Hello,
for the test case gcc.dg/uninit-13.c:
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O -Wuninitialized" } */
typedef _Complex float C;
C foo()
{
C f;
__imag__ f = 0; /* { dg-warning "is used" "unconditional" } */
return f;
}
I have the following failure on arm-rtems:
spawn -igno
On 06/02/14 14:55, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> for the test case gcc.dg/uninit-13.c:
>
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> /* { dg-options "-O -Wuninitialized" } */
>
> typedef _Complex float C;
> C foo()
> {
>C f;
>__imag__ f = 0;/* { dg-warning "is used" "unconditional" } */
>r
Hello!
4.9 does not enable -ftree-vectorize for -O3 (and Ofast) anymore. Is
this intentional?
$/ssd/uros/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc -B /ssd/uros/gcc-build/gcc -O3 -Q
--help=optimizers
...
-ftree-vectorize [disabled]
...
This is the reason for low scores on SciMark v2.0 as conducted
On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells wrote:
Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and
compiler intrinsics inside the kernel? The compiler _ought_ to be able to do
these.
It sounds interesting to me, if we can make it work properly and
reliably. + gcc@gcc.gnu.org
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells wrote:
> >
> > Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and
> > compiler intrinsics inside the kernel? The compiler _ought_ to be able to
> > do
> > these.
>
>
>
It is a bug in the help message dump. You can see that
ftree-loop-vectorize ftree-slp-vectorize are indeed enabled.
David
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> 4.9 does not enable -ftree-vectorize for -O3 (and Ofast) anymore. Is
> this intentional?
>
> $/ssd/uros/gcc-b
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> It is a bug in the help message dump. You can see that
> ftree-loop-vectorize ftree-slp-vectorize are indeed enabled.
I see. It would be also nice to fix -O3 entry in doc/invoke.texi that
currently reads:
--cut here--
@item -O3
@opindex
The invoke.texi is correct. -ftree-vectorize is now simply a
short-hand to enable both loop and slp vectorizer. I will fix the the
help message appropriately.
David
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> It is a bug in
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:59:10PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and
> > > compiler intrinsics inside the
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 18:59 +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and
> > > compiler intrinsics inside the kernel
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 11:27 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:59:10PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is it worth considering a move towards us
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:09:25PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 18:59 +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is it worth considering a move towards usin
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:17:03PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 11:27 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:59:10PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > > On 02/06/14 18:25, David
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > It seems that nobody really
> > agrees on exactly how the C11 atomics map to real architectural
> > instructions on anything but the trivial architectures.
>
> There's certainly different ways to implement the memory model and those
> have to be speci
On 2/6/2014 1:51 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
4.9 does not enable -ftree-vectorize for -O3 (and Ofast) anymore. Is
this intentional?
$/ssd/uros/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc -B /ssd/uros/gcc-build/gcc -O3 -Q
--help=optimizers
...
-ftree-vectorize [disabled]
...
I'm seeing vectori
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
>
> On 2/6/2014 1:51 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> 4.9 does not enable -ftree-vectorize for -O3 (and Ofast) anymore. Is
>> this intentional?
>>
>> $/ssd/uros/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc -B /ssd/uros/gcc-build/gcc -O3 -Q
>> --help=optimizers
>>
>
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140206 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140206/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:09:25PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 18:59 +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > > On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 22:13 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> > > It seems that nobody really
> > > agrees on exactly how the C11 atomics map to real architectural
> > > instructions on anything but the trivial architectures.
> >
> > There's certainly d
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> I think that if we have different options, there needs to be agreement
> on which to choose across the compilers, at the very least. I don't
> quite know how this looks like for GCC and LLVM, for example.
I'm not sure we even necessarily get compatibil
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 14:11 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:17:03PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 11:27 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:59:10PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > There are also so many ways to blow
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:58:22PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:09:25PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 18:59 +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +00
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:44:48AM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 14:11 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:17:03PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 11:27 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:59:10P
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:20:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hopefully some discussion of out-of-thin-air values as well.
Yes, absolutely shoot store speculation in the head already. Then drive
a wooden stake through its hart.
C11/C++11 should not be allowed to claim itself a memory model
24 matches
Mail list logo
