Burviigaas masieriites Gunta, Saulcerite un Evija suuta Tev kveelas buchas
Mileetaaju sveetkos!
Protams, beibes gaida Tevi uz pikantu izklaidi!
http://www.kapec-tev-neatnakt.info : spied uz hiperlinka un uzzini vairaak!
Slepenais vaards atlaidei: Saulcerite
On 10 February 2011 05:18, Quentin Neill wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 9 February 2011 08:34, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>>>
>>> For example x264 defines CFLAGS="-O4 -ffast-math $CFLAGS", and so
>>> building this benchmark with CFLAGS="-O2" would have no effect.
>
Sexy masieriites Patricija, Ance un Karina nosuuta Tev neparastus sveicienus
14. februarii (nu tak Valentiindiena!)
Protams, vinas gaida Tevi pie seviim!
http://www.kapec-tev-neatnakt.info te ir muusu bildiites!
Tava privata masiere, Ance
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to port a private target in GCC 4.5.1. Following are the
> properties of the target
>
> #define BITS_PER_UNIT 32
> #define BITS_PER_WORD 32
> #define UNITS_PER_WORD 1
>
>
> #define CHAR_TYPE_SIZE
On 09/02/11 15:57, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
For your processor it sounds like you should make a constant more
expensive than a register for an outer code of SET. You're right that
the cost should really depend on the destination of the set but
unfortunately I don't know if you will see that.
I a
On 10 February 2011 15:57, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am trying to port a private target in GCC 4.5.1. Following are the
>> properties of the target
>>
>> #define BITS_PER_UNIT 32
>> #define BITS_PER_WORD 32
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> On 10 February 2011 15:57, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am trying to port a private target in GCC 4.5.1. Following are the
>>> properties of the target
>>>
>>> #d
On 10 February 2011 17:16, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
>> On 10 February 2011 15:57, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to port a private target in GCC 4.5.
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Tom Tromey :
>
>>> "Basile" == Basile Starynkevitch writes:
>>
>> Basile> So I need to understand who is writing the 0x101 in that field.
>
>
>> One thing to watch out for is that the memory can be recycled. I've
>> been very confused whenever I've forgotten
On 09/02/11 15:57, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
For your processor it sounds like you should make a constant more
expensive than a register for an outer code of SET. You're right that
the cost should really depend on the destination of the set but
unfortunately I don't know if you will see that.
I
Hi,
I noticed that vector permutation gets more use in GCC
4.6, which is great. It is used to handle negative step
by reversing vector elements now.
However, after reading the related code, I understood
that it only works when the # of vector elements is
the same as that of mask vector in the fo
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> On 09/02/11 15:57, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> For your processor it sounds like you should make a constant more
>> expensive than a register for an outer code of SET. You're right that
>> the cost should really depend on the destination of the set but
>> unfortunatel
On 10/02/11 16:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Bother. I've encountered that problem before and I think I used a
sledgehammer (a local patch). It's definitely a bug that gcse doesn't
consider costs.
At least I am happy that you confirm this. :) Have you reported a bug
for this before?
2011/2/8 Hans-Peter Nilsson :
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
>> Thus I propose to separate the two. To avoid introducing another
>> --enable-checking option, let's move the annotations to the "misc"
>> checking and also enable "misc" too if "valgrind" is requested. Both
>> these op
Hi,
"Bingfeng Mei" wrote on 10/02/2011 05:35:45 PM:
>
> Hi,
> I noticed that vector permutation gets more use in GCC
> 4.6, which is great. It is used to handle negative step
> by reversing vector elements now.
>
> However, after reading the related code, I understood
> that it only works when t
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> On 10/02/11 16:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Bother. I've encountered that problem before and I think I used a
>> sledgehammer (a local patch). It's definitely a bug that gcse doesn't
>> consider costs.
>>
>
> At least I am happy that you confirm this. :) Have you
On 02/09/2011 07:07 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Paulo J. Matos" writes:
>
>> But then this is combined by cse into:
>>
>> (set (mem/s:QI (reg:QI 41)) (const_int 0))
>>
>> and bammm, same problem. No loop hoisting. What's the best way to
>> handle this? Any suggestions?
>
> You need to set TAR
On 02/10/2011 06:32 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> For the sake of archiving these tricks how do you postpone garbage
> collection in practise?
Set --param ggc-min-heapsize to a very large value.
r~
On 02/09/2011 03:39 PM, Vincent Rivière wrote:
> The file gcc/config/m68k/math-68881.h is distributed with GCC. It is
> about inlining the libm functions using FPU instructions on m68k
> targets.
>
> But -ffast-math seems to serve the same purpose, even better.
>
> My question: Is math-68881.h st
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:32:39 +0100
Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Joern Rennecke writes:
>
> > Quoting Tom Tromey :
> >
> >>> "Basile" == Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> >>
> >> Basile> So I need to understand who is writing the 0x101 in that field.
> >
> >
> >> One thing to watch out for is that
On 02/09/2011 08:55 AM, Anitha Boyapati wrote:
> Direct-conditional branch
>
>> (jump_insn 9 8 34 3 gt.c:4 (set (pc)
>> (if_then_else (gt:CC (cc0)
>> (const_int 0 [0x0]))
>> (label_ref 12)
>> (pc))) -1 (nil))
>
> Reverse-conditional Branch
>
>> (ju
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 02/10/2011 06:32 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> For the sake of archiving these tricks how do you postpone garbage
>> collection in practise?
>
> Set --param ggc-min-heapsize to a very large value.
That wouldn't work for pieces of code that explicitly call
ggc_collec
On 02/10/2011 10:58 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> Set --param ggc-min-heapsize to a very large value.
>
> That wouldn't work for pieces of code that explicitly call
> ggc_collect, would it?
>
Sure it does. The first thing that ggc_collect does is
determine if enough work has been done to warrant
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110210 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110210/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 11 February 2011 00:20, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/09/2011 08:55 AM, Anitha Boyapati wrote:
>> Reverse-conditional Branch
>>
>>> (jump_insn 9 8 34 3 gt.c:4 (set (pc)
>>> (if_then_else (gt:CC (cc0)
>>> (const_int 0 [0x0]))
>>> (pc))) -1 (nil))
>>>
Am I doing something wrong or there's a problem with libgcc?
I'm compiling code for an ARM based micro. I'm using gcc 4.5.1,
configured for arm-eabi-none, C compiler only. The target is a
standalone embedded device, no OS, nothing, not even a C library, just
bare metal. The compiler (and linker, g
On 10/02/11 17:59, Richard Henderson wrote:
If constants are never valid as the source of a store,
They are but it really depends to which registers they are going to. If
the destination belongs to a certain class it is ok, for all the others
it is not. It is tricky even to define costs when
On 10/02/11 16:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Bother. I've encountered that problem before and I think I used a
sledgehammer (a local patch). It's definitely a bug that gcse doesn't
consider costs.
I think I might try also patching my local gcc. I guess the trick is to
check for the cost of th
28 matches
Mail list logo
