On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Gene Smith wrote:
> I tried -Og optimization on a recent svn snapshot of 4.8 and don't see much
> difference in the code compared to -O1. If anything, at least for one case,
> -Og is actually less debuggable than -O1, e.g., for a simple buffer
> selection like this:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Viktor Pobedin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It seems that sometimes haifa-scheduler assigns ANTI dependency for the
> instructions having TRUE dependency.
>
> I observed it happening in case of basic block as following:
> <32 memory load/store rtx>
> rtx_1:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> It is the intent for all_ones_mask_p to return true when 64 bits of ones in
> an unsigned type of width 64 when size is 64, right? Currently the code uses
> a signed type for tmask, which sets the upper bits to 1, when the value
> includes th
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> The effect on runtime is not correlated to
>> either (which means the vectorizer cost model is rather bad), but integer
>> code usually does not benefit at all.
>
> The cost model does need some tuning. For instance, GCC vectorizer
> doe
Hi Jakub,
> Anyway, the GOMP_target_data implementation and part of GOMP_target would
> be something along the lines of following pseudocode:
>
> device_data = lookup_device_id (device_id);
> ...
Thanks, I've seen that similarly. But the problem with passing
arguments to the target is still open
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:26:09PM +0400, Michael V. Zolotukhin wrote:
> > Anyway, the GOMP_target_data implementation and part of GOMP_target would
> > be something along the lines of following pseudocode:
> >
> > device_data = lookup_device_id (device_id);
> > ...
> Thanks, I've seen that simila
> What I meant was just that if you call GOMP_target with
> num_descs N, then the structure will look like:
> struct .omp_target_data
> {
> sometype0 *var0;
> sometype1 *var1;
> ...
> sometypeNminus1 *varNminus1;
> };
> so pretty much the runtime will call the target routine with address of
2013/8/27 Kalle Olavi Niemitalo :
> Ilya Enkovich writes:
>
>> - When we pass (return) pointer on register, we use the next
>> available bound register to pass (return) bounds
>
> From the wording, it seems function pointers get bounds too.
> If so, it might be good to state that explicitly.
> I
On 23 July 2013 17:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 02:59 AM, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> There are 42 test files (25 under gcc.dg) that specifies
>>
>> { dg-add-options bind_pic_locally }
>>
>> in the regression testsuite. The procedure add_options_for_bind_pic_locally
>> from li
On 08/27/2013 06:52 AM, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> On 23 July 2013 17:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> On 07/22/2013 02:59 AM, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There are 42 test files (25 under gcc.dg) that specifies
>>>
>>> { dg-add-options bind_pic_locally }
>>>
>>> in the regression testsuite.
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> +++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
>> @@ -3702,12 +3702,23 @@ all_ones_mask_p (const_tree mask, int size)
> This should instead use
>
> return tree_to_double_int (mask) == double_int::mask (size)
> || (TYPE_PRECISION (mask) == size && tree_to_doubl
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 13:17 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
[...]
> Then the question is what the plugin should perform with these sections,
> whether it will compile each input .gnu.target_lto section hunk separately
> (as in non-LTO mode), or with -flto also LTO them together.
[...]
Since plugins ar
Hi!
My first try on a build robot (http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/
and http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/timeline.php) is running for
some time now, so I'd like to do a next step.
(The current homegrown build script is designed to do a
cross-build with a named --target and no --b
13 matches
Mail list logo
