On Mon, 2 Sep 2013, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Mon, 2013-08-26 12:51:53 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2013-08-20 11:24:31 +0400, Alexander Ivchenko
> >> wrote:
> >> > I certainly missed that OPTION_BIO
Hi,
Why do we have two macros in tree.h with seemingly the same semantics?
DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
--
Paulo Matos
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why do we have two macros in tree.h with seemingly the same semantics?
> DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
The point is they are not the same.
Richard.
> --
>
> Paulo Matos
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 September 2013 11:19
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Why DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Why do we h
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Kugan
wrote:
> On 17/06/13 19:07, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Kugan wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am attempting to fix Bug 43721 - Failure to optimise (a/b) and (a%b)
>>> into
>>> single __aeabi_idivmod call
>>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 03 September 2013 11:19
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Why DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 September 2013 12:55
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Why DECL_BUILT_IN and DECL_IS_BUILTIN?
>
> DECL_IS_BUILTIN is true if the decl was created by the frontend / backend
> rat
Hi guys,
Let's continue this discussion.
Summing up what was said above, I think we need following changes in
LTO-infrastructure to enable offloading:
* [in lto_plugin] claim files with .openmp (or whatever
name) sections along with files containing .lto sections, as we do now
* [in lto_plugin
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 05:59:35PM +0400, Michael V. Zolotukhin wrote:
> Let's continue this discussion.
>
> Summing up what was said above, I think we need following changes in
> LTO-infrastructure to enable offloading:
> * [in lto_plugin] claim files with .openmp (or whatever
> name) sections
Hi,
I'm fighting with mode switching (to be more precise with
create_pre_exit function) trying to make it work for MPX. I saw
create_pre_exit had some stability issues before and now I'm facing
similar issues trying to have it working when bound register is
returned by function in addition to GPR
> I'd go with .gnu.target_lto* names (i.e. s/.gnu.lto/.gnu.target_lto/
> on the existing LTO section names if they are for the accelerator rather
> than host).
I guess that now we could go with any naming, as it's far from being
finalized.
> I really have almost zero experience with LTO, but I don
Quoting Ilya Enkovich :
Hi,
I'm fighting with mode switching (to be more precise with
create_pre_exit function) trying to make it work for MPX. I saw
create_pre_exit had some stability issues before and now I'm facing
similar issues trying to have it working when bound register is
returned by
On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 12:57 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Kugan
> wrote:
> > On 17/06/13 19:07, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Kugan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I am attempting to fix Bug 43721 - Failure to optimise (a/b) and (a%b)
> >>
Hi!
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 19:18:01 +0400, "Michael V. Zolotukhin"
wrote:
> > - collect all those target object files from the link, link them together
> > using target compiler driver, and feed back the resulting binary
> > or shared library into the host linking (some magic section in there)
>
Sorry forgot to mention, my name is Tuncer.
Again any help would be much appreciated.
I know these maybe simple for some of you if you could lend me a hand, you
will be doing a great deal of help.
Changed the subject for better understanding,
Thanks again guys :)
> Hi,
>
> I am a student at Bi
> > Oh, if we just link the target binary as a data section into the host
> > binary, then I see no problems in that, it seems absolutely feasible
> > with the existing infrastructure. I just thought (seemingly it was
> > incorrect) that we're speaking about linking of target code with the
> > hos
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:29:56PM +0400, Michael V. Zolotukhin wrote:
> > The idea, as we discussed it at the GNU Tools Cauldron's Acceleration
> > BoF, is that the host program (for at least some acceleration devices)
> > will be responsible for loading the acceleration device's code to the
> > d
Hi Thomas,
> The idea, as we discussed it at the GNU Tools Cauldron's Acceleration
> BoF, is that the host program (for at least some acceleration devices)
> will be responsible for loading the acceleration device's code to the
> device, using some support library that is specific to each accelera
Jan,
there was a very recent change in inlining on the mainline:
2013-09-02 Jan Hubicka
* ipa-split.c (execute_split_functions): Split externally visible
functions called once.
but as far as I can see there was no explanation for it. This introduced
annoying warnings in Ada
19 matches
Mail list logo
