Sorry for the delay...
Updated diff: http://coypu.sdf.org/vax-gcc10.diff
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 02:08:32PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 3/30/19 3:03 AM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> > hi folks,
> >
> > i was interesting in tackling some problems gcc netbsd/vax has.
> > it has some ICEs which are in rel
Greetings,
I was wondering if its possible to use the C11 atomics library for
multithreading
GCC. Not sure if its a good idea due to concerns about older plaforms
not having
a C11 supported libraries or compiler.
If not then the best way is pthreads key support and other posix thread
supp
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:21, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 11:56, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Christophe Lyon writes:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > While looking at GCC validation results when configured for ARM
> > > cortex-m33 by default, I noticed that
> > > FAIL: gcc.targ
On 9/17/19 6:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> At the Cauldron this weekend the overwhelming view for the move to GIT
> soon was finally expressed.
[ ... proposal itself ... ]
So there's nothing in the proposal I would object to, nor do I object to
being slightly flexible. If we need to mov
On 9/12/19 8:48 AM, Jianbin Fang wrote:
> Hello Guys,
>
>
>
> I am working on OpenCL for a couple of years, and would like to ask,
> as for GCC, why not taking OpenCL C as a built-in language in its
> front-end?
There's no inherent reason why we don't support OpenCL C. Someone would
just need t
On 9/19/19 12:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:09 PM Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm currently trying to add -Wshadow=local to the gcc build rules.
>> I started with -Wshadow, but gave up that idea immediately.
>>
>> As you could expect the current code base has
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 2:21 PM Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 9/19/19 12:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:09 PM Bernd Edlinger
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm currently trying to add -Wshadow=local to the gcc build rules.
> >> I started with -Wshadow, but gave up that
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 1:10 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> On 9/12/19 8:48 AM, Jianbin Fang wrote:
> > Hello Guys,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am working on OpenCL for a couple of years, and would like to ask,
> > as for GCC, why not taking OpenCL C as a built-in language in its
> > front-end?
> There's no inherent r
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:32 AM Nicholas Krause wrote:
> I was wondering if its possible to use the C11 atomics library for
> multithreading
>
> GCC. Not sure if its a good idea due to concerns about older plaforms
> not having a C11 supported libraries or compiler.
I've been wondering if it's ti
On 9/20/19 4:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:32 AM Nicholas Krause wrote:
I was wondering if its possible to use the C11 atomics library for
multithreading
GCC. Not sure if its a good idea due to concerns about older plaforms
not having a C11 supported libraries or comp
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 3:12 PM Nicholas Krause wrote:
>
> On 9/20/19 4:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:32 AM Nicholas Krause
> wrote:
> >> I was wondering if its possible to use the C11 atomics library for
> >> multithreading
> >>
> >> GCC. Not sure if its a good idea du
On 9/20/19 4:43 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 3:12 PM Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 9/20/19 4:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:32 AM Nicholas Krause
wrote:
I was wondering if its possible to use the C11 atomics library for
multithreading
GCC. Not sure i
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:15:32AM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> Removed from the diff. Unfortunately this introduces an ICE during the
> build of GCC...
I took another look at the VAX atomic pattern issue.
(http://gnats.netbsd.org/53039)
It is a compiler crash to do with the added atomic builtins
On 9/20/19 3:04 PM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:15:32AM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>> Removed from the diff. Unfortunately this introduces an ICE during the
>> build of GCC...
>
> I took another look at the VAX atomic pattern issue.
> (http://gnats.netbsd.org/53039)
> It is
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 03:45:46PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Conditional branching patterns must support the label_ref and pc
> operands in either position. Everything else I've seen on this thread
> is just working around that broken aspect of the builtins.md file.
>
>
> (define_insn "jbbssiqi"
Snapshot gcc-8-20190920 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20190920/
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
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:07:59PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> Introducing the reversed jbb* patterns doesn't seem to help with the
> original issue. It crashes building libatomic.
My loose understanding of what is going on:
- GCC emits this atomic in expand.
- When cleaning up, it looks for opt
Richard,
Sorry for the second email but I forget in the previous one but Jeff Law
at Cauldron stated
your the expert for the SSA code. Is it possible to make that code
multithreaded in particular
the dominator trees.
I'm going to start researching that as Giuliano's branch does not build
18 matches
Mail list logo
