Hans-Peter Nilsson: I should have listened to you back when you raised
concerns about this. My apologies for ever doubting you.
In summary:
- The "trick" in the docs for using an arbitrarily sized struct to force
register flushes for inline asm does not work.
- Placing the inline asm in a sep
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> This patch is something I was playing around with assistance of Ian Taylor.
> It seems I need bit more help though :)
>
> It adds support for direct output of SLIM LTO files to the compiler binary.
> It works as proof of concept, but th
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson: I should have listened to you back when you raised
> concerns about this. My apologies for ever doubting you.
>
> In summary:
>
> - The "trick" in the docs for using an arbitrarily sized struct to force
> register flushe
> Hi Community!
>
> Google Summer of Code 2014 has come to an end. We've got some very good
> results this year -- with code from 4 out of 5 projects checked in to either
> GCC trunk or topic branch. Congratulations to students and mentors for their
> great work!
>
> Even more impressive is th
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
>> Joseph, is there any support for underflow control in soft-fp library?
>> >From a private correspondence with FX about implementing gfortran IEEE
>> support for extended modes, soft-fp that implements 128bit support on
>> x86 could read t
Richard Biener writes:
> Btw, the patch is very hard to read as it moves (and modifies?) files
> at the same time. What's this magic "file attributes" we need?
The file attributes issue is the ELF machine number, class, OSABI,
flags, and endianness. When generating an ELF file it has to have t
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>
>> Btw, the patch is very hard to read as it moves (and modifies?) files
>> at the same time. What's this magic "file attributes" we need?
>
> The file attributes issue is the ELF machine number, class, OSABI,
>
>
> Shouldn't -fbypass-asm be simply "mangled" by the driver? That is,
> the user simply specifies -fbypass-asm and via spec magic the driver
> substitutes this with -fbypass-asm=crtbegin.o? That way at least
> the user interface should be stable (as we're supposedly removing
> the requirement f
On 12 September 2014 06:40, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> I went through excercise of running LTO bootstrap with ODR verification on.
> There are some typename clashes
> I guess we want to fix. I wonder what approach is preferred, do we want to
> introduce anonymous
> namespaces for those?
> /usr/
Jan Hubicka writes:
Nice patch.
> The implementation is pretty straighforward except for -fbypass-asm requiring
> one existing OBJ file to fetch target's file attributes from. This is
> definitly not optimal, but libiberty currently can't build output files from
> scratch. As Ian suggested, I p
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> I wonder how hard it would be to fix simple-object to be able to create
> from scratch. From a quick look it would be mostly adding the right
> values into the header? That would need some defines per target.
It could be done, of course. It
On 09/24/14 00:56, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2014-09-23 20:10 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
On 09/23/14 10:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:00:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/23/14 08:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:54:37PM +0400, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
use fixed
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how hard it would be to fix simple-object to be able to create
> > from scratch. From a quick look it would be mostly adding the right
> > values into the header? That would need some defines per target.
>
> It could be done, o
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder how hard it would be to fix simple-object to be able to create
> > > from scratch. From a quick look it would be mostly adding the right
> > > values into the header? That would need some defines per target.
> >
> > It co
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Libreoffice shows that GCC needs about twice as much of system time. According
> to profiles, good part is the ugly way we pass stuff down to assembler and
> other part is memory use during the copmilation stage.
Are you using -pipe? AFAIR thi
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Libreoffice shows that GCC needs about twice as much of system time.
> > According
> > to profiles, good part is the ugly way we pass stuff down to assembler and
> > other part is memory use during the copmilation stage.
>
> Are you using
I would know if it's possible to insert a global variable declaration
with a gcc plugin. For example if I got de following code:
---test.c
int main(void) {
return 0;
}
--
2014-09-24 19:27 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
> On 09/24/14 00:56, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> 2014-09-23 20:10 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
>>>
>>> On 09/23/14 10:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:00:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 09/23/14 08:34, Jakub Jelinek wro
On 09/24/14 14:32, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2014-09-24 19:27 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
On 09/24/14 00:56, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
After register allocation we have no idea where GOT address is and
therefore delegitimize_address target hook becomes less efficient and
cannot remove UNSPECs. That's what I
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Libreoffice shows that GCC needs about twice as much of system time.
>> According
>> to profiles, good part is the ugly way we pass stuff down to assembler and
>> other part is memor
Hi,
I'm having trouble building the latest gcc on my fedora 19 x86_64 system. It's
probably something I'm doing wrong but I can't seem to find what. Maybe it is a
bug? Could I get someone to look at the problem please? I have a complete build
log if that's necessary.
Regards and THANKS for you
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> Libreoffice shows that GCC needs about twice as much of system time.
> >> According
> >> to profiles, good part is the ugly way we pass stuff down to assembler and
> >> othe
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Are you using -pipe? AFAIR this still isn't the default, even on
>> GNU/Linux, but it is typically a lot faster than without.
>
> Is that true even when TMPDIR is on a ram disk?
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20140924 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20140924/
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 24 September 2014 22:49, George R Goffe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having trouble building the latest gcc on my fedora 19 x86_64 system.
This mailing list is for discussing development of gcc itself, please
use the gcc-help list for help building or using gcc.
Please send your question there instead
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> Are you using -pipe? AFAIR this still isn't the default, even on
> >> GNU/Linux, but it is typically a lot faster than without.
> >
> > Is that true even when TMPDIR is on a
Jonathan,
Thank you for your response.
Since I build from what I believe is the main trunk, I thought that developers
might be interested in this situation. I WILL try the help path as you suggest.
Thanks again for your time,
George...
svn info
Path: .
Working Copy Root Path: /sdc1/exphome/cl
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Is that true even when TMPDIR is on a ram disk? There's no obvious
> reason that it should be true in a parallel build. Using -pipe
> effectively constrains communication between the compiler and the
> assembler to work in PIPE_BUF bloc
28 matches
Mail list logo
