On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:14, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While working on the tree-if-conv.c, I realized that the copy
> > of the contents of a non scalar variable are not correctly done.
> > The copy assignment triggers this error:
> >
> > e
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have implemented some vectorization features in my gcc port.
>
> In the generated code for this function I can see a scheduling problem:
>
> int xxx(int* __restrict__ a, int* __restrict__ b)
> {
> int __restrict__ i;
> for (i
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
> No. make_rename_temp should go away. Please.
I don't disagree, in principle (less code is always good). What is
wrong with it?
Diego.
Status
==
The GCC 4.5.0 release has been created and the branch is now open
for regression and documentation fixes again. The release will
be annonced once the upload to ftp.gnu.org finished and the
mirrors had a chance to catch up.
Quality Data
Priority # Change
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > No. make_rename_temp should go away. Please.
>
> I don't disagree, in principle (less code is always good). What is
> wrong with it?
It asks the SSA renamer to put your new variables int
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:31:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > > No. make_rename_temp should go away. Please.
> >
> > I don't disagree, in principle (less code is always go
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:31, Richard Guenther wrote:
> It asks the SSA renamer to put your new variables into SSA form.
> It's very simple to do that manually (at least if no PHIs are
> involved), so better do that.
But then we'd have lots of duplicate code fragments all doing the same
thing.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:31:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >
>> > > No. make_rename_temp should go away. Please.
This may be of interest to KDE developers. So adding them to the CC list.
Manuel.
On 5 April 2010 17:20, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>
> Hello all!
>
> I've put up a short diagnostics comparison between gcc, icc, and
> clang. It is my plan to update this with major revisions to individual
> compilers
Looking at the GCC viewvc, for example:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/branches/gcc-4_5-branch/
All the graphics and style information are missing, for me at any rate.
Inspecting my browser's transactions shows that it's getting an HTTP 403
(Forbidden) error for everything under http://gcc.gnu.o
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:24:35AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
>> FWIW, this sounds great and all... but I haven't actually seen any
>> comparisons of GCC vs. LLVM with DragonEgg. A search with Google
>> doesn't give me any results.
>>
>> Can you point out some postings where people a
On 04/14/2010 03:36 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:24:35AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
Hi Steven,
FWIW, this sounds great and all... but I haven't actually seen any
comparisons of GCC vs. LLVM with DragonEgg. A search with Google
doesn't give me any results.
Can you point o
Hi -
> Looking at the GCC viewvc, for example:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/branches/gcc-4_5-branch/
>
> All the graphics and style information are missing [...]
This was an unintended consequence of a viewvc rpm update.
It's fixed now.
- FChE
Hi Diego,
I agree with what you said. As a researcher I started using GCC instead of
Open64 in 2005
after I saw some steps towards modularity when pass manager has been introduced
since it
was really simplifying my life when working on iterative/collective
compilation. We have
been also trying
On 14/04/2010 14:59, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> Looking at the GCC viewvc, for example:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/branches/gcc-4_5-branch/
>>
>> All the graphics and style information are missing [...]
>
> This was an unintended consequence of a viewvc rpm update.
> It's fixed no
Hi all,
Dorit and I just got an anonymous ;) feedback about GCC vs LLVM following
our email about GROW'10 panel questions so we are just forwarding it here
(non-edited):
The reasons I have seen for using llvm/clang are basically two-fold: gcc is too
slow and too
complicated. (This is true even f
Hi,
You know, I'm getting pretty fed up with all this LLVM advocacy on a
GCC list. It's distracting and counter-productive.
It is not as if anything mentioned in this feedback is new and not
already known here on the GCC list. Repeating the long list of known
problems won't help GCC.
Can we now
Hi,
The current git mirror has some strange branches, which
don't exist in subversion. Those branches under
branches/*/* are either not mirrored or mirrored
with the first directory name. There is ix86 branch
in git. But in subversion, there are
atom/
avx/
gcc-4_1-branch/
gcc-4_2-branch/
gcc-4_3
On 14 April 2010 16:34, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You know, I'm getting pretty fed up with all this LLVM advocacy on a
> GCC list. It's distracting and counter-productive.
