Hi,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:24:13PM +0200, Martin Schindewolf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> my current efforts to get some basic support for transactional memory in
> GCC advance slowly but there is one thing I would like to ask because it
> stopped me for days now. What is the best way to do the fu
Earl Chew wrote:
I can't make up my mind whether the new behaviour is incorrect,
or whether the old behaviour should never have been supported.
I'm pretty certain this is a defect because I can construct a
program that should work, but doesn't.
In any case, I've discovered that this was an abe
While looking at the Darwin (const (minus ...)) thing[*],
I came across some dubious-looking code in dse.c:
/* The groups are different, if the alias sets
conflict, clear the entire group. We only need
to apply this test if the read_info
> Yes, the assert is really checking exactly that. Several pieces of
> haifa-sched.c assume that the instruction has been recognized during
> scheduler initialization to speed up checking if instruction is normal
> or some kind of use/clobber/asm.
What happens if an instruction hasn't been recogn
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Yes, the assert is really checking exactly that. Several pieces of
haifa-sched.c assume that the instruction has been recognized during
scheduler initialization to speed up checking if instruction is normal
or some kind of use/clobber/asm.
What happens if an instruction ha
Eric Botcazou writes:
> > Yes, the assert is really checking exactly that. Several pieces of
> > haifa-sched.c assume that the instruction has been recognized during
> > scheduler initialization to speed up checking if instruction is normal
> > or some kind of use/clobber/asm.
>
> What happens if
> I don't see the logic here. It is certainly not that hard to fix the
> code to make this assertion trivial, simple loop through all insns in
> sched_init() will do it.
Yes, but apparently nobody is willing to do that at the moment so we'll need
to kludge until then and add calls to recog_memoi
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
Hello Diego and all,
Diego Novillo wrote:
After the FSF gives final approval on the plugin feature, we will need
to coordinate towards one common plugin interface for GCC. I don't
think we should be adding two different and incompatible plugin
harnesses.
What e
