Given all this, I posed this question to the gcc mailing list and
received a reply that directed me to the C++ ABI
(http://codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/), which is more detailed and has the
information I'm looking for. However, I need to confirm, in the case of
an FAA audit, that GCC 3.3.1 implements
>> As I understand it, it involves editing the mysql database by hand (well
>> by a script) instead of doing it inside bugzilla. Daniel Berlin has
>> done that the last couple of releases.
>
> I have checked in the attached patch to add this step to the branching
>
On 10/26/06, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is not a note, it's a statement. The problem with RTL loop notes
was that they were not statements, but rather markers, e.g. "a loop
starts/ends here". The LOOP_HEADER node, on the other hand, is more
like a placeholder for the result o
4. Are you aware that the GMP home page says
[2006-05-04] GMP does not build on MacInteltosh machines. No fix
planned for GMP 4.x.
and indeed it does not appear to build correctly when configured on
my MacBook Pro?
Errr, well,
I have installed the version from macports on my macbook pro, and i
On 10/30/06, Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30/10/2006, at 10:34 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> 4. Are you aware that the GMP home page says
>>
>> [2006-05-04] GMP does not build on MacInteltosh machines. No fix
>> planned for GMP 4.x.
>>
>&
On 10/30/06, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either fink or
> macports to install unix software when possible, because pretty much
> everything has req
On 11/5/06, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AFAIK not one of the tree optimizers disables itself, but perhaps we
> should. The obvious candidates would be the ones that require
> recomputation of alias analysis, and the ones that don't update SSA
> info on the fly (i.e. require update_
On 11/5/06, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tree alias analysis can partially disable itself though:
>
> No, it can't. Tree alias representation can :)
I presume you're thinking of the pass that performs the analysis, while I was
more thinking of the global machinery; my understand
On 11/6/06, Ricardo FERNANDEZ PASCUAL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I have discovered that volatile expresions can cause the tree-ssa
pre pass to loop forever in "compute_antic". The problem seems to be
that the expresion is assigned a different value number at each
iteration, hence the
The problem with trying to solve this problem on a per pass basis rather
than coming up with an integrate solution is that we are completely
leaving the user out of the thought process.
There are some uses who have big machines or a lot of time on their
hands and want the damn the torpedoes full
> It will load the value from memory, true, but who says that the store to
> memory will happen before that? The compiler is allowed to reorder the
> statements since it "knows" that foo and *arg cannot alias.
>
If the compiler is smart enough to know how to reorder the statements,
then it shoul
On 11/10/06, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 12:46 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> Will use C++ help or hurt compiler parallelism? Does it really matter?
I'm not an expert, but, in the simple world I want, I want it to not
matter in the least. For the people writing most code in
Hm. If you're going to reorder these things, then I would expect either
an error or a warning at that point, because you really do know that a
reference to an uninitialized variable is happening.
We do warn when we see an uninitialized value if -Wuninitialized is on.
We don't warn at every poin
> > whole-program optimisation and SMP machines have been around for a
> > fair while now, so I'm guessing not.
>
> I don't know of anything that is particularly hard about it, but, if
> you know of bits that are hard, or have pointer to such, I'd be
> interested in it.
You imply you're consider
If i ctrl-c a gcc bootstrap in the middle of building a stage (IE when
it's compiling, not when it's configuring), make clean no longer works
properly.
It used to a few months ago
Now I get:
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `clean'. Stop.
make: *** [clean-stage4-gcc] Error 2
(with the error
On 11/14/06, Sashan Govender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
I was looking at the vectorizer
(http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/vectorization.html) and noticed
that in section 6 it says that there is no data dependence graph
implemented. Also had a search throught the mailing list archives and
On 11/16/06, Alvaro Vega Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm beginning to work on GGCC project(1) and I proposed to continue with
DejaGNU Testsuite for these project when I was asked about better
testing framework. Then I read about "QMTest and the G++ testsuite"
thread (2) of year 2002
On 11/17/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 12:22 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> I just tried compiling cplusplus_grammer.ii with mainline, checking
> disabled, and had to stop it after 30 minutes (use to be <50 seconds on
> my x86-linux box). A quick check with
a a. Conditional jumps in GIMPLE are not true three-address-code since they
specify two (2) branch targets (in their general form). E.g.:
if (cond) then
goto target1;
else
goto target2;
IMHO, this should be split (or at least made splittable) into:
if (cond) then
goto target1;
if (!cond)
On 11/18/06, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Zdenek, all,
Is this something that could be easily fixed? E.g. can we make it
that flow_loops_find only performs transformations if asked to (by
adding a function argument for that)?
Why not have a flow_canonicalize_loops that does
In the meantime, is there a simple way to disable this "more correct"
mechanism so I can get my timings?
