I added some further guidelines to the wiki from my experience this
year as a reviewer and from observing other reviewers' comments.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode.
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 28 April 2010 01:44, Diego Novillo wrote:
> This year GCC received 10 slots for Google Summer of Code.
> This year GCC received 10 slots for Google Summer of Code. The full
> list of the accepted projects is at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode.
A quick question: Why is this list not available on the GSoC site for GCC?
http://socghop.appspot.com/gsoc/org/show/google/gsoc2010/gcc
For other p
On 04/28/2010 03:47 AM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
You can get the RTL for these patterns when expanding stores like
a = (b < c);
In this case, GCC tries to avoid a conditional branch and (I suppose you are
on GCC<4.5) instead of cmp and b you go through cmp and
s. cmp does nothing but stashin
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> I have been playing with LTO. I notice that LTO doesn't work when
> object files are achived into static library files and the final
> binary is linked against them, although these object files are compiled
> with -flto and I can see
Manuel López-Ibáñez said: (by the date of Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:30:18 +0200)
> I added all this to the wiki for future reference:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#utf8_identifiers
> Feel free to improve it.
Thank you :) If I optimize this more, I will add it there.
> > Joseph S. Myers said: (
Thanks, I will check what I can do with collect2. LTO
seems to save 6-9% code size for applications I tested
and should be very useful for us.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 April 2010 10:33
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc:
On 4/28/10 04:47 , Janus Weil wrote:
> A quick question: Why is this list not available on the GSoC site for GCC?
>
> http://socghop.appspot.com/gsoc/org/show/google/gsoc2010/gcc
Thanks for pointing that out. I simply forgot to update that page. I
will update it shortly.
Diego.
Hi folks,
i'm one of the students who didn't get accepted this year, unfortunately. This
doesn't lessen my motivation to get involved, though. Thus i decided to roll up
my sleeves and start to work on my proposed project anyway as i think it'd be
just perfect for getting familiar with the code bas
Hi,
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Greg McGary wrote:
> (define_insn "*udivmodsi4_libcall"
> [(set (reg:SI 4)
> (udiv:SI (reg:SI 1)
> (reg:SI 2)))
>(set (reg:SI 1)
> (umod:SI (reg:SI 1)
> (reg:SI 2)))
>(clobber (reg:SI 2))
>(clobber (reg:SI 3))
>(clobber (reg:CC
I just tried -fwhole-program. It can achieve extra 3%-4% saving.
That is brilliant. Thanks.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Hubicka [mailto:hubi...@ucw.cz]
> Sent: 28 April 2010 13:59
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Subject: Re: LTO question
>
> > Not yet, I mistakenly thought -fwhole-p
Aina Niemetz writes:
> i'm one of the students who didn't get accepted this year, unfortunately. This
> doesn't lessen my motivation to get involved, though. Thus i decided to roll
> up
> my sleeves and start to work on my proposed project anyway as i think it'd be
> just perfect for getting fam
On 28/04/2010 10:44, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Thanks, I will check what I can do with collect2.
I was also planning to work on this, but won't have any objection if you get
there before me! We have an open PR about this, would you care to use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41376
to
Thanks. I am not very familiar with ELF/lto format etc. But
making LTO work for our port is definitely in high priority.
I shall see what I can achieve in next weeks.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Korn [mailto:dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: 28 April 2010 14:59
>
Hello,
I saw a bug in sched1 where it reorders two unspec_volatile
instructions. These instructions do port communications (from the same
port) and doing them in the wrong order is unacceptable. I digged a bit
deeper to see what is happening. Going into sched1, the relevant bit of
basic block
>> > Not yet, I mistakenly thought -fwhole-program is the same as -fwhopr
>> > and it is just for solving scaling issue of large program.(These two
>> > options do look similar :-). I shall try next.
>>
>> Yep, -fwhopr is not ideal name, but I guess there is not much
>> to do about it.
It is marke
On 4/28/10 10:26 , Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Not yet, I mistakenly thought -fwhole-program is the same as -fwhopr
and it is just for solving scaling issue of large program.(These two
options do look similar :-). I shall try next.
>>>
>>> Yep, -fwhopr is not ideal name, but I guess t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I am just following up on my earlier email to mpc-discuss to check if
some signatures can be made available for the mpc tarballs. Currently
it's not possible to install the latest gcc without the risk of using
unsigned code. Thanks.
- --
Brian
On 04/28/10 05:58, Michael Matz wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Greg McGary wrote:
(define_insn "*udivmodsi4_libcall"
[(set (reg:SI 4)
(udiv:SI (reg:SI 1)
(reg:SI 2)))
(set (reg:SI 1)
(umod:SI (reg:SI 1)
(reg:SI 2)))
(clobber (reg:SI 2))
(clobber (re
> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:41:47 +0200 (CEST)
> From: "Jonas Paulsson"
> I've been following the discussion a bit about contributing, and find
> myself here now even directly pointed at :-) As I mentioned, I am not very
> experienced with GCC, for one thing I have not studied other ports very
>
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#utf8_identifiers
How is a question that's been asked once a FAQ? :-) Seriously, that's
been a problem with the original FAQ, we just got too many things there
which would age and become outdated without being maintained
Gerald Pfeifer said: (by the date of Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:22:28 +0200 (CEST))
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#utf8_identifiers
>
> How is a question that's been asked once a FAQ? :-) Seriously, that's
> been a problem with the original FAQ, we
On 04/28/2010 01:44 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
This year GCC received 10 slots for Google Summer of Code.
[ This is probably documented on the Google site somewhere,
but I couldn't find it. ]
How is this division in "projects" determined ?
What makes GCC "good for" 10 slots ?
[ I was on the
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:34:43AM -0700, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 04/28/2010 01:44 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > This year GCC received 10 slots for Google Summer of Code.
>
> [ This is probably documented on the Google site somewhere,
>but I couldn't find it. ]
>
> How is this division in "
On 04/27/2010 08:41 PM, Jonas Paulsson wrote:
>> I've recently been bitten by the lost-widening-multiplication-
>> when-in-loop issue myself, and noted it for revisit Some Day.
>> Fixing that by other means made a whopping 27% improvement for
>> the application where I saw it: a hot loop doing a M
Toon Moene writes:
> On 04/28/2010 01:44 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> This year GCC received 10 slots for Google Summer of Code.
>
> [ This is probably documented on the Google site somewhere,
> but I couldn't find it. ]
>
> How is this division in "projects" determined ?
>
> What makes GCC "g
On 4/28/10 14:34 , Toon Moene wrote:
> What makes GCC "good for" 10 slots ?
It's based on two things: the number of projects that the organization
thinks it can handle (which each org determines) and available funding
from GSoC.
Each organization ranks all the project proposals and decides how m
> On 4/28/10 10:26 , Manuel López-Ibá?ez wrote:
> Not yet, I mistakenly thought -fwhole-program is the same as -fwhopr
> and it is just for solving scaling issue of large program.(These two
> options do look similar :-). I shall try next.
> >>>
> >>> Yep, -fwhopr is not ideal name, b
> > On 4/28/10 10:26 , Manuel López-Ibá?ez wrote:
> > Not yet, I mistakenly thought -fwhole-program is the same as -fwhopr
> > and it is just for solving scaling issue of large program.(These two
> > options do look similar :-). I shall try next.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yep, -fwhopr is not i
It feels good to know that the widening mults issue has been resolved as
it was a bit of a disapointment I noted the erratic behaviour with GCC
4.4.1. Perhaps you would care to comment on what to expect as a user now,
then?
Another issue that gave me porting problems was the SIMD memory accesses,
29 matches
Mail list logo
