Hi,
I'm debugging the S/390 bootstrap problem and stumbled over an IRA
behaviour which I don't quite understand.
The following code in process_bb_node_lives ira-lives.c makes sure
that for clobbered regs which are also used for inputs the proper
conflicts are recorded:
static bool
def_conflicts_
While testing the portability of the Parma Polyhedra Library, Abramo Bagnara
and myself identified the following apparent problem on the Alpha, whereby
the division 2/3 made on floats is flagged as exact. Here are the details:
$ cat sf.cc
#include
#include
int main() {
float x = 2;
float
While waiting on testsuites this week, I finally snapped and spent some
time looking at how to speed up the testsuite.
I did some experiments and collected data on the normalised runtimes of
each .exp test script. I sorted them in descending order and these are
the top offenders:
Andrey made me aware that this is PR37535. Vladimir is obviously
already working on this.
Bye,
-Andreas-
Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> #include
> #include
>
> int main() {
> float x = 2;
> float y = 3;
> feclearexcept(FE_INEXACT);
> x = x / y;
> printf("%d %.1000g\n", fetestexcept(FE_INEXACT) != 0, x);
> }
Is this a way of testing whether the division is performed at compile
time? Do you ca
Roberto Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> $ cat sf.cc
> #include
> #include
>
> int main() {
> float x = 2;
> float y = 3;
> feclearexcept(FE_INEXACT);
> x = x / y;
> printf("%d %.1000g\n", fetestexcept(FE_INEXACT) != 0, x);
You need to enable the FENV_ACCESS pragma (which is not
For arc-elf32, I only want to run C and C++ tests, so the runtime of
fortran tests is irrelevant for this purpose.
On the other hand, I run the tests eight-way multilibbed.
Currently, I run the check-gcc on eight hosts (or execution slots on multicore
servers), and the check-g++ tests on eight othe
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Roberto Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
$ cat sf.cc
#include
#include
int main() {
float x = 2;
float y = 3;
feclearexcept(FE_INEXACT);
x = x / y;
printf("%d %.1000g\n", fetestexcept(FE_INEXACT) != 0, x);
You need to enable the FENV_ACCESS pragma (which
Tim Prince wrote:
Roberto Bagnara wrote:
#include
#include
int main() {
float x = 2;
float y = 3;
feclearexcept(FE_INEXACT);
x = x / y;
printf("%d %.1000g\n", fetestexcept(FE_INEXACT) != 0, x);
}
Is this a way of testing whether the division is performed at compile
time? Do you
Roberto Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> thanks for your message. Do you mean that we need to enable the FENV_ACCESS
> pragma to get defined behavior only on the Alpha or also elsewhere?
See the C standard, 7.6.1 The FENV_ACCESS pragma.
The FENV_ACCESS pragma provides a means to inform t
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Steve Ellcey as Itanium port co-maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Steve on his new role.
Steve, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking!
David
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Roberto Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
thanks for your message. Do you mean that we need to enable the FENV_ACCESS
pragma to get defined behavior only on the Alpha or also elsewhere?
See the C standard, 7.6.1 The FENV_ACCESS pragma.
The FENV_ACCESS pragma provid
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:43 AM, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
> appointed Steve Ellcey as Itanium port co-maintainer.
>
>Please join me in congratulating Steve on his new role.
> Steve, please update your lis
> "Ben" == Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Using this script and some minor gcc/Makefile.in hacks, I ran the entire
Ben> testsuite in 30% of the current time for a parallel-languages make
Ben> check.
Awesome.
Ben> So, I guess my question is: what now? What do people feel would
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 21:37 +1000, Ben Elliston wrote:
> While waiting on testsuites this week, I finally snapped and spent some
> time looking at how to speed up the testsuite.
> So, I guess my question is: what now? What do people feel would be
> required to make this usable? I assume that the
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Roberto Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > $ cat sf.cc
> > #include
> > #include
> >
> > int main() {
> > float x = 2;
> > float y = 3;
> > feclearexcept(FE_INEXACT);
> > x = x / y;
> > printf("%d %.1000g\n", fetestexcept(FE_INEXACT)
Roberto Bagnara wrote:
Note that I am not compiling with optimizations and that the
divs/sui opcode is generated.
The ev56 doesn't implement inexact in hardware, so this will
require a trap to the kernel for emulation. The bug is apparently
in there.
r~
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:44 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Ben> So, I guess my question is: what now? What do people feel would be
> Ben> required to make this usable? I assume that the most pressing thing
> Ben> would be to have the build system fold the various .log and .sum files
> Ben> together
Ben Elliston wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:44 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
Ben> So, I guess my question is: what now? What do people feel would be
Ben> required to make this usable? I assume that the most pressing thing
Ben> would be to have the build system fold the various .log and .sum files
> But stability within a given revision of the testsuite I think would be
> almost essential.
Oh, of course :-)
Ben
Hi all,
Firstly, do others think it would be helpful to summarise any of this
information on a wiki page, or will these emails be fine?
In this email I will give my opinion on the questions asked by Deigo and
ask a few additional questions that may be relevant.
--
Wha
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:41 +1000, Ben Elliston wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:44 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > Yeah, this seems necessary. Ideally the order ought to be stable, too.
>
> Do you think that the current order of .exps should be preserved in the
> resultant .sum and .logs? I guess
> Do people still use compare_tests? Talking with Janis, she mentioned that
> it wasn't multilib (ie, RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}')
> compatible, but that test_summary was. It's what I've been using to
> compare two runs.
I have used compare_tests for a long, long time.
Ben
P
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Brendon Costa wrote:
> * Automatically loaded plugins as well as explicit user requested plugins
> I would like to propose that we allow automatic loading of certain
> plugins in addition to the explicit request for loading of plugins using
> the -fplugin= command line option.
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I think this is a bad idea on grounds of predictability.
I can understand this view and was initially reluctant to suggest the
auto-load feature for this same reason. However i can not see another
solution that can be used instead of this to achieve simple usability
for a
Brendon Costa wrote:
Hi all,
Firstly, do others think it would be helpful to summarise any of this
information on a wiki page, or will these emails be fine?
Yes, updating the wiki is always nice. Don't forget to put reference to
the mails on gcc@ using their archive URL, please!
In this ema
Brendon Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have control over my project: foo, however i do not have control over
> project blah. The problem is with badly defined build system that do NOT
> allow a user to pass flags they want to to the compiler. This will
> likely result in having to edit the
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Write a one-line shell script to use as your compiler (that's what I
> would do), or define an environment variable which tells gcc which
> plugins to load (e.g., GCC_PLUGINS=/a/file:/another/file).
>
>
Thanks for the input.
The one-liner shell script is a very good op
28 matches
Mail list logo
