Re: Is there a way to look for a tree by its UID?

2020-09-07 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 4:36 PM Erick Ochoa wrote: > > > > On 04/09/2020 15:19, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 10:13 AM Erick Ochoa > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 03/09/2020 12:19, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 10:58 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc > >>> wrote:

Re: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipelines

2020-09-07 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 8:10 AM Qian, Jianhua wrote: > > Hi > > I'm adding a new machine model. I have a problem when writing the > "define_insn_reservation" for instruction scheduling. > How to write the "define_insn_reservation" for one instruction that there are > different latencies and pipel

Re: Function signatures in extern "C".

2020-09-07 Thread Iain Sandoe
Nathan Sidwell wrote: GCC has an extension on machaines with cxx_implicit_extern_c (what used to be !NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C). On such targets we'll treat 'extern "C" void Foo ()' as-if the argument list is variadic. (or something approximating that) perhaps that is confusing things? may

RE: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipelines

2020-09-07 Thread Qian, Jianhua
Hi Richard > -Original Message- > From: Richard Biener > Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 3:41 PM > To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华 > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipelines > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 8:10 AM Qian, Jianhua wrote: > > > >

Re: Function signatures in extern "C".

2020-09-07 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > Perhaps the PR should be reopened with “accepts invalid”? My impression from the PR is that the reporter was using a different ABI, where the name isn't reserved. Maybe the testcase should only be accepted with -fno-threadsafe-statics or -ffreest

Re: Function signatures in extern "C".

2020-09-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:27:13AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > > Perhaps the PR should be reopened with “accepts invalid”? > > My impression from the PR is that the reporter was using a different > ABI, where the name isn't reserved

Re: Function signatures in extern "C".

2020-09-07 Thread Iain Sandoe
Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Iain Sandoe wrote: Perhaps the PR should be reopened with “accepts invalid”? My impression from the PR is that the reporter was using a different ABI, where the name isn't reserved. Maybe the testcase should only be accepted with -f

Re: Function signatures in extern "C".

2020-09-07 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, 10:34 Jakub Jelinek, wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:27:13AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the PR should be reopened with “accepts invalid”? > > > > My impression from the PR is that the report

Re: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipelines

2020-09-07 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 10:46 AM Qian, Jianhua wrote: > > Hi Richard > > > -Original Message- > > From: Richard Biener > > Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 3:41 PM > > To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华 > > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > Subject: Re: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipe

Re: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipelines

2020-09-07 Thread Richard Sandiford
"Qian, Jianhua" writes: > Hi > > I'm adding a new machine model. I have a problem when writing the > "define_insn_reservation" for instruction scheduling. > How to write the "define_insn_reservation" for one instruction that there are > different latencies and pipelines according to parameter. >

Why was it important to change "FALLTHROUGH" to "fall through"?

2020-09-07 Thread Bruce Korb via Gcc
I don't write a lot of code anymore, but this sure seems like a gratuitous irritation to me. I've been using // FALLTHRU and // FALLTHROUGH for *DECADES*, so it's pretty incomprehensible why the compiler should have to invalidate my code because it thinks a different coding comment is bet

Re: Why was it important to change "FALLTHROUGH" to "fall through"?

2020-09-07 Thread Florian Weimer
* Bruce Korb via Gcc: > I don't write a lot of code anymore, but this sure seems like a > gratuitous irritation to me. I've been using > > // FALLTHRU and > // FALLTHROUGH > > for *DECADES*, so it's pretty incomprehensible why the compiler should > have to invalidate my code because it thi

Re: Why was it important to change "FALLTHROUGH" to "fall through"?

2020-09-07 Thread Bruce Korb via Gcc
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:45 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Bruce Korb via Gcc: > > > I don't write a lot of code anymore, but this sure seems like a > > gratuitous irritation to me. I've been using > > > > // FALLTHRU and > > // FALLTHROUGH > > > > for *DECADES*, so it's pretty incomprehen

RE: A problem with one instruction multiple latencies and pipelines

2020-09-07 Thread Qian, Jianhua
Hi Richard Thanks a lot for your advises and detailed comments. We will discuss which instructions need to be accurately classified, and estimate the workload. Regards Qian > -Original Message- > From: Richard Sandiford > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:21 AM > To: Qian, Jianhua/钱