Hi GCC developers,
As ChangeLog-2014 mentioned: Remove support for if_marked and param_is
about ggc, so I migrate to GCC v6.x, for example:
#if (GCC_MAJOR < 6)
// FIXME: gengtype not support macro?
//static GTY((if_marked("tree2int_marked_p"), param_is(struct tree2int)))
//htab_t intCache
Hi
I write some codes to make gcc support comparison-guided fuzzing.
It is very like
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/SanitizerCoverage.html#tracing-data-flow .
With -fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp the compiler will insert extra
instrumentation around comparison instructions and switch statements.
I thi
On Sat, 2017-07-08 at 15:50 +0800, Leslie Zhai wrote:
> Hi GCC developers,
>
> There was
>
> PLUGIN_REGISTER_GGC_CACHES
>
> pseudo-events for register_callback in GCC v4.x, but how to migrate
> it
> for GCC v6.x? there is no PLUGIN_REGISTER_GGC_CACHES deprecated log
> in
> ChangeLog-201X nor
Hi, I'd need some help with the following optimization issue:
avr backend supports insns for bit insertion, and insn combiner tries to
use them:
unsigned char bset (unsigned char a, unsigned char n)
{
return (a & ~0x40) | (n & 0x40);
}
Trying 7 -> 14:
Successfully matched this instruction:
On 07/07/2017 06:26 AM, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
On 05/07/2017 17:24, Martin Sebor wrote:
[*] While the example (copied below) is valid, accessing the object
after someFunction() has returned via a reference or pointer to it
is not.
void somefunction(const Object& object);
{
void* p = &
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:10:03PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Any ideas for a sane approach?
You could change insn_rtx_cost to actually calculate the cost of the
insn, not just set_src_cost of a single set. This will need checking
on a great many targets, not in the least because most targe
Hi David,
Thanks for your kind response!
在 2017年07月10日 22:16, David Malcolm 写道:
On Sat, 2017-07-08 at 15:50 +0800, Leslie Zhai wrote:
Hi GCC developers,
There was
PLUGIN_REGISTER_GGC_CACHES
pseudo-events for register_callback in GCC v4.x, but how to migrate
it
for GCC v6.x? there is no PL
在 2017年07月10日 22:16, David Malcolm 写道:
On Sat, 2017-07-08 at 15:50 +0800, Leslie Zhai wrote:
Hi GCC developers,
There was
PLUGIN_REGISTER_GGC_CACHES
pseudo-events for register_callback in GCC v4.x, but how to migrate
it
for GCC v6.x? there is no PLUGIN_REGISTER_GGC_CACHES deprecated log
in
I was looking into some bitfield code for aarch64 and was wondering
why SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS is set to 0. I can't seem to figure out why
though.
The header says:
Although there's no difference in instruction count or cycles,
in AArch64 we don't want to expand to a sub-word to a 64-bit access
if
