[RFC] Introducing MIPS O32 ABI Extension for FR0 and FR1 Interlinking

2014-02-21 Thread Matthew Fortune
All, Imagination Technologies would like to introduce the design of an O32 ABI extension for MIPS to allow it to be used in conjunction with MIPS FPUs having 64-bit floating-point registers. This is a wide-reaching design that involves changes to all components of the MIPS toolchain it is being

GNU Tools Cauldron 2014 - We have reached capacity

2014-02-21 Thread Diego Novillo
An update to this year's Cauldron. We have almost reached capacity. There are only a few slots left for registration. If you still have not registered, please do it quickly. As soon as we fill up, I will start a waiting list. Priority will be given to those proposing a presentation or BoF. If yo

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

2014-02-21 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But I'm pretty sure that any compiler guy must *hate* that current odd > dependency-generation part, and if I was a gcc person, seeing that > bugzilla entry Torvald pointed at, I would personally want to > dismember somebody with a rusty spoon.. Y

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

2014-02-21 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:35:37PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > But I'm pretty sure that any compiler guy must *hate* that current odd > > dependency-generation part, and if I was a gcc person, seeing that > > bugzilla entry Torvald pointed

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

2014-02-21 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Peter Sewell wrote: > > If one thinks this is too fragile, then simply using memory_order_acquire > and paying the resulting barrier cost (and perhaps hoping that compilers > will eventually be able to optimise some cases of those barriers to > hardware-level depe

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

2014-02-21 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 06:28:05PM +, Peter Sewell wrote: > On 20 February 2014 17:01, Linus Torvalds >wrote: [ . . . ] > > > So, if you make one of two changes to your example, then I will agree > > > with you. > > > > No. We're not playing games here. I'm fed up with complex examples > > t

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

2014-02-21 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Why would this be any different, especially since it's easy to > understand both for a human and a compiler? Btw, the actual data path may actually be semantically meaningful even at a processor level. For example, let's look at that gc

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

2014-02-21 Thread Peter Sewell
On 21 February 2014 19:41, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> >> Why would this be any different, especially since it's easy to >> understand both for a human and a compiler? > > Btw, the actual data path may actually be semantically meaningful ev

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

2014-02-21 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Peter Sewell wrote: > > You have to track dependencies through other assignments, e.g. simple x=y That is all visible in the SSA form. Variable assignment has been converted to some use of the SSA node that generated the value. The use might be a phi node or a ca

Accelerator BoF at GNU Tools Cauldron 2014 (was: [gomp4] gomp-4_0-branch)

2014-02-21 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:24:56 +0100, I wrote: > First, pardon the long CC list. You are, in my understanding, the people > who are interested in collaborating on the topics that are being prepared > on gomp-4_0-branch: "LTO" streaming, acceleration device offloading, > OpenMP target, OpenACC,

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

2014-02-21 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > This needs to be as follows: > > [[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i [[carries_dependency]]) > { > return i - i; > } > > Otherwise dependencies won't get carried through it. C11 doesn't have attributes at all (and no specification regard

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

2014-02-21 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:10:54PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > This needs to be as follows: > > > > [[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i [[carries_dependency]]) > > { > > return i - i; > > } > > > > Otherwise dependencies won't get c

gcc generated long read out of bounds segfault

2014-02-21 Thread David Fries
sh if the page isn't accessible? Or is this program somehow invalid? tested gcc and g++ 4.7.2 and from svn, gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20140221 (experimental) While both lines read an array entry, only the second crashes. dup = c[i]; fun(c[i]); The attached program sets up and reads through the array

Re: gcc generated long read out of bounds segfault

2014-02-21 Thread Andreas Schwab
David Fries writes: > The attached program sets up and reads through the array with extra > padding at the of the array from 8 bytes to 0 bytes. Padding from 4 > to 0 crashes. This program has undefined behaviour because you are using unaligned pointers. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@li