Re: gcc vs clang for non-power-2 atomic structures

Hi Jim, > On 23 Aug 2019, at 00:56, Jim Wilson wrote: > > We got a change request for the RISC-V psABI to define the atomic > structure size and alignment. And looking at this, it turned out that > gcc and clang are implementing this differently. Consider this > testcase > > rohan:2274$ cat t

Re: gcc vs clang for non-power-2 atomic structures

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 08:21, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > > On 23 Aug 2019, at 00:56, Jim Wilson wrote: > > > > We got a change request for the RISC-V psABI to define the atomic > > structure size and alignment. And looking at this, it turned out that > > gcc and clang are implementing th

Re: gcc vs clang for non-power-2 atomic structures

> On 23 Aug 2019, at 10:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 08:21, Iain Sandoe wrote: >> >> Hi Jim, >> >>> On 23 Aug 2019, at 00:56, Jim Wilson wrote: >>> >>> We got a change request for the RISC-V psABI to define the atomic >>> structure size and alignment. And looking

Re: gcc vs clang for non-power-2 atomic structures

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, 11:13 Iain Sandoe, wrote: > > > > On 23 Aug 2019, at 10:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 08:21, Iain Sandoe wrote: > >> > >> Hi Jim, > >> > >>> On 23 Aug 2019, at 00:56, Jim Wilson wrote: > >>> > >>> We got a change request for the RISC-V psABI to d

Rust front-end

I'm interested in working on the Rust front-end for GCC. So far I've cloned the repository and tried to compile it as described in . I've compiled it outside of the gcc directory tree with $ ../gccrs/configure --prefix

Re: gcc vs clang for non-power-2 atomic structures

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, Iain Sandoe wrote: > absolutely, it’s the psABI that’s lacking here - the compilers (as commented > by Richard Smith in a referenced thread) should not be making ABI up… With over 50 target architectures supported in GCC, most of which probably don't have anyone maintaining

_Nomodify extension idea for optimization and safety

Hi, I've thought of a simple optimization. I'm sending this because I'd like feedback on it, and I might submit a C proposal a few years later. This (https://theartofmachinery.com/2019/08/12/c_const_isnt_for_performance.html) blog post inspired me. The summary is that the const-ness of const poin

Re: Expansion of narrowing math built-ins into power instructions

Hello, On Thu, Aug 22 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> > Hi Tejas, >> > >> > [ Please do not top-post. ] > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 01:27:06PM +0530, Tejas Joshi wrote: >> > What happens then? "It does not work" is very very vague. At least it >> > seems the compiler does build now? >> >> Oh

Re: _Nomodify extension idea for optimization and safety

On 8/23/19 10:44 AM, MCC CS wrote: Hi, I've thought of a simple optimization. I'm sending this because I'd like feedback on it, and I might submit a C proposal a few years later. This (https://theartofmachinery.com/2019/08/12/c_const_isnt_for_performance.html) blog post inspired me. The summary

Re: gcc vs clang for non-power-2 atomic structures

I was pointed at https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26462 for the LLVM discussion of this problem. Another issue here is that we should have ABI testing for atomic. For instance, gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat has no atomic testcases. Likewise g++.dg/compat. Jim

Re: gcc vs clang for non-power-2 atomic structures

Hi Joseph, > On 23 Aug 2019, at 17:14, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, Iain Sandoe wrote: > >> absolutely, it’s the psABI that’s lacking here - the compilers (as commented >> by Richard Smith in a referenced thread) should not be making ABI up… > > With over 50 target architecture

Re: Expansion of narrowing math built-ins into power instructions

Hi! On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 07:16:59PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > Therefore, at least for now (GSoC deadline is kind of looming), I > decided that the best way forward would be to not rely on internal > functions but plug into expand_builtin() and I wrote the following, > lightly tested patch -

gcc-8-20190823 is now available

Snapshot gcc-8-20190823 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20190823/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-8