- Forwarded message from amyl...@spamcop.net -
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 05:07:52 -0400
From: Joern Rennecke
Reply-To: Joern Rennecke
Subject: Re: Interest in integer auto-upcasting pass for
normalization and optimization?
To: Daniel Jacobowitz
Cc: Albert Cohen , Ri
Hi all:
Currently I am studying peephole optimization in gcc.
I defined a peephole using "define_peephole", but nothing happened.
It seems gcc does do the pattern match work in codes surrounded by
"HAVE_peephole",
but codes from "out-template" in that "define_peephole" are not
compiled into gc
It turns out there is a mistake in "out-template" of "define_peephole".
So, Sorry for disturbing!
--
Best Regards.
Would those that know, (or even those that are just generally vocal) be
willing to support a change rtl.texi for sign_extract (and by
implication, zero_extract) from
If @var{loc} is in memory, its mode must be a single-byte integer mode.
If @var{loc} is in a register, the mode to use is specified
Hello,
If I run the following program
---
#include
int n = 4, m = 2;
int main () {
for (;;) {
int i;
#pragma omp parallel num_threads(m)
{
int just_to_make_some_code_generated;
just_to_make_so
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> Would those that know, (or even those that are just generally vocal) be
> willing to support a change rtl.texi for sign_extract (and by
> implication, zero_extract) from
>
> If @var{loc} is in memory, its mode must be a single-byte integer mode.
> If @var{loc} is in a reg
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 10:52 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> Would those that know, (or even those that are just generally vocal) be
> willing to support a change rtl.texi for sign_extract (and by
> implication, zero_extract) from ...
> to a version that explicitly prohibits the use of a mode longer
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Dave Korn wrote on Wed, May 06, 2009 at 07:08:17PM CEST:
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> I don't yet see why you would need any kind of libtool hacking.
>> Because of this:
>>
>>> You also have to ensure that the sub libraries are self-contained, or at
>>> least their int
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Mark George
wrote:
> Please Send me info on GCC related to developing for the Apple iPhone new
> 3.0 OS. If I could get sample codes including simple code such as "Hello"
> world it would be great as I am relearning C/C++. Thank you for any support
> you can pro
Dave Korn wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Here's a starter list of non-core packages:
>>
>> gnu/CORBA
>
> By the time I got done annotating all those packages with "non-core" in
> makemake.tcl, it looked like the rule is "all packages of style 'bc' or
> 'bcheader'", is that correct? I'd rath
Iceman wrote:
Question. Am I doing it wrong? If yes, what are my best options to tackle this
problem?
If not, how can I implement the logic above in practical terms?
Thank you,
stdarg (varargs is obsolete by the way) can be done this way. There are
a number of examples you can look at. See
Dave Korn wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Dave Korn wrote on Wed, May 06, 2009 at 07:08:17PM CEST:
>>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I don't yet see why you would need any kind of libtool hacking.
>>> Because of this:
>>>
You also have to ensure that the sub libraries are self-contained,
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Did you try my list of things to lift out? I don't think there will be any
> interdependencies; the only problem might be that the reduction is not enough.
As my other post probably implied, I've just come back to this after a while
pursuing other things, so I haven't tr
Please Send me info on GCC related to developing for the Apple iPhone
new 3.0 OS. If I could get sample codes including simple code such as
"Hello" world it would be great as I am relearning C/C++. Thank you
for any support you can provide. Also, if there are any RSS feeds of
mailing gro
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Here's a starter list of non-core packages:
>
> gnu/CORBA
By the time I got done annotating all those packages with "non-core" in
makemake.tcl, it looked like the rule is "all packages of style 'bc' or
'bcheader'", is that correct? I'd rather infer the list of non-core p
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>
>> Would those that know, (or even those that are just generally vocal) be
>> willing to support a change rtl.texi for sign_extract (and by
>> implication, zero_extract) from
>>
>> If @var{loc} is in memory, its mode must be a single-byte integer
Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 10:52 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> Would those that know, (or even those that are just generally vocal) be
>> willing to support a change rtl.texi for sign_extract (and by
>> implication, zero_extract) from ...
