Paolo Carlini schrieb:
> Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> Ok, thanks. Then, I think I'll implement this, for now. Seems in any
>> case conservative to have a link type test identical to the one used in
>> libgomp and libgfortran and a fall back to the .s file (as currently used).
>>
> I committed the bel
Xinliang David Li writes:
>
> If the idea is generally accepted, I will prepare a series of patches
> and submit them to gcc trunk.
I was reading your wiki page. Interesting idea.
One aspect that wasn't clear to me on reading it was how different
compiler arguments for different files are handl
This is on
Windows XP Pro/SP3 cygwin Intel Core2 Duo t9...@2.80ghz system with packages:
binutils 20080624-2 2.18.50.20080625
bison2.3-1 2.3
cloog-ppl0.15.3-1
cygwin 1.7.0-46
dejagnu 20021217-2 1.4.2.x
expect
2009/5/5 Pramod Joisha :
>
>
> Presently, the -combine option works only for C sources. I was wondering
> whether there are technical reasons for not supporting it for C++ sources. If
> not, are there plans for providing this support in the near future?
As LTO will obsolete -combine I do not see
Christian Joensson wrote:
> ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/msformat-c.c:39: error: enum conversion in
> initialization is invalid in C++
> Any hints on what's going on and how to cure the issue?
Yep: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00125.html (and thread).
cheers,
DaveK
2009/5/5 Dave Korn :
> Christian Joensson wrote:
>
>> ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/msformat-c.c:39: error: enum conversion in
>> initialization is invalid in C++
>
>> Any hints on what's going on and how to cure the issue?
>
> Yep: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00125.html (and thread).
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Hi, I am going to create a gcc branch for the functionality of
> lightweight IPO. The description of the project and current status can
> be found in http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LightweightIpo. Some highlights:
>
> 1) If you already use FDO i
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Pramod Joisha :
> >
> >
> > Presently, the -combine option works only for C sources. I was
> > wondering whether there are technical reasons for not supporting it
> > for C++ sources. If not, are there plans for providing this support in
>
I have the following code for implementing a new warning (PR16302). It
works as intended but I feel there is some duplication with the code
in fold_range_test (fold_const.c). However, fold_range_test cannot
handle arguments that contain C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR, hence the explicit
testing I added below.
Hi,all,
I have recently porting the instruction scheduler to the new arch of
our lab. But something seems strange.
Our pipeline( single issue) will stall for 1 cycle if the
arithmetic/logic instruction follows by a load, and for 2 cycles if a
store/jump/call instruction follows. I wrote my schedule
Pramod Joisha writes:
> Presently, the -combine option works only for C sources. I was
> wondering whether there are technical reasons for not supporting it
> for C++ sources. If not, are there plans for providing this support in
> the near future?
As a historical note, Geoff Keating, who implem
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> From: "Mark Mitchell"
>
> > That is not a decision, however, on whether using MPC is or is not a
> > good idea. There have been objections raised to MPC, on the grounds
> > that it may not build on all host systems, or that the costs it brings
> > in
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> We're in Stage 1, and in Stage 1 big changes happen -- and then there is
> naturally some instability. We clearly have some instability at
> present, so we need to slow down until that's resolved.
It looks like we have successfully resolved many of the problems. I
still s
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Hi all, I plan to merge the cond-optab branch next Friday morning
> European time. No commit should be made to trunk from Friday 6:00 AM
> GMT to 12:00 AM GMT (or probably earlier).
Paolo, I've asked that there be no "major" check-ins between now and
then in order to give
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Paolo Carlini schrieb:
>
>> Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, thanks. Then, I think I'll implement this, for now. Seems in any
>>> case conservative to have a link type test identical to the one used in
>>> libgomp and libgfortran and a fall back to the .s file (as cur
Status
==
The trunk is in Stage 1. As previously stated, we expect that Stage 1
will last through at least July.
Clearly, we have had a significant jump in P1 issues due to the major
changes made to the compiler middle-end. Let's drive that number
down -- otherwise it will be hard for othe
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> I didn't hear back from anyone opposing (or supporting!) MPC. Does that
> mean it's no longer controversial? Hopefully I've addressed the
> outstanding issues raised.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-04/msg00741.html
I personally think relying on MPC is a reasonable c
Andi,
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Xinliang David Li writes:
>>
>> If the idea is generally accepted, I will prepare a series of patches
>> and submit them to gcc trunk.
>
> I was reading your wiki page. Interesting idea.
>
> One aspect that wasn't clear to me on reading i
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:25:13AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Andi,
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Xinliang David Li writes:
> >>
> >> If the idea is generally accepted, I will prepare a series of patches
> >> and submit them to gcc trunk.
> >
> > I was reading
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Hi, I am going to create a gcc branch for the functionality of
>> lightweight IPO. The description of the project and current status can
>> be found in http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Lig
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:25:13AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Andi,
>>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> > Xinliang David Li writes:
>> >>
>> >> If the idea is generally accepted, I will prepare a series of patche
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20090505 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20090505/
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/branches
He Xiao wrote:
When I finished the scheduler, I got a strange phenomenon:
The CPI is reduced, but the total execution cycles are dramatically increased.
If this is a machine with a small number of registers, then try
disabling the first instruction scheduling pass that runs before
register al
Status
==
GCC 4.4.0 was released into the wild approximately two weeks ago, and
so far few serious defects have been reported. That's great! There
are, however, a copule of open P1s and a bevy of P2s -- most of which
also apply to 4.5. So, there are good opportunities to help both 4.4
and
Is there an opaque vector type? Something that can be assigned
to/from other vector types of the same size, without warning?
I'm working on a coprocessor which has separate SIMD arithmetic
operations for each data size, but only one SIMD logical operation for
all sizes. I.e. there's four ADD in
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:04 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> I'm working on a coprocessor which has separate SIMD arithmetic
> operations for each data size, but only one SIMD logical operation for
> all sizes. I.e. there's four ADD insns (V8QI, V4HI, etc) , but only
> one AND insn. I'd like to use an o
Andrew Pinski writes:
> You could do what the rs6000 back-end does for the altivec builtins
> and resolve them while the parser is run (the SPU back-end does the
> same thing too). Yes there are opaque vector types, you just use
> build_opaque_vector_type instead of build_vector_type.
Thanks, I
27 matches
Mail list logo