You'll get testsuite failures if you disable it because it fixes a
bunch of bugs.
You can always disable all of PTA, but i would not recommend it.
With the attached patch, it should take l
On 11/28/06, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear All (and especially those implied in the GCC internal garbage
collector).
I read (and contributed a bit to) http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Memory_management
and also read http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Type-Information.html
Howev
> I think there are 3 aliasing possibilities here:
> 1. known to alias
> 2. known to not alias
> 3. may alias
Actually there is only 2, it may alias or not.
Actually, he's right (and both you and Richard are wrong).
The standard taxonomy of classifications for two memory accesses is:
Must-ali
BTW, I am surprised that it is not easy to know which organizations exactly
has signed such legal papers. It could happen (in big organizations) that
such an assignment has been signed, and a putative minor contributor to GCC
does not know about it yet.
There is a copyright list on gnu.org machi
On 12/1/06, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/1/06, Uros Bizjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> At least on x86_64 and i686 SPEC score [1] and polyhedron [2] scores
> dropped noticeably. For SPEC benchmarks, mgrid, galgel, ammp and
> sixtrack tests are affected and for pol
On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays
checkout (way longer than expected). A quick investigation shows C++
compilation timed are through the roof.
10 hours?
Using quick (in theory) and trusty cpgram.ii, I get:
On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays
> > checkout (way long
On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays
> > checkout (way long
On 12/1/06, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's a bunch of related issues, some kernel, some gcc,
thus the Cc from hell on that one.
First of all, in theory the timers in kernel are done that way:
* they have callback of type void (*)(unsigned long)
* they have dat
Cancel that, it's a local change of mine causing the breakage :)
On 12/5/06, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aldy, your tuples change broke teh build on i686-darwin.
I've attached a file that fails, it should fail with a cross compiler.
On 12/5/06, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello
I am not sure to understand what if_marked or deletable means in GTY context
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/GTY-Options.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Memory_management
I want to have a GTY() garbage collected structure such
I'm not sure to understand what Daniel suggests. If he dreams of a
better memory handling than the current GGC, I certainly agree; I
actually dream of a GCC future compiler where every data is garbage
collected in a copying generational scheme (see my Qish
experiment). This would require some prep
On 12/9/06, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:09:23PM -0500, Daniel Berlin écrivait/wrote:
> You see, we currently waste a lot of memory to avoid the fact that our
> GC is very slow.
> We still take it on the chin when it comes to loca
On 12/9/06, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi,
> I want to know that the patch at
> "http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-01/msg00211.html"; submitted for
> which version of gcc?
> How can we know that any of patch submitted , that for which version?
>
On 12/10/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006
Reply-To:
Hi Daniel,
Do you have access to SPEC CPU 2006?
No, i don't, only SPEC CPU 2000.
Your patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00225.html
causes gcc 4.3 to miscompile 464.h264ref in SPEC CPU 2006 with
-O2 -ffast-mat
Hey, by chance does the attached fix it?
On 12/10/06, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/10/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2006
> Reply-To:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Do you have access to SPEC CPU 2006?
No, i don't, only SPEC CPU 2000.
>
On 12/11/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 09:42:35PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 12:27:07AM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Hey, by chance does the attached fix it?
> >
>
> Yes, it fixes 464.h264ref with the test i
On 12/21/06, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Kennedy wrote on 12/21/06 11:37:
> The situation is that some SSA_NAMEs are disused (removed from the
> code) without being released onto the free list by
> release_ssa_name().
>
Yes, it happens if a name is put into the set of names t
I may be missing something, but I don't think that is the interesting
issue here.
I agree.
I think the issue is whether we want to have a way to see all
currently valid SSA_NAMEs. Right now we can have SSA_NAMEs in the
list which are no longer used, and we have no way to tell whether they
a
On 12/21/06, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote on 12/21/06 12:21:
> for (i = 0; i < num_ssa_names; i++)
> {
> tree name = ssa_name (i);
> if (name && !SSA_NAME_IN_FREELIST (name)
>DFS (name)
>
I see that you are not checkin
On 12/21/06, Robert Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert, can you attach the testcase you've been working with?
One testcase is libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/vec.cc from mainline.
But it compiles without trouble unless you add verification or a walk
over the SSA_NAMEs at the right time.
