Re: get email addr from username (was: Ad-hoc notes from the "pending patches" BOF at the GNU tools cauldron.)

2012-07-17 Thread Richard Guenther
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Jul 16, 2012 5:28 PM, "Dimitrios Apostolou" wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I'm trying to write a small script that shows emails addresses for all >> committers of last year, for all files a patch touches. In the commit logs >> however all c

GCC optimization report

2012-07-17 Thread Erotavlas_turbo
Hi all, I would like to know if GCC provides an option to get a detailed report on the optimization actually performed by the compiler. For example with the Intel C compiler it is possible using the -opt-report. I don't want to look at the assembly file and figure out the optimization. Thank yo

Re: GCC optimization report

2012-07-17 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM, wrote: > Hi all, > I would like to know if GCC provides an option to get a detailed report on > the optimization actually performed by the compiler. For example with the > Intel C compiler it is possible using the -opt-report. I don't want to look > at the ass

Re: GNU MPC 1.0 release candidate - Second call for help

2012-07-17 Thread Rainer Orth
Steven Bosscher writes: >> sparc-sun-solaris2.10, > > Perhaps Rainer Orth can help? I see this has already been dealt with while I was away. Rainer -- - Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld Univers

Re: GCC optimization report

2012-07-17 Thread Tim Prince
On 7/17/2012 7:23 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM, wrote: Hi all, I would like to know if GCC provides an option to get a detailed report on the optimization actually performed by the compiler. For example with the Intel C compiler it is possible using the -opt-re

PR53914, rs6000 constraints and reload queries

2012-07-17 Thread Alan Modra
This email is a result of delving into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837630 an ICE when building powerpc-linux gcc 4.7.1 with -fprofile-generate. I'm asking for corrections/advice/guidance from anyone with a good working knowledge of reload! The ICE is combine.c:5318:1: error: insn

selective scheduler failure

2012-07-17 Thread Alex Turjan
Hi, I get an assert failure during a run of the selective scheduler. The problem is due to the implementation of maybe_tidy_empty_bb. Inside of it I see the following piece of code: /* If it is possible - merge BB with its predecessor. */ if (can_merge_blocks_p (bb->prev_bb, bb)) sel_merge_blocks

Re: selective scheduler failure

2012-07-17 Thread Alexander Monakov
> As a consequence inside sel_remove_empty_bb I hit on the following assert: > gcc_assert (in_current_region_p (merge_bb)); Sounds like your GCC tree does not have Andrey's fix for PR 52250 (SVN revision 184975). Alexander

Re: PR53914, rs6000 constraints and reload queries

2012-07-17 Thread Ulrich Weigand
Alan Modra wrote: > However, the "o" constraint rejects any offset >= 0x7ff4 due to > rs6000_mode_dependent_address. This particular problem has been known > for a long time, but that's not the only problem with "o" (and also > the rs6000 "Y" constraint, a variant of "o"). A more subtle > requir

Re: selective scheduler failure

2012-07-17 Thread Alex Turjan
Hi, I tried the patch but it doesnt solve my problem. The patch addresses the problem on the else branch but my problem is on the if: if (can_merge_blocks_p (bb->prev_bb, bb)) sel_merge_blocks ... Alex --- On Tue, 7/17/12, Alexander Monakov wrote: > From: Alexander Monakov > Subject: Re: s

Re: selective scheduler failure

2012-07-17 Thread Alexander Monakov
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Alex Turjan wrote: > > Hi, > I tried the patch but it doesnt solve my problem. > The patch addresses the problem on the else branch but my problem is on the > if: > if (can_merge_blocks_p (bb->prev_bb, bb)) > sel_merge_blocks ... I don't understand. You said

Re: selective scheduler failure

2012-07-17 Thread Alex Turjan
I found the patch from the following link: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250 But i dont see the removal of the assert in move_bb_info. Perhaps you have another patch related to this bug. thanks Alex --- On Tue, 7/17/12, Alexander Monakov wrote: > From: Alexander Monakov > Subjec

C option processing, header inclusion ordering dependencies

2012-07-17 Thread Mike Stump
In doing up the mods for the constant wide int code, we found a nasty including ordering problem that seems only tangentially related to our code. In options.h this is generated: /* Anything that includes tm.h, does not necessarily need this. */ #if !defined(GCC_TM_H) #include "input.h" /* for

Re: selective scheduler failure

2012-07-17 Thread Alexander Monakov
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Alex Turjan wrote: > I found the patch from the following link: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250 See comment 9. The patch pasted in the audit trail is not what has been committed. Alexander

Re: C option processing, header inclusion ordering dependencies

2012-07-17 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > In doing up the mods for the constant wide int code, we found a nasty > including ordering problem that seems only tangentially related to our > code. In options.h this is generated: Maybe such prototypes in options.h, that don't actually depend on anyt