Re: Libgcc divide vectorization question

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 6:00 PM Andrew Stubbs wrote: > > Hi all, > > I want to be able to vectorize divide operators (softfp and integer), > but amdgcn only has hardware instructions suitable for -ffast-math. > > We have recently implemented vector versions of all the libm functions, > but the lib

Re: Libgcc divide vectorization question

On 22/03/2023 10:09, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 6:00 PM Andrew Stubbs wrote: Hi all, I want to be able to vectorize divide operators (softfp and integer), but amdgcn only has hardware instructions suitable for -ffast-math. We have recently implemented vector versions of al

Re: Libgcc divide vectorization question

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:02 PM Andrew Stubbs wrote: > > On 22/03/2023 10:09, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 6:00 PM Andrew Stubbs wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I want to be able to vectorize divide operators (softfp and integer), > >> but amdgcn only has hardware instruc

[RISC-V] [SIG-toolchain] Meeting will be canceled (March 23, 2023)

Hi all, Tomorrow's meeting will be canceled, since there were few new topics to discuss. The next RISC-V GNU Toolchain meeting is collecting topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JSs-BSlPJ3QYbAb-Add1TlbYx0nOT1ur3jcsITIJ01U/edit?usp=sharing Please add what want to discuss in the nex

Re: Libgcc divide vectorization question

On 22/03/2023 13:56, Richard Biener wrote: Basically, the -ffast-math instructions will always be the fastest way, but the goal is that the default optimization shouldn't just disable vectorization entirely for any loop that has a divide in it. We try to express division as multiplication, but

Re: [Static Analyzer] Loop handling - False positive for malloc-sm

On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 09:21 +0100, Pierrick Philippe wrote: > On 21/03/2023 00:30, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 13:28 +0100, Pierrick Philippe wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I'm still playing around with the analyzer, and wanted to have a > > > look > > > at > > > loop han

Re: [Static Analyzer] Loop handling - False positive for malloc-sm

On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 11:01 +0100, Shengyu Huang wrote: > Hi Dave, > > > I implemented my own approach, with a "widening_svalue" subclass of > > symbolic value.  This is widening in the Abstract Interpretation > > sense, > > (as opposed to the bitwise operations sense): if I see multiple > > value

I have questions regarding the 4.3 codebase...

Is there anyone on the list with experience with the gcc 4.3 codebase? I'm currently maintaining a fork of it, with a PDP10 code generator. I've run into an issue involving the transformation of a movmemhi to a single PDP10 instruction (an xblt, if you're curious). The transformation appears to

Re: [GSoC] Discussion of warnings and of a first patch (name-hiding)

Hi Jason, Sorry for the delayed answer, I was in my exam period! I've almost finished the patch (PR12341 ), and wrote a testcase to compare it against. In it I use dejaGNU instructions of the format: /* { dg-warning "'C::bbb' might shadow 'B::b

Re: [GSOC] query about C++: Implement compiler built-in traits for the standard library traits

Thanks, Martin and Jonathan for your suggestion. I have already finished building gcc from source. I was looking at other project ideas and found "Enable incremental Link Time Optimization (LTO) linking" interesting. Can anyone please explain how to proceed further with this? Currently, I am