> 1. W
On 12/28/06, Christian Sturz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I was curious if there are any gcc compiler optimizations that can
improve this code:
void foo10( )
{
for ( int i = 0; i < 10; ++i )
{
[...]
if( i == 15 ) { [BLOCK1] }
}
}
void foo100( )
{
for ( int i = 0; i < 100; ++i
On 29 Dec 2006 07:55:59 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * NEWS: AC_PROG_CC, AC_PROG_CXX, and AC_PROG_OBJC now take an
> optional second argument specifying the default optimization
> options for GCC. These optimizati
On 29 Dec 2006 19:33:29 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| In fact, what they told me was that since they made their change in
| 1991, they have had *1* person who reported a program that didn'
On 29 Dec 2006 20:15:01 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 29 Dec 2006 19:33:29 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 29 Dec 2006 21:04:08 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Basically, your argument boils down to "all supporting data is wrong,
Really?
Or were you just
# You can have all the sarcasm you
On 12/29/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure what data you're asking for.
Here's the data *I'd* like to see:
(1) What is the maximum performance loss that can be shown using a real
program (e.g,. one in SPEC) and some compiler (not necessarily GCC) when
one assumes wrap
On 12/29/06, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/29/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what data you're asking for.
>
> Here's the data *I'd* like to see:
>
> (1) What is the maximum performance loss that
Just to address the other compiler issue
No, they will work on other compilers, since 'configure'
won't use -O2 with those other compilers.
icc defaults to -O2 without any options, so unless you are passing
-O0, it will enable this.
Unless you know of some real-world C compiler that breaks
On 12/31/06, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Steven Bosscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/31/06, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, as I understand it this change shouldn't affect gcc's
>> SPEC benchmark scores, since they're typically done with -O3
>> or better.
>
>
On 12/31/06, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/31/06, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/31/06, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Steven Bosscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On 12/31/06
On 12/31/06, Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> Admittedly it's only two small tests, and it's with 4.1.1. But that's
>> two more tests than the -fwrapv naysayers have done, on
>> bread-and-butter applications like coreutils
and
<http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/SPEC/CINT/sb-vangelis-head-64/recent.html>.
Daniel Berlin and Geert Bosch disagreed about how to interpret
these results; see <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-01/msg00034.html>.
Also, the benchmarks results use -O3 and so aren't directly
applicable
Guys, i changed the cookie prevent this error, and to stop it from
continually asking for logins.
Please clear your current gcc.gnu.org bugzilla cookie from your
browser, or both this error, and getting asked for logins on every
page, will continue.
-- Forwarded message --
From:
On 1/4/07, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Guys, i changed the cookie prevent this error, and to stop it from
> continually asking for logins.
I'm not sure to understand, I never had problems before...
Others have :)
> Please clear your
On 05 Jan 2007 07:18:47 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears that memory references to arrays aren't being hoisted out
> of loops: in this test case, gcc 3.4 doesn't touch memory at all in
> the loop, but 4.3pre (and 4.2, etc) d
It is possible that somebody else will disagree with me.
FWIW, our currently aliasing set implementation agrees with you on
both counts :)
On 1/11/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> Though not as pronounced, definitely significant.
>
Using binary search I've detected that 30% performance regression of
cpu2006/437.leslie3d benchmark is caused by revision 117891.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?vi
On 1/12/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:06:31PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> >> Though not as pronounced, definitely significant.
> &
> This is a typical example of removing an if branch because signed
> overflow is undefined. This kind of code is common enough.
I could not have made my point any better myself.
And you think that somehow defining it (which the definition people
seem to favor would be to make it wrapping) am
> Every leading C compiler has for years done things like this to boost
> performance on scientific codes.
The Sun cc is a counter-example. And even then, authors of scientific
code usually do read the compiler manual, and will discover any
additional optimizer flags.
Errr, actually, Seongbae
On 1/29/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
GCC 4.3 compiler revision 121206 gets ICE while compiling
cpu2006/447.dealII source file data_out_base.cc at -O2 optimization
level on x86_64-redhat-linux.
Similar to previously reported cpu2k6/perlbench failure, this regression
is ca
by "Rewrite of portions of points-to solver"
patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01541.html
revision 120931 http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=120931
Patch attached and committed after bootstrap and regtest on i686-darwin.
2007-01-29 Daniel Berlin <[E
On 1/29/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 01/29/07 06:35:
> On 1/29/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -fdump-tree-all gives you all the dumps by the high-level optimizers.
>> -fdump-all-all gives you all the dumps by both GIMPLE and RTL optimizers.
On 1/29/07, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Buck writes:
Joe> There you go again. Mark did not support or oppose rth's change, he just
Joe> said that rth probably thought he had a good reason. He was merely
Joe> opposing your personal attack. We're all human, we make mista
On 1/29/07, Razya Ladelsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Razya Ladelsky/Haifa/IBM wrote on 29/01/2007 13:46:33:
> Hi,
>
> Does gcc apply inter-procedural optimizations across functions called
using
> a function pointer? I guess that gcc performs conservatively assuming
that
> the pointer could poin
Clear your cookie, try again, and it should fix it.