You cannot accuse Grigori/Dorit of Clang/LLVM advocacy. He is
retransmitting other people's feedback on perceived GCC
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 14 April 2010 16:34, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> You know, I'm getting pretty fed up with all this LLVM advocacy on a
>> GCC list. It's distracting and counter-productive.
>
> You cannot accuse Grigori/Dorit of Clang/LLVM ad
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> GCC is better than Clang/LLVM in many aspects but, like it or not, the
> opposite is also true, and we should learn from those aspects what we
> can, take what is good and drop what is bad. [1]
Agreed.
> Otherwise, as Ian said in anoth
Hi Manuel,
PS: On the other hand, I think that modifying GCC to suit the purposes
of dragonegg or LLVM is a *bad* idea.
my policy has been to only propose GCC patches that are useful to GCC itself.
Well, yesterday I broke this rule and posted a patch that was only of interest
to dragonegg, but
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I have a different fear:
> > that gcc will become increasing irrelevant".
>
> That's my impression, as well. It is true o
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I have a different fear:
>> > that gcc will become increasing ir
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:44, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I have a different fear:
>> > that gcc will become increasing irre
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:44, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>>> wrote:
>>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I hav
Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
To attract new developers, GCC needs to modernize its internal
structure. I have some thoughts on that, but progress has been slow,
due mostly to resource constraints.
Would you mind expanding--even just a l
> "Richard" == Richard Guenther writes:
Richard> I think we have made good progress with cleaning up the
Richard> frontend - backend interface.
FWIW, I can attest to this based on my experience on the incremental
branch.
Tom
Nathan Froyd writes:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> To attract new developers, GCC needs to modernize its internal
>> structure. I have some thoughts on that, but progress has been slow,
>> due mostly to resource constraints.
>
> Would you mind expanding--e
I feel in my bones that this will probably have been discussed
before ... but.
On my platform of choice when abort() is called it tries to
a) generate a coredump
b) formats and saves a cute crashdump to allow non-expert users to
forward failure info to application writers or the system vendo
Toon Moene wrote:
Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for GCC: There might be too many hurdles
to use GCC in academia.
This is probably true, however, the plugin ability of the just released
GCC 4.5 (or is it released tomorrow) helps probably significantly.
Academics (even people working in
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
Toon Moene wrote:
Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for GCC: There might be too many
hurdles to use GCC in academia.
This is probably true, however, the plugin ability of the just released
GCC 4.5 (or is it released tomorrow) helps probably significantly.
My p
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
Toon Moene wrote:
Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for GCC: There might be too many
hurdles to use GCC in academia.
This is probably true, however, the plugin ability of the just released
GCC 4.5 (or is it released tomorrow) helps probably significantly.
My p
IainS writes:
> So... I wonder what does abort() offer to the testsuite?
>
> that, for example, _exit(-(__LINE__)) ;
>
> doesn't?
The testsuite can be run on embedded systems over serial ports, where
is sometimes limited communication available. Each test has to give
one of two responses: su
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> My point is that academics can quite easily contribute to GPL
> software, but much harder obtain the necessary legal authorizations to
> transfer copyright to FSF. My intuition is that if (in a different
> past & a different world which did not happen) GCC was only
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:49:08PM +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> Toon Moene wrote:
>>
>> Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for GCC: There might be too many
>> hurdles to use GCC in academia.
>
> This is probably true, however, the plugin ability of the just released
> GCC 4.5 (or is it re
On 14 April 2010 22:46, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Basile Starynkevitch writes:
>
>> My point is that academics can quite easily contribute to GPL
>> software, but much harder obtain the necessary legal authorizations to
>> transfer copyright to FSF. My intuition is that if (in a different
>> past
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
My point is that academics can quite easily contribute to GPL
software, but much harder obtain the necessary legal authorizations to
transfer copyright to FSF. My intuition is that if (in a different
past & a different world which did not ha
38 matches
Mail list logo
