Paul Schlie wrote:
(as an aside, as most target implementations treat pointers as unsigned
values, its not clear that presuming signed integer overflow semantics are
a reasonable choice for pointer comparison optimization)
The point is not of presuming signed integer overflow semantics (I was
co
Richard Guenther wrote:
In absence of any declared object (like with this testcase where we just
have an incoming pointer to some unknown object) the compiler can
still assume that any valid object ends at the end of the address space.
Thus, an object either declared or allocated via malloc neve
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alex Stepanov told me once that he preferred Ada to C, because Ada
> has proper pointer arithmetic (via the type Integer_Address) which
> is defined to work in Ada in the manner that Paul mistakenly expects
> for C. Integer_Address would be a bit of a pai
This is the final proposal for the introduction of arrays as first
class citizens of the middle-end. The goal is still to retain
the high-level information that the GFortran frontend has for array
assignments up to the high-level loop optimization passses and to
not lower Fortran array assignmen
Hi Bob,
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Bob Walters wrote:
> Can you send me any reference to the current copyright assignment
> form, so that I can get this taken care of. I found something online
> at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-09/msg00678.html, but have no idea
> if that is current, so wanted to chec
On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 17:05 +0530, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> Well i tracked down the cause to the md file. In the md file i had a
> define_expand for the jump pattern. Inside the pattern i was checking
> whether the value of the offset for the jump is out of range and if
> its out of range then force
Robert C. Seacord wrote:
> > i agree that the optimization is allowed by C99. i think this is a
> > quality of implementation issue, and that it would be preferable for
> > gcc to emphasize security over performance, as might be expected.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:51:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer
* Robert Dewar:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Robert C. Seacord:
>>
>>> i agree that the optimization is allowed by C99. i think this is a
>>> quality of implementation issue, and that it would be preferable for
>>> gcc to emphasize security over performance, as might be expected.
>>
>> I don't t
"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have read in the internals that indirect_jump and jump pattern are
> necessary in any back-end for the compiler to be build and work
> successfully. For any back-end there will be some limitation as to how
> big the offset used in the jump instructio
Persson Håkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm having problem when making apache 2.0.63.
Wrong mailing list. gcc@gcc.gnu.org is about developing gcc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is about using gcc.
I don't know the answer to your question. It looks specific to your
distribution.
Ian
Mohamed Shafi wrote:
For a function call will i be able to implement long call/short call
for the same function at different locations?
Say fun1 calls bar and fun2 calls bar. I want short-call to be
generated for bar in fun1 and long-call to be generated in fun2.
Is to possible to implement this
On 4/10/08 8:16 AM, Fran Baena wrote:
Hi all,
i have a doubt about unSSA: is it allways possible to map back the
versioned variables to the original variable? If it could be possible,
is there an algorithm that describe this translation back?
It is not always possible. If there are overlappin
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> To me, dubious optimizations like this at the very least should
>> be optional and able to be turned off.
>
> Why is this optimization dubious? We would need to look at real-world
> code to tell, and so far, we haven't heard anything about the context
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
A theoretical argument for why somebody might write problematic code
is http://www.fefe.de/openldap-mail.txt .
I don't know where, or even if, such code is actually found in the
wild.
Ian
Fair enough question. The other question of course is how much this
optimization
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 04:27:40PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> >A theoretical argument for why somebody might write problematic code
> >is http://www.fefe.de/openldap-mail.txt .
> >
> >I don't know where, or even if, such code is actually found in the
> >wild.
> >
> >I
Florian Weimer wrote:
Existing safe C implementations take a performance hit which is a factor
between 5 and 11 in terms of execution time. There is some new research
that seems to get away with a factor less than 2, but it's pretty recent
and I'm not sure if it's been reproduced independently.
Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 04:27:40PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
A theoretical argument for why somebody might write problematic code
is http://www.fefe.de/openldap-mail.txt .
I don't know where, or even if, such code is actually found in the
wild.
Ian
F
Robert Dewar wrote:
> An optimziation is dubious to me if
>
> a) it produces surprising changes in behavior (note the importance of
> the word surprising here)
>
> b) it does not provide significant performance gains (note the
> importance of the word significant here).
>
> I find this optimizat
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's already been acknowledged that the source code is wrong
to assume that the compiler knows about wrapping of pointers.
The real issue at this stage is how to warn users who may be
using GCC and implicitly relying on its old behavior, without
unintentionally pushing p
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20080414 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20080414/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:42:30PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> >[In fact,
> >after GCC does something to warn users about this, it'll be
> >much "safer" than those other compilers.]
>
> For sure you want a warning, the compiler should never be
> removing explicit tests in the users code without g
Hi,
INSTALL/configure.html mentions ${gcc_tooldir}, just once. Here:
Cross-Compiler-Specific Options
The following options only apply to building cross compilers.
--with-sysroot
--with-sysroot=dir
Tells GCC to consider dir as the root of a tree that contains
a (subset of) the root files
Hello Everyone,
I am currently working on OpenRISC port of GCC and I am trying to
add more constraints to the machine-dependent part and the default
number of constrant seem to be only 30 (and obviously I have more than
30 constraints, and thus it was failing). I tried making this a #define
val
Hi Mark
> I'm not terribly familiar with this proposal.
