Alan, gcc maintainers,
I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways. Quite
a bit of digging resulted in me finding that gcc/configure.ac looks for
configure.in in a number of binutils subtrees. Globally
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Abe wrote:
>> The GIMPLE level if-conversion code was purely
>> written to make loops suitable for vectorization.
>
>
> I`m not surprised to read that.
>
>
>> It wasn't meant to provide if-conversion of
>> scalar code in the end (even though it does).
>
>
> Seren
All:
I am trying the place the following Analysis in the vectorizer of GCC that
helps in improving the vectorizer to a great extent
For the unit stride, zero stride and non stride accesses of memory that helps
in vectorizer.
For the Data Dependency graph, the topological sort is performed. The
All:
I am wondering how useful to form the traces on Data Dependency Graph. On top
of the traces in the Control flow graph,
I was thinking of forming the traces on data Dependency graph(DDG).
Would this helps in further vectorization and parallelization candidates.
Thoughts?
Thanks & Regar
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
> All:
>
> I am wondering how useful to form the traces on Data Dependency Graph. On top
> of the traces in the Control flow graph,
> I was thinking of forming the traces on data Dependency graph(DDG).
>
> Would this helps in further
On 06/25/2015 08:28 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Sorry in advance for inviting a bikeshed discussion, but while making
> the hashing changes that I just committed, I noticed that the C++ification
> has been done in a variety of different styles. I ended up having to follow
> the "do what the sur
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:31:16PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 06/25/2015 08:28 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Sorry in advance for inviting a bikeshed discussion, but while making
> > the hashing changes that I just committed, I noticed that the C++ification
> > has been done in a variety of
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:35 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
Cc: Jeff Law; Jan Hubicka; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta;
Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: Traces on Data Depend
On 07/14/2015 02:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways.
in-tree/combined-tree builds aren't recommended anymore, and hence
aren't well maintained anymore. That is a
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 02:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
>> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways.
>
> in-tree/combined-tree builds aren't recommended a
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:08 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Combined tree is useful when the latest binutils is needed by GCC.
If you build and install binutils using the same --prefix as used for
gcc, then gcc will automatically find that binutils and use it. You
don't need combined trees to make this w
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> A second release candidate for GCC 5.2 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5.2.0-RC-20150712
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 225717.
>
> I have sofar bootstrapped the release ca
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Alan, gcc maintainers,
>
> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways. Quite
> a bit of digging resulted in me finding that gcc/configu
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Alan, gcc maintainers,
>>
>> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
>> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways. Q
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Alan, gcc maintainers,
>>>
>>> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
>>> of 2.24 as I had in
On July 14, 2015 10:36:11 PM GMT+02:00, Janne Blomqvist
wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Richard Biener
>wrote:
>>
>> A second release candidate for GCC 5.2 is available from
>>
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5.2.0-RC-20150712
>>
>> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generat
>>> On 15.07.15 at 03:20, wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> (there doesn't seem
>> to be a fix for this in gcc trunk either, which I originally expected I could
>> simply backport).
>
> The configure.in->configure.ac rename happened over a year ago so I
> gu
17 matches
Mail list logo
