Hi there,
With recent changes to it, the bswap pass can now replace a series of
(probably aligned) load + bitwise operation (AND, OR and shifts) + casts
by a (potentially unaligned) load and a bswap. I was rightfully pointed
out that this might be more expensive than the original sequence of
gimpl
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> With recent changes to it, the bswap pass can now replace a series of
> (probably aligned) load + bitwise operation (AND, OR and shifts) + casts
> by a (potentially unaligned) load and a bswap. I was rightfully pointed
> o
Hello everyone,
I'd like to help with the modularization of GCC.
I've visited the getting started page at the official wiki but its
contents seem too old. I'm fairly new to GCC and and I'm bewildered by
its huge code base with lengthy and complicated makefiles and
sophisticated internal mecha
Hi,
I'm working on a private port of GCC 4.7.3/GNAT 7.1.2.
Calls to ADA 'new' operator generates implicit gnat_malloc(size) calls (which
has to be provided by user program or runtime).
In my macro INIT_CUMULATIVE_ARGS I noticed that gnat_malloc(size) calls are
seen as vararg function because t
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Richard Bie
We have been chasing a memory corruption bug, which turned out to be
caused by very old gcc (4.3.4), which happily turned conditional load into
a non-conditional one, and that broke correctness (the condition was met
only if lock was held) and corrupted memory.
This particular problem with that
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Anonymous User
wrote:
>
> I'd like to help with the modularization of GCC.
>
> I've visited the getting started page at the official wiki but its contents
> seem too old. I'm fairly new to GCC and and I'm bewildered by its huge code
> base with lengthy and complica
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:30:54PM +0800, Anonymous User wrote:
I'm not sure that being anonymous is helpful on GCC
(and it might even be frowned upon, but I don't want to start a flamewar) I
think that you need and you want
to be identified. Besides, working on GCC is difficult; you'll soon be
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:23:36PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> +# Tell gcc to never replace conditional load with a non-conditional one
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS+= $(call cc-option,--param allow-store-data-races=0)
> +
Why do we not want: -fmemory-model=safe? And should we not at the very
least als
On 05/21/2014 06:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I'm sorry, I have nothing useful to suggest. I agree that that sounds
like a stack overflow, which should in general be impossible with
-fsplit-stack when using the gold linker. I don't know what is
happening here. I've tested with massive recur
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:53:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:23:36PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > +# Tell gcc to never replace conditional load with a non-conditional one
> > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,--param allow-store-data-races=0)
> > +
>
> Why do
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 05:04:55PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:53:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:23:36PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > +# Tell gcc to never replace conditional load with a non-conditional one
> > > +KBUILD_CFLAGS+=
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 05:13:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 05:04:55PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:53:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:23:36PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > > +# Tell gcc to never replac
On 10 June 2014 15:00, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> Once all is done and signed (both by FSF and you or your employer), add your
> real name in MAINTAINERS file.
That's not needed until you get write access to the repository, but
you can submit patches and contribute without write access.
On 10 June 2014 16:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 10 June 2014 15:00, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>> Once all is done and signed (both by FSF and you or your employer), add your
>> real name in MAINTAINERS file.
>
> That's not needed until you get write access to the repository, but
> you can sub
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> On 05/21/2014 06:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I have nothing useful to suggest. I agree that that sounds
>> like a stack overflow, which should in general be impossible with
>> -fsplit-stack when using the gold linker. I
Either something is broken on my web-access or the links on
https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html pointing to
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ are gone - can't find the files
anywhere else :(
Thanks for all your efforts
Michael
On 10 June 2014 17:20, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote:
> Either something is broken on my web-access or the links on
> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html pointing to
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ are gone - can't find the files
> anywhere else :(
The FTP site and files are
On 10 June 2014 17:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 10 June 2014 17:20, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote:
>> Either something is broken on my web-access or the links on
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html pointing to
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ are gone - can't find the fi
you are right - must be a Firefox problem; I had no problem using wget, IE8
works as well
Firefox is still redirected to https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/
though
sorry for alarm
thanks for reply
Michael
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Wakely [mailto:jwakely@gmail.com]
Hello,
the following C++ test case:
struct pollfd
{
int fd;
short int events;
short int revents;
};
struct Pollfd : public pollfd { };
struct Pollfd myfd[10];
int test (void)
{
return __builtin_object_size ((struct pollfd *)myfd, 1);
}
ends up returning 8 from the "test" rou
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> We have been chasing a memory corruption bug, which turned out to be
> caused by very old gcc (4.3.4), which happily turned conditional load into
> a non-conditional one, and that broke correctness (the condition was met
> only if lock was held
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:37:50PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> the following C++ test case:
>
> struct pollfd
> {
> int fd;
> short int events;
> short int revents;
> };
>
> struct Pollfd : public pollfd { };
>
> struct Pollfd myfd[10];
>
> int test (void)
> {
> return __bu
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>> We have been chasing a memory corruption bug, which turned out to be
>> caused by very old gcc (4.3.4), which happily turned conditional load into
>> a non-conditional one, and that br
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > We have been chasing a memory corruption bug, which turned out to be
> > caused by very old gcc (4.3.4), which happily turned conditional load into
> > a non-conditional one, and that broke correctness (the condition was met
> > only if lock was held)
On June 10, 2014 8:04:13 PM CEST, Steven Noonan wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>>> We have been chasing a memory corruption bug, which turned out to be
>>> caused by very old gcc (4.3.4), which happily turne
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:16 PM
>
> In general this is impossible to do. I don't have a good answer on
> how to determine whether (unaligned) load + bswap is faster than
> doing sth else - but there is a very good chance that the
27 matches
Mail list logo
