Re: performance regression with trunk's gengtype on ARM?

2011-09-07 Thread Mikael Pettersson
Mikael Pettersson writes: > Mikael Pettersson writes: > > I'm seeing what appears to be a recent massive performance regression > > with trunk's gengtype, as compiled and run in stage 2, on ARM V5TE. > > > > Right now 4.7-20110827's stage2 gengtype has been running for almost > > 10 hou

Re: I am work with lm32 and want to help with the lm32 target in gcc

2011-09-07 Thread Xiangfu Liu
On 09/04/2011 03:36 PM, Liu wrote: Please email the following information toass...@gnu.org , and we will send you the assignment form for your past and future changes. Please use your full legal name (in ASCII characters) as the subject line of the message. -

[pph] Trunk merge rev 178517

2011-09-07 Thread Diego Novillo
Tested on x86-64. This syncs up with the libcpp changes that Gab committed upstream recently. Diego.

Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
Some people asked me to do comparison of GCC-4.6 and LLVM-2.9 (both released this spring) as I did GCC-LLVM comparison in previous year. You can find it on http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec under 2011 GCC-LLVM comparison tab entry. This year the comparison is done on GCC 4.6 and LLVM

RFC: Improving support for known testsuite failures

2011-09-07 Thread Diego Novillo
One of the most vexing aspects of GCC development is dealing with failures in the various testsuites. In general, we are unable to keep failures down to zero. We tolerate some failures and tell people to "compare your build against a clean build". This forces developers to either double their te

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Duncan Sands
Hi Vladimir, thanks for doing this. The above said about compilation speed is true when GCC front-end is used for LLVM. It's not clear to me which GCC front-end you mean. There is llvm-gcc (based on gcc-4.2) and the dragonegg plugin (the 2.9 version works with gcc-4.5; the development version

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Xinliang David Li
Why is lto/whole program mode not used in LLVM for peak performance comparison? (of course, peak performance should really use FDO..) thanks, David On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >  Some people asked me to do comparison of  GCC-4.6 and LLVM-2.9 (both > released this spr

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 09/07/2011 11:55 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: Why is lto/whole program mode not used in LLVM for peak performance comparison? (of course, peak performance should really use FDO..) Thanks for the feedback. I did not manage to use LTO for LLVM as it described on http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTim

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 09/07/2011 11:28 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: Hi Vladimir, thanks for doing this. The above said about compilation speed is true when GCC front-end is used for LLVM. It's not clear to me which GCC front-end you mean. There is llvm-gcc (based on gcc-4.2) and the dragonegg plugin (the 2.9 versio

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Duncan Sands
On 07/09/11 17:55, Xinliang David Li wrote: Why is lto/whole program mode not used in LLVM for peak performance comparison? (of course, peak performance should really use FDO..) Assuming Vladimir was using the dragonegg plugin: presumably because it's a pain: you have to compile everything to a

Re: RFC: Improving support for known testsuite failures

2011-09-07 Thread Andreas Jaeger
On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 05:28:15 PM Diego Novillo wrote: > One of the most vexing aspects of GCC development is dealing with > failures in the various testsuites. In general, we are unable to > keep failures down to zero. We tolerate some failures and tell > people to "compare your build

Re: RFC: Improving support for known testsuite failures

2011-09-07 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Diego Novillo wrote: > One of the most vexing aspects of GCC development is dealing with > failures in the various testsuites. In general, we are unable to > keep failures down to zero. We tolerate some failures and tell > people to "compare your build against a clean build".

speed of simple loops on x86_64 using opencc vs gcc

2011-09-07 Thread Steve White
Hi, I run some tests of simple number-crunching loops whenever new architectures and compilers arise. These tests on recent Intel architectures show similar performance between gcc and icc compilers, at full optimization. However a recent test on x86_64 showed the open64 compiler outstripping gc

Questions Regarding DWARF

2011-09-07 Thread Kevin Polulak
Howdy, I'm a contributor to the Parrot project which is a virtual machine for dynamic languages including Perl 6. One of the problems we've been facing is that the bytecode does not contain a debug segment for preserving high-level information about the original source code. Therefore, I've begun

Re: [HELP] Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

2011-09-07 Thread Joe Buck
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:08:01PM -0700, Xiangfu Liu wrote: > Hi > > I got the pdf file. and I also sent out the papers by postal mail. > where is the pdf file I should send to? > > I have tried: >copyright-cl...@fsf.org ass...@gnu.org > > and I don't know Donald R. Robertson's email addres