>> to a version that explicitly prohibits t
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I guess the obvious counterexample would be a processor which supported
vector registers and supported bitfield operations on such registers. I
don't know of any such processors.
The Control Data Cyber 205 (roughly '75-'85).
You could write the inner loop of the Siev
I'm having some trouble building the Graphite support.
Using ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ppl-0.10.2.tar.gz :
* Unlike gcc, does not support a --with-gmp option.
+ Does support a --with-libgmpxx-prefix option.
* If GMP was not built with C++ support, fails at build time.
* If GMP wa
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>>
>>> Would those that know, (or even those that are just generally vocal) be
>>> willing to support a change rtl.texi for sign_extract (and by
>>> implication, zero_extract) from
>>>
>>> If @var{loc} is in memory, its m
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:25:50PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I feel reasonably confident that there will never be a processor which
> supports a bitfield instruction which operates on multiple hard register
> simultaneously. I don't think that is a case we need to worry about.
>
> (I will
Another Graphite build issue: it appears that I must not use
--disable-shared when I configure PPL. If I do use --disable-shared, I
get this:
/home/iant/gnu/ppl-0.10.2-install/lib/libppl_c.a(ppl_c_implementation_common.o):
In function `finalize':
/home/iant/gnu/ppl-0.10.2/interfaces/C/../../src/
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Another Graphite build issue: it appears that I must not use
> --disable-shared when I configure PPL. If I do use --disable-shared, I
> get this:
Yes this is known, see the thread starting at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Another Graphite build issue: it appears that I must not use
>> --disable-shared when I configure PPL. If I do use --disable-shared, I
>> get this:
>
> Yes this is known, see the t
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Another Graphite build issue: it appears that I must not use
> --disable-shared when I configure PPL. If I do use --disable-shared, I
> get this:
>
> /home/iant/gnu/ppl-0.10.2-install/lib/libppl_c.a(ppl_c_implementation_common.o):
> In f
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 13:07 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Another Graphite build issue: it appears that I must not use
> --disable-shared when I configure PPL. If I do use --disable-shared, I
> get this:
>
> /home/iant/gnu/ppl-0.10.2-install/lib/libppl_c.a(ppl_c_implementation_common.o):
> In
Hi!
I wanted to add finer (one per) register subclasses, so that I can more finely
control
the register placement inside the inline assembly.
These are the relevant definitions inside my include file:
enum reg_class
{
NO_REGS = 0,
GENERAL_REGS,
X_REGS,
R0_REG, R1_
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Jamie Prescott wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I wanted to add finer (one per) register subclasses, so that I can more
> finely control
> the register placement inside the inline assembly.
You don't need that.
You can just use asm("registername") on variables.
like so:
int f(i
Thank you Andrew, I wasn't aware of that. Will be going that way.
Just out of curiosity, was there something flawed in the way I took before?
Meaning, could have been done that way, but my code was wrong somewhere?
- Jamie
- Original Message
> From: Andrew Pinski
> To: Jamie Presco
Program and particulars below.
When line 27 is commented out, line 26 is output. When line 27 is not
commented, line 26 is not output except that if x.file contains a line feed the
null line line 26 & line 27 are output. If x.file does not contain a line feed,
only line 27 is output.
Does the
Subject says it all, I guess.
Paolo
On Mon, 11 May 2009 19:00:54 +0300 Mikolaj Golub wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If I run the following program
>
> ---
>
> #include
>
> int n = 4, m = 2;
>
> int main () {
> for (;;) {
> int i;
>
> #pragma omp parallel num_threads(m)
> {
>
Hi!
I have this little code that drives me crazy about the code generation (GCC
4.3.3).
extern double tle_mk_inf(int);
double tle_exp(double dval)
{
if (dval == 0.0)
return 0.0;
if (dval > 1)
return tle_mk_inf(1);
return -1.2;
}
If
33 matches
Mail list logo
