Tom de Vries writes:
> I'm interested in implementing (some of) the new __atomic builtins using the
> xlr/xlp atomic instructions ldadd and swap.
>
> Do you perhaps have work in progress there?
'Fraid not. I don't have any hardware to test it on (or at least
that's my excuse). Thanks for checki
Hi,
I am having an RTL problem trying to make a function call from a
COND_EXEC rtx. The reload pass has been called, and very simply I
want to compare on an 64bit x86 %rdx with a specific integer value,
and if that value is true, my function call executes. I can call the
function fine outside of
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Matt Davis wrote:
> Hi,
> I am having an RTL problem trying to make a function call from a
> COND_EXEC rtx. The reload pass has been called, and very simply I
> want to compare on an 64bit x86 %rdx with a specific integer value,
> and if that value is true, my function call
Hi!
I'm currently looking into possibilities to improve GCC for
static-code-analysis features.
Some weeks ago I proposed re-introducing -Wunreachable-code for finding dead
code:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00385.html
(The warning was removed in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pat
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:15:40 +0100
"sa...@hederstierna.com" wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm currently looking into possibilities to improve GCC for
> static-code-analysis features.
> Some weeks ago I proposed re-introducing -Wunreachable-code for finding dead
> code:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> AIUI, the outcome of PR38964 was that we can't use TBAA for testing an
> anti_dependence between a load X and store Y because Y might be defining
> a new object in the same space as the object that was being read by X.
> But it looks like
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> fixed_scalar_and_varying_struct_p passes an _address_ rather than a MEM.
>> So in these cases fixed_scalar_and_varying_struct_p effectively becomes
>> a no-op on targets that don't allow MEMs in addresses and takes on
>> suspicious semantics
Hello,
I've found that:
class Prv {
private:
union
{
union
{
unsigned int Bits;
};
};
};
unsigned int getBits(Prv *P) {
return P->Bits;
}
doesn't generate any error. Is it a bug?
--
Jakub Staszak
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 3:15 PM, sa...@hederstierna.com
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm currently looking into possibilities to improve GCC for
> static-code-analysis features.
> Some weeks ago I proposed re-introducing -Wunreachable-code for finding dead
> code:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011
On 30 December 2011 15:25, Jakub Staszak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've found that:
>
> class Prv {
> private:
> union
> {
> union
> {
> unsigned int Bits;
> };
> };
> };
>
> unsigned int getBits(Prv *P) {
> return P->Bits;
> }
>
> doesn't generate any error. Is it a bug?
Yes, I think
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 04:24:31PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> AIUI, the outcome of PR38964 was that we can't use TBAA for testing an
> anti_dependence between a load X and store Y because Y might be defining
> a new object in the same space as the object that was being read by X.
> But it lo
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:12:19 -0800
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Any gcc developer who feels that this proposal is a good idea, please
> chime in here.
>
> I personally do not feel it is worth the effort. It's easy to use a
> more powerful macro processor, such as m4, to generate your C code.
I a
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Matt Davis wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I am having an RTL problem trying to make a function call from a
>> COND_EXEC rtx. The reload pass has been called, and very simply I
>> want to compare on an 64bit x86 %rdx with a
13 matches
Mail list logo
