In expr.h:
/* For tree_fits_[su]hwi_p, tree_to_[su]hwi, fold_convert, size_binop,
ssize_int, TREE_CODE, TYPE_SIZE, int_size_in_bytes,*/
#include "tree-core.h"
However the functions tree_to_shwi(), tree_fits_shwi(), etc.
are not declared in tree-core.h, but in tree.h
This is not a problem
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h
> includes tree-core.h anyway), or shall I leave these macros untouched
> ?
Better leave these macros intact for now. We are trying to flatten out
the #include tree.
On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h
includes tree-core.h anyway), or shall I leave these macros untouched
?
Better leave these macros intact for now. We are
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h
>>> includes tree-core.h anyway), or shall I leave
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
>>>
Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-cor
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrot
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:58 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: Question about omp-low.c
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:46:40AM +, Iyer, Bal
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:29:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > OpenMP also supports C++ iterators, so I don't see why you don't follow
> > that.
> > The iterators are lowered already by the C++ FE, what the middle-end sees is
> > an integral iterator. Just look at one of the several
> > libgo
> Don't do this, compute loop count during omp expansion (there is already
> code that does that for you, after all, for #pragma omp for the loop count is
> typically (unless static schedule) passed as parameter to the runtime as well.
Where does this happen? Is there a routine that you can point
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:16:57PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Don't do this, compute loop count during omp expansion (there is already
> > code that does that for you, after all, for #pragma omp for the loop count
> > is
> > typically (unless static schedule) passed as parameter to the runti
Hi,
the revision 206072 causes here on FreeBSD powerpc64 a bootstrap failure
in stage 3. I'm a bit confused.
What would you need from me to help me analyze the situation?
PR plus stage 3 preprocessed source of tree-ssa-ifcombine.c?
I'm a bit out of sync regarding gcc development, so please bear
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:28 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: Question about omp-low.c
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:16:57PM +, Iyer, Ba
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:14:16AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I looked into this, but the issue I have is, for the following code:
>
> Int main (void) {
> _Cilk_for (int ii = W; ii < (X+Y); ii = ii + (q+z))
This doesn't have a body, Int won't compile either. Can you post
-fdump-t
13 matches
Mail list logo