> Ben, to answer your original question, I don't think that lack of nested
> address spaces is a fatal flaw, as long as the implementation otherwise
> meets the spec, and as long as the implementation doesn't somehow make
> it harder to a
> Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> In absence of any declared object (like with this testcase where we just
>> have an incoming pointer to some unknown object) the compiler can
>> still assume that any valid object ends at the end of the address space.
>> Thus,
Hi there Balaji,
>Here is the patch for it (if a value is not provided, then the
> default value of 30 is assumed). I tried to build this for x86 and arm
> and they seem to work fine with no problems.
Thanks for the patch. You should send your patch to gcc-patches,
though, not the main GCC l
Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Please, can somebody add an explanation to INSTALL/configure.html
what ${gcc_tooldir} is, and how to set it (I guess with configure
option or something?)
gcc_tooldir is a makefile variable. You can't change it directly. It
is effectively $prefix/$target, though if you l
On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 00:06 +0200, Stelian Pop wrote:
> - I had to add a PLUS case in PREFERRED_RELOAD_CLASS() or else reload
> kept generating incorrect insn (putting constants into EVEN_REGS for
> example). I'm not sure this is correct or if it hides something else...
It does sound odd, b
Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:42:30PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
[In fact,
after GCC does something to warn users about this, it'll be
much "safer" than those other compilers.]
For sure you want a warning, the compiler should never be
removing explicit tests in the users code witho
This testcase extracted from libgcc2.c
int
sub (int i)
{
if (i == 0)
return 1 / i;
return i + 2;
}
compiled with -minline-int-divide-min-latency for IA-64 generates an
ICE.
tmp2.c:8: error: flow control insn inside a basic block
(insn 18 17 19 3 tmp2.c:5 (trap_if (const_int 1 [0x1])
Hello all,
I've been working on MaverickCrunch support in gcc, and could never get
a completely working glibc (with-fp), since there is no soft-float sqrt
libcall function. This is a big problem for MaverickCrunch as there are
no hard div or sqrt opcodes.
It seems that this is the only other thi
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:33:38PM +1000, Hasjim Williams wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been working on MaverickCrunch support in gcc, and could never get
> a completely working glibc (with-fp), since there is no soft-float sqrt
> libcall function. This is a big problem for MaverickCrunch as there
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:38:53PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > > OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to pop
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:41:36 -0400, "Daniel Jacobowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:33:38PM +1000, Hasjim Williams wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've been working on MaverickCrunch support in gcc, and could never get
> > a completely working glibc (with-fp), since there
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:58:40PM +1000, Hasjim Williams wrote:
> Both FPA and VFP coprocessors implement sqrt opcodes:
So? Glibc does not rely on that. I've been building soft-float
versions of glibc for non-Crunch targets for scarily close to a decade
now, so this is clearly not the problem :
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:09:00 -0400, "Daniel Jacobowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:58:40PM +1000, Hasjim Williams wrote:
> > Both FPA and VFP coprocessors implement sqrt opcodes:
>
> So? Glibc does not rely on that. I've been building soft-float
> versions of glibc f
Ok, I give up.
I killed many hours trying to build a cross-compiling
x86_64-linux-uclibc-gcc, version 4.3.0.
After many "WTF?" moments I decided to go back and try
to build a cross-compiler which I already have,
just older version: I decided to build i486 one,
not x86_64.
Because I already have
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An optimziation is dubious to me if
>
> a) it produces surprising changes in behavior (note the importance of
> the word surprising here)
>
> b) it does not provide significant performance gains (note the
> importance of the word significant here).
>
> I
Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems odd that cfgrtl allows a conditional trap inside a basic block,
> but not an unconditional trap. The way things are now, it means we need
> to fix up the basic blocks after running combine or any other pass that
> might be able to simplify a condi
To clarify what Richard means, your assertion that "you have updated
SSA information" is false.
If you had updated the SSA information, the error would not occur :).
How exactly are you updating the ssa information?
The general way to update SSA for this case would be:
For each statement you hav
I put my version of the gcc conversion (which has all branches but no
tags) at git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and set a script up to update
it appropriately.
Note that i will not announce this anywhere until someone steps
forward to actually maintain it because i do not know GIT. Neither of
the pe
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To clarify what Richard means, your assertion that "you have updated
> SSA information" is false.
> If you had updated the SSA information, the error would not occur :).
>
> How exactly are you updating the ssa informat
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mohamed Shafi wrote:
>
> > For a function call will i be able to implement long call/short call
> > for the same function at different locations?
> > Say fun1 calls bar and fun2 calls bar. I want short-call to be
> > genera
Daniel Berlin wrote:
I put my version of the gcc conversion (which has all branches but no
tags) at git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and set a script up to update
it appropriately.
Note that i will not announce this anywhere until someone steps
forward to actually maintain it because i do not know
53 matches
Mail list logo
