On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:55:33PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> >The combiner can add or remove clobbers of scratches whenever needed,
> >but it cannot do that for clobbers of pseudos.
> >
> Yes, I think there are some pitfalls with scratches in other passes.
Probably. But this one is documen
On 22/04/15 08:27, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:55:33PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>> The combiner can add or remove clobbers of scratches whenever needed,
>>> but it cannot do that for clobbers of pseudos.
>>>
>> Yes, I think there are some pitfalls with scratches in
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a question about inserting code into a function being compiled by
> GCC. Basically I want to set a hard register at the beginning of a
> function like is being done below. If I compile the program below on MIPS
> the $16 register gets
During investigate PR62173, another issue I found is gcc is doing bad
offset combination during LRA virtual register elimination.
For example, suppose we access one element from a local array A[i],
normally we get:
sequence1
=
rA = sfp + rB
rC = MEM[rA + off0]
rB contains index "i",
Is anyone else seeing comparison problems on trunk?
I was having problems testing a patch on a 4/16 extraction, so last
night I checked out a fresh trunk, built it, ran make check... then
removed the build directory, re-built it from scratch again. make
check.. and get a bunch of different re
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:03AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Is anyone else seeing comparison problems on trunk?
>
> I was having problems testing a patch on a 4/16 extraction, so last night I
> checked out a fresh trunk, built it, ran make check... then removed the
> build directory, re-buil
2015-04-18 22:15 GMT+03:00 Ralph Doncaster :
> On a x86_64 linux box I successfully built a gcc RC-20150418 toolchain
> including binutils-2.25 and avr-libc r2473(svn).
>
> I noticed some warnings in the logs:
> ../../../source/gcc-5.0.1-RC-20150418/gcc/vec.h:1048: warning: invalid
> access to non-
On 04/22/2015 08:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:03AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Is anyone else seeing comparison problems on trunk?
I was having problems testing a patch on a 4/16 extraction, so last night I
checked out a fresh trunk, built it, ran make check... the
On 04/22/2015 06:28 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 04/22/2015 08:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:03AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Is anyone else seeing comparison problems on trunk?
I was having problems testing a patch on a 4/16 extraction, so last
night I
checked out
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:03AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> Is anyone else seeing comparison problems on trunk?
>>
>> I was having problems testing a patch on a 4/16 extraction, so last night I
>> checked out a fresh trunk, built it, r
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 05:40:07AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:03AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >> Is anyone else seeing comparison problems on trunk?
> >>
> >> I was having problems testing a patch on a 4/16 ex
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 05:40:07AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:03AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> >> Is anyone else seeing comparison problems on trunk?
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 06:16:24AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > I admit I have not tried, but am certainly not seeing Peter's fix
> > in https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.x/ChangeLog-3.19.5
> > has it been fixed differently? Not seeing anything in the Fedora kernel
> > package %changelog eit
On 04/22/2015 08:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/22/2015 06:28 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 04/22/2015 08:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:03AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Is anyone else seeing comparison problems on trunk?
I was having problems testing a patch on a 4/1
One year passed from the time when the last major version
of the GNU Compiler Collection has been announced, so it is the time again
to announce a new major GCC release, 5.1.
GCC 5.1 is a major release containing substantial new
functionality not available in GCC 4.9.x or previous GCC releases.
T
Am 04/20/2015 um 10:11 PM schrieb Vladimir Makarov:
On 17/04/15 05:58 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
I allowed me to CC Vladimir; maybe he can propose how the backend can
describe an efficient, constraint-based solution. The problem is about
expanders producing insns with non-fixed hard-regs as in
Status
==
GCC 5.1 has been released, branches/gcc-5-branch now identifies itself as
5.1.1 and is now open again under the usual release branch rules (regression
fixes and documentation fixes only).
The next release, 5.2, should be released in about two or three months
from now, unless somethin
On 22/04/15 10:39 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Attached is a C test program which produces fine results with
$ avr-gcc -S -O2 -mmcu=atmega8
Also attached is a respective patch against the trunk avr backend that
indicates the transition from clobbers to hard-regs-by-constraint.
I don't actu
L.S.,
Last week, a colleague of mine from Meteo France held a talk at the
yearly meeting of all researchers working on HARMONIE (see
http://hirlam.org) discussing the performance of our code when compiled
with each of the supported compilers on the Cray XC30 at ECMWF
(http://www.ecmwf.int/en/
Thanks, I'll forward the patches to quipper team.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 05:15:47AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:52:18PM -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> > Andi,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the patches. Turns out that the first 3
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> Why is loop fusion important, especially in Fortran 90 and later programs ?
>
> Because without it, every array assignment is a single loop nest, isolated
> from related, same-shape assignments.
Why is this a bad thing? When you're talking about
Hi,
Me and a couple of friends needed, in our Linux application, to write
traces to log, but we wanted to hide those traces from the client,
just like Microsoft's wpp mechanism, but we couldn't find any
alternative for Linux.
My questions:
1. Do any of you know any alternative or a way to hide tr
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 12:28 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> This is wrong for sure. You can't have DECL_RTL in GIMPLE.
>
> You will want to set has_local_explicit_reg_vars, DECL_HARD_REGISTER,
> and DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME, and leave it to the middle end to take care
> of everything else.
>
> Ciao!
On 04/22/2015 09:10 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
Why is loop fusion important, especially in Fortran 90 and later programs ?
Because without it, every array assignment is a single loop nest, isolated
from related, same-shape assignments.
Why
Following up to my own email, I think I found the missing magic. I
needed to set global_regs[16] to 1. Once global_regs was set for the
register, the assignment stopped getting optimized out.
Steve Ellcey
sell...@imgtec.com
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 12:27 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20150422 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20150422/
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
Hi,
In libstdc++ testsuite, I noticed that macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS is
checked/set by GLIBCXX_CHECK_SETRLIMIT, which is further guarded by
GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE as below:
AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_CONFIGURE_TESTSUITE], [
if $GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE ; then
# Do checks for resource limit functions.
GLIBCXX
27 matches
Mail list logo
