On 21-May-14 06:30 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I am just curious what happens when you put
insn2, insn1.
and insn2 uses a result of insn1 in 6 cycles and insn1 producing the
result in 3 cycles, but there are not ready functional units (e.g.
arithmentic units) necessary for insn1 for 4 or more
On 22-May-14 07:21 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/21/2014 05:30 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 2014-05-20, 5:18 PM, shmeel gutl wrote:
The problem that I see is that the haifa scheduler schedules one cycle
at a time, in a forward order, by picking from a list of instructions
that can be schedul
On 05/23/2014 10:07 AM, shmeel gutl wrote:
Exposed pipeline is not my problem. Negative latency is my problem. I
don't see negative latency for c6x, not in unit reservations and not in
adjust cost. Did I miss something?
You just need to model it differently. Rather than saying instruction A
h
On 22 May 2014 16:12, Kenny Simpson wrote:
> PR60901 is listed in the bug fixes for gcc 4.8.3, but I don't see the patch
> ever applied to the 4_8 branch in the bug report,
The PR shouldn't have been closed without either changing the Target
Milestone or backporting the patch to the release branc
On 2014-05-23, 3:49 AM, shmeel gutl wrote:
On 21-May-14 06:30 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I am just curious what happens when you put
insn2, insn1.
and insn2 uses a result of insn1 in 6 cycles and insn1 producing the
result in 3 cycles, but there are not ready functional units (e.g.
arithmenti
At AdaCore, we have switched most of our product documentation the
rest/sphinx format: http://sphinx-doc.org/
which provides most of the advantages of texinfo (text format,
can generate output in multiple formats, supported by free software), as well
as additional advantages, at least for us (more
On 05/23/14 09:23, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
At AdaCore, we have switched most of our product documentation the
rest/sphinx format: http://sphinx-doc.org/
which provides most of the advantages of texinfo (text format,
can generate output in multiple formats, supported by free software), as well
as ad
Thanks for the quick feedback!
> Given the long term maintenance issues around texlive/texinfo,
> investigation of other formats is wise. The fact that sphinx can
> generate .texi files is a huge win from a flexibility standpoint.
Indeed. We've been looking for a possible replacement format for
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 17:23 +0200, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> At AdaCore, we have switched most of our product documentation the
> rest/sphinx format: http://sphinx-doc.org/
> which provides most of the advantages of texinfo (text format,
> can generate output in multiple formats, supported by free so
On 05/23/2014 05:23 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
- the GNAT doc source would be in rest format (.rst files) instead
of texinfo (.texi files)
What about the preprocessor for the VMS specifics? Will it go away?
- we would still provide .texi files, generated automatically by the
sphinx too
> >- the GNAT doc source would be in rest format (.rst files) instead
> > of texinfo (.texi files)
>
> What about the preprocessor for the VMS specifics? Will it go away?
Yes, we are about to baseline VMS maintenance, and the VMS specific doc
will go away in any case.
> >- we would still prov
11 matches
Mail list logo
