On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:54, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 18:51, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Janne Blomqvist wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 19:53, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Relative to v2, I've added libgo/ to the list of exempt directories and
>>>
Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:54, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 18:51, Jim Meyering wrote:
Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 19:53, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Relative to v2, I've added libgo/ to the list
Dear all,
I have question how one can and should tell the middle end about
asynchonous/single-sided memory access; the goal is to produce fast but
race-free code. All the following is about Fortran 2003 (asynchronous)
and Fortran 2008 (coarrays), but the problem itself should occur with
all(?
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Camo Johnson wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm currently writing a gcc 4.4.5 backend for an 18 bit architecture.
> I have a c-project with some thousand lines of code. Without optimizations it
> compiles. But with -O1 and -O2 I encounter a problem in the induction
> vari
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:02, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have question how one can and should tell the middle end about
> asynchonous/single-sided memory access; the goal is to produce fast but
> race-free code. All the following is about Fortran 2003 (asynchronous) and
> Fortran 2008
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Janne Blomqvist
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:02, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have question how one can and should tell the middle end about
>> asynchonous/single-sided memory access; the goal is to produce fast but
>> race-free code. All the
On Apr 15 2011, Tobias Burnus wrote:
(Frankly, I am not 100% sure about the exact semantics of ASYNCHRONOUS;
I think might be implemented by preventing all code movements which
involve swapping an ASYNCHRONOUS variable with a function call, which is
not pure. Otherwise, in terms of the variab
On 04/15/2011 11:52 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
Q1: Is __sync_synchronize() sufficient?
I don't think this is correct. __sync_synchronize() just issues a
hardware memory fence instruction.That is, it prevents loads and
stores from moving past the fence *on the processor that executes the
fence ins
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 04/15/2011 11:52 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>>
>> Q1: Is __sync_synchronize() sufficient?
>> I don't think this is correct. __sync_synchronize() just issues a
>> hardware memory fence instruction.That is, it prevents loads and
>> stores fr
> "Janne" == Janne Blomqvist writes:
Jim> Can someone add me to the gcc group? That would help.
Jim> I already have ssh access to sourceware.org.
Janne> I'm not sure if I'm considered to be well-established
Janne> enough, so could someone help Jim out here, please?
I added Jim to the gcc g
Please contact us before 22/Apr to confirm your assistance. We need
to have an idea of how many people to expect for planning.
Thanks. Diego.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Diego Novillo
Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 16:15
Subject: GCC Gathering in London 17/Jun to 19/Jun 2011
To:
Hello All,
I am announcing the release candidate #3 of the MELT plugin (v0.7) replacing
the rc2 of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-04/msg00220.html
You can download a gzipped tar source ball of MELT 0.7 as plugin for GCC 4.6
from http://gcc-melt.org/melt-0.7rc3-plugin-for-gcc-4.6.tgz
a gzip-ed ta
On Apr 15 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Q2: Can this be optimized in some way?
For simple types you could use atomic instructions for the modification
itself instead of two SYNC ALL calls.
Well, even with atomic you need to have a barri
Hi,
I am running into trouble with a volatile memory move on my port of
GCC4.4.4. The code is:
int main(void)
{
register volatile float sc = 1E35;
if(sc < 1.5e35)
return 1;
return 0;
}
The very first part of this code is being expanded as:
;; sc ={v} 1.00040918478759629
> I added Jim to the gcc group.
Thanks, Tom.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:04, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 04/15/2011 11:52 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>>
>> Q1: Is __sync_synchronize() sufficient?
>> I don't think this is correct. __sync_synchronize() just issues a
>> hardware memory fence instruction.That is, it prevents loads and
>> stores from
On Apr 15 2011, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
Indeed, I assumed you were discussing how to implement CAF via shared
memory. If we use MPI, surely the implementation of MPI_Barrier should
itself issue any necessary memory fences (if it uses shared memory),
so I don't think __sync_synchronize() would b
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 22:19, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> On Apr 15 2011, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, I assumed you were discussing how to implement CAF via shared
>> memory. If we use MPI, surely the implementation of MPI_Barrier should
>> itself issue any necessary memory fences (if it
I am using gcc with the following version info on 64-bit Ubunut 10.10.
=
g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu5) 4.4.5
Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
---
GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.51-system.20100908
Copyright 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
==
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20110415 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20110415/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Alex Chen writes:
> The srtange thing is that those missing libraries are in
> /usr/local/lib and only some libraries are flagged as 'not found'
> while some libraries are fine.
This question is not appropriate for the mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
which is for gcc developers. It would be appro
21 matches
Mail list logo
