On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have been measuring compile times for Chromium using different
> versions of GCC and Clang, and I thought it might be a good idea to
> share the results in case someone else finds them interesting.
>
> Two measurements were co
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 09:43, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>> These are the average compile times for compiling a file in the set of
>> the 10 files that are slowest (as when compiled with gcc 4.4 using
>> -O2) to compile:
>>
>> gcc 4.4 gcc 4.6 gcc 4.7 clang 3.0 clang 3.1
>> -fs-o -O0
Hi,
Consider some project, consisting of files: a.c, b.c, d.c and e.c
Compiler is gcc 4.6.2
Files a.c and b.c are performance bottlenecks and requires heavy
cross-module inline, so must be compiled with -flto option
Files d.c and e.c is preffered to be compiled with lto option too, but
they are
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Consider some project, consisting of files: a.c, b.c, d.c and e.c
>
> Compiler is gcc 4.6.2
>
> Files a.c and b.c are performance bottlenecks and requires heavy
> cross-module inline, so must be compiled with -flto option
> Fil
Hi,
That is good solution, thanks.
But what if I want to compile e.o and d.o with cross-module inlining
(but also with fixed regs and so, without lto, as you are suggesting)?
On gcc-4.3.3, I had "combine" option for such cases. Is it completely
impossible in gcc 4.6.2?
---
With best regards, Kon
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That is good solution, thanks.
>
> But what if I want to compile e.o and d.o with cross-module inlining
> (but also with fixed regs and so, without lto, as you are suggesting)?
> On gcc-4.3.3, I had "combine" option for such ca
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> It's probably to have the SET in some canonical form - the resulting
I am wondering how the canonical form is maintained, since according
to the paper:
For an antileader set, it does not matter which expression represents
a value, as long a
Hi,
Thanks so much, this exactly solves issue. I didn't know about this
option, it seems very useful in such cases.
---
With best regards, Konstantin
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> That is go
It seems to be impossible to define an inline member function externally with
GCC. When attempting to do so, the linker returns an error.
Here is how I attempted to do it:
Header file:
-
class C
{
public:
void foo();
};
CPP file:
-
inline void C::foo()
{
[..
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> It's probably to have the SET in some canonical form - the resulting
> I am wondering how the canonical form is maintained, since according
> to the paper:
> For an antileader set, it
Let's do an update of the known reported bugs and for trans-mem/libitm.
Thanks to everybody who helped in reporting, fixing, improving and
reviewing trans-mem things.
*Known bugs and eventually fixed in 4.7 or 4.8*
trans-mem:
* Bug 52141 - [trans-mem] ICE due to asm statement in
trans-mem.c:e
* Bug 51752 - trans-mem: publication safety violated
I'm working on this.
This mailing list is for discussing development *of* gcc, not help
using it. Your question would be appropriate on the
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org list, please take any follow-up there, thanks.
On 7 February 2012 13:57, Alexandre Almeida wrote:
>
> It seems to be impossible to define an inline member fun
Richard Guenther writes:
>
> You then can do
>
> gcc $OPTIONS -flto a.c -o a.o
> gcc $OPTIONS -flto b.c -o b.o
> gcc $OPTIONS -ffixed-r9 -ffixed-r10 -flto d.c -o d.o
> gcc $OPTIONS -ffixed-r9 -ffixed-r10 -flto e.c -o e.o
> gcc $OPTIONS -flto a.o b.o -o non-fixed-reg-part.o -r -nostdlib
> gcc
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>>
>> You then can do
>>
>> gcc $OPTIONS -flto a.c -o a.o
>> gcc $OPTIONS -flto b.c -o b.o
>> gcc $OPTIONS -ffixed-r9 -ffixed-r10 -flto d.c -o d.o
>> gcc $OPTIONS -ffixed-r9 -ffixed-r10 -flto e.c -o e.o
>> gcc $OPTI
Hi,
I'm investigating the following ICE building the Blackfin compiler from trunk:
/home/shender/gnu-upstream/toolchain/gcc-4.7/libgfortran/generated/eoshift1_4.c:
In function ÃâËeoshift1Ãââ:
/home/shender/gnu-upstream/toolchain/gcc-4.7/libgfortran/generated/eoshift1_4.c:250:1:
error: unable to f
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
> Can someone please tell me the entry point function (and stage) where the
> template functions are separated for different data types?
I don't understand your question, but I can tell you that all the C++
template support is in the C++ frontend. It's in the file
Mads Jensen writes:
> I realized there were a few errors in the submitted patch, so I'm
> resubmitting it.
Thanks. Translation files are handled by the GNU Translation Project.
Changes to the translations should go through them, to avoid future
confusion.
http://translationproject.org/html/wel
Since this came up the other day in the "post-reload compare
optimization pass" discussion, I thought better comment on
this old post in case someone is tempted to do something...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Frankly, I'd prefer to flip the default. It does seem to make the most
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20120207 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20120207/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
20 matches
Mail list logo
