Hi,
With PowerPC GCC tool chain v4.6.1 (for e500mc), i have a test case
which shows regression at -O3 with the patch [IRA-based register
pressure calculation for RTL loop invariant motion] listed below:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01889.html
Reduced Test Case:
/*
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> On 11 December 2011 22:22, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> Consequently, I propose to deprecate them with a warning, as clang already
>> does.
>> So that you get a warning for the following code:
>>
>> struct A { int i; };
>> struct B : A
>> {
>> A::i; // <- warning here
>>
On 12 December 2011 09:18, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jonathan Wakely writes:
>
>> On 11 December 2011 22:22, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>>
>>> Consequently, I propose to deprecate them with a warning, as clang already
>>> does.
>>> So that you get a warning for the following code:
>>>
>>> struct A { int
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Bringing this over from gcc-patches@
>
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:50:37PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>
>>> No, not OK.
>>>
>>> This leads to unacceptable code for devices that cannot shift easily
>>> like
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> On 12 December 2011 09:18, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Jonathan Wakely writes:
>>
>>> On 11 December 2011 22:22, Fabien Chêne wrote:
Consequently, I propose to deprecate them with a warning, as clang already
does.
So that you get a warning for the foll
On 12 December 2011 10:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jonathan Wakely writes:
>
>> On 12 December 2011 09:18, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Jonathan Wakely writes:
>>>
On 11 December 2011 22:22, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>
> Consequently, I propose to deprecate them with a warning, as clang
Everything seems good when I use a union instead of "*((int *)(&af))".
But I think that "*((int *)(&af))" is a valid syntax to get the integer
representation of my floating point value (in my test case 0x3F80 for 1.0f
in IEEE-754). It may be target dependant but I think it should work on tar
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:48 PM, BELBACHIR Selim
wrote:
> Everything seems good when I use a union instead of "*((int *)(&af))".
>
> But I think that "*((int *)(&af))" is a valid syntax to get the integer
> representation of my floating point value (in my test case 0x3F80 for
> 1.0f in IEEE-
On 12/12/11 14:48, BELBACHIR Selim wrote:
> Everything seems good when I use a union instead of "*((int *)(&af))".
This casting variant rings a bell here, especially when it breaks with
optimization but works as union:
Does it make a difference when you compile with "-fno-strict-aliasing" ?
/ha
On 12/12/2011 01:48 PM, BELBACHIR Selim wrote:
> Everything seems good when I use a union instead of "*((int *)(&af))".
>
> But I think that "*((int *)(&af))" is a valid syntax to get the
> integer representation of my floating point value (in my test case
> 0x3F80 for 1.0f in IEEE-754). It ma
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
> And with ‘-O3’ and above, we cannot switch OFF the flag
> ‘-fira-loop-pressure’, because it has been explicitly overridden in
> the PPC backend target files.
>
> 1) Is it possible to update the heuristic to allow this optimization.
> 2) If
Trying to build gcc trunk with java on current cygwin (with snapshot
20111211, I get a strange Boehm Garbage Collector problem, first
manifesting itself like this:
dlltool -d /usr/local/src/trunk/gcc/libjava/libgcj-noncore-dummy.def
-l libgcj-noncore-dummy.dll.a --dllname cyggcj-noncore-`expr \`gr
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> At the last developer's meeting in London, Joseph and I agreed to work
> on an architectural definition for GCC. We now have something that,
> while incomplete, should be enough to discuss.
>
> Our main intent is to define new conventions and
On 12 December 2011 21:13, Quentin Neill wrote:
>
> I think an improvement could be made in automated downloading of GCC
> and dependencies (I looked in the wiki and the document and didn't see
> this, but it is worth mentioning).
>
> Any script (and new users as well) must understand which depende
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 December 2011 21:13, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>
>> I think an improvement could be made in automated downloading of GCC
>> and dependencies (I looked in the wiki and the document and didn't see
>> this, but it is worth mentioning).
>>
>>
On 12 December 2011 21:54, Quentin Neill wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 12 December 2011 21:13, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>>
>>> I think an improvement could be made in automated downloading of GCC
>>> and dependencies (I looked in the wiki and the document a
Andrew Pinski schrieb:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
If there was a canonical representation of these operations, a backend
wouldn't even notice if the tree passes chose a different, more convenient
canonicalization.
The problem is not just the canonicalization but
On 12/12/2011 20:20, Christian Joensson wrote:
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: loaded
> class gnu.classpath.tools.jar.messages was in fact named
> gnu.classpath.tools.jar.Messages
I think I discovered recently that you absolutely have to have
obcaseinsensitive=0 to
18 matches
Mail list logo
