On 05/13/2014 12:12 PM, niXman wrote:
I'm curious whether there is reason to use 'vfork()' rather than 'fork()'?
Without memory overcommitment, fork needs physical backing storage (RAM
or swap) for all copy-on-write pages in the new process. vfork doesn't.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Produ
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wrote:
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh
On 21/03/14 17:30, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Certain GIMPLE codes, such as OpenMP ones, have a structured block
> attached to them, for exmaple, gcc/gimple.def:GIMPLE_OMP_PARALLEL:
>
> /* GIMPLE_OMP_PARALLEL represents
>
>#pragma omp parallel [CLAUSES]
>BODY
>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wrote:
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
Hi,
I am looking at some code of our target, which is not optimized as expected.
For the following RTX, I expect source of insn 17 should be propagated into
insn 20, and insn 17 is eliminated as a result. On our target, it will become a
predicated xor instruction instead of two. Initially, I th
On 2014-05-13, 6:27 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
In haifa-sched.c (in rank_for_schedule) I notice that live range
shrinkage is not performed when SCHED_PRESSURE_MODEL is used and the
comment mentions that it results in much worse code.
Could anyone elaborate on this? Was it just empiricall
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 2014-05-13, 6:27 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In haifa-sched.c (in rank_for_schedule) I notice that live range
>> shrinkage is not performed when SCHED_PRESSURE_MODEL is used and the
>> comment mentions that it results in much worse code.
>>
>> Could any
Sorry for resending again as Plain Text as my earlier mail was sent with HTML
enable. This makes enable to send it to gcc@gcc.gnu.org.
Sorry once again.
Thanks & Regards
Ajit
From: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:43 PM
To: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'; 'vmaka...@redhat.com'
Cc: 'Micha
There is a discrepancy when passing empty struct in C++ on x86-64
between GCC and Clang:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/x86-64-abi/EZzVyvSxUx4
An empty struct of size 1 byte is classified as NO_CLASS.
GCC uses an eight byte slot to pass it on stack and returns it in
EAX while Clang just
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Bie
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20140514 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20140514/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 2014-05-14, 12:38 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
On 2014-05-13, 6:27 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
In haifa-sched.c (in rank_for_schedule) I notice that live range
shrinkage is not performed when SCHED_PRESSURE_MODEL is used and the
comment mentions that it resul
On 2014-05-14, 1:33 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Hello All:
I am planning to implement the Live range splitting based on the following
cases in the Integrated Register Allocator.
For a given Live range that spans from from outer region to inner region of
the loop. Such Live ranges which a
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathame
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi,
> I am looking at some code of our target, which is not optimized as expected.
> For the following RTX, I expect source of insn 17 should be propagated into
> insn 20, and insn 17 is eliminated as a result. On our target, it will become
Hi,
I'm using gcc-4.9.0 and have a problem with the following program.
I have reported the problem allready on gcc-help some days ago,
but didn't get any replies. Perhaps somebody in this list knows,
if the behaviour is intended.
#include
#include
#include
int main (void)
{
#pragma omp para
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov writes:
>> On 2014-05-13, 6:27 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In haifa-sched.c (in rank_for_schedule) I notice that live range
>>> shrinkage is not performed when SCHED_PRESSURE_MODEL is used and the
>>> c
21 matches
Mail list logo