(Sorry, i'm working on the cookie issues. There is something very odd going on)
On 2/5/07, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Got this page, trying to add an attachment to #30706.
Matthias
This is GCC Bugzilla
This is GCC Bugzilla
On 2/4/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Danny, Richard G., please see below.]
Thanks to all who have helped tested GCC 4.1.2 RC1 over the last week.
I've reviewed the list traffic and Bugzilla. Sadly, there are a fair
number of bugs. Fortunately, most seem not to be new in 4.1.2,
On 2/12/07, Jiahua He <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I am reading the code of autovect branch and curious about how to deal
with the dependencies of virtual defs/uses. In the function
vect_analyze_scalar_cycles( ), I found the statement "Skip virtual
phi's. The data dependences that are associat
On 2/12/07, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday I had accidentally chat about the df infrastructure on
IIRC. I've got some thoughts which I'd like to share.
I like df infrastructure code from the day one for its clearness.
Unfortunately users don't see it and probably don'
On 2/15/07, Dorit Nuzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while playing with gcc-4.3 rev. 121994, i encountered a problem with
> autovectorisation.
>
> In the following simple code, the inner loop of c1() becomes vectorized
as
> expected, but the inner loop of c2() not because of
>
>test2
On 2/17/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
> Hello, Daniel
>
> It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
> regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
> test for this issue this week an
On 2/18/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/18/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/17/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
> > > Hello, Daniel
> > &
On 2/19/07, Roberto COSTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I've got a question for experts of alias analysis in GCC.
In the CLI back-end of GCC, there is a CLI-specific pass responsible of
some modifications on GIMPLE that simplify the emission of CIL bytecode
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/c
On 2/19/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
you might try turning the references to TARGET_MEM_REFs, and copy the
alias information using copy_ref_info to it. I am not sure how that
would interact with the transformations you want to do, but we do lot
of magic to keep the vi
On 2/19/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> > > > It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
>> > > > regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
>> > > > test
On 2/19/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> 2. What is the effort required to backport the necessary infrastructure
>> from 4.3? I'm not looking for "a lot" or "is hard", but rather, "two
>> weeks" or &
On 2/19/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:27:42AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>... *All* releases seem to have the
> predictions that they are useless, should be skipped because the next
> release will be so much better in way X or Y, etc.; I think the question
On 2/20/07, Revital1 Eres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
We saw that the reassociation pass does not operate on built-in functions,
for example:
vp3 = vec_madd (vp1, vp2, vp3);
In the RTL level the function is expanded to regular insn:
(insn 87 91 88 9 (set (reg/v:V4SF 217 [ vp3 ])
On 2/24/07, Serge Belyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have compared 4.1.2 release (r121943) with three revisions of 4.2 on spec2k
on an 2GHz AMD Athlon64 box (in 64bit mode), detailed results are below.
In short, current 4.2 performs just as good as 4.1 on this target
with the exception of hug
On 2/25/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/24/07, Serge Belyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have compared 4.1.2 release (r121943) with three revisions of 4.2 on spec2k
> on an 2GHz AMD Athlon64 box (in 64bit mode), detailed results are below.
>
> In sho
On 01 Mar 2007 18:05:50 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 04:51:24PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > If someone wants a patch committed they will ping it
> > a couple of times and if they lost interest becaus
On 3/5/07, Maxim Kuvyrkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Diego Novillo wrote:
> Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote on 03/05/07 02:14:
>
>>o Fix passes that invalidate tree-ssa alias export.
>
> Yes, this should be good and shouldn't need a lot of work.
>
>>o { Fast but unsafe Gupta's aliasing patch, Unsafe
On 3/6/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/5/07, Maxim Kuvyrkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
> > Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote on 03/05/07 02:14:
> >
> >>o Fix passes that invalidate tree-ssa alias export.
> >
> > Yes,
On 3/5/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:45:13AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> One of the bugzilla quips (the headlines appearing at random for each
> bug list) is actually the head of gcc/reload.c (full text below).
That is really obnoxious and should be removed.
On 3/12/07, Andrea Callia D'Iddio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Great! thank you! I tested with your code and it works... but I'm
still a bit confused.
Could you help me with this simple example?
Suppose that I obtained a tree structure with the following command:
tree stmt = bsi_stmt (si);
and su
On 3/12/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here are some GCC 4.2.0 P1s which I think it would be good for GCC to
have resolved before the release, together with names of people I'd like
to volunteer to help. (Naturally, I have no command authority, and I'd
encourage anyone else who wan
On 3/12/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/12/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/12/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can I recommend something just crazy, rewrite the C and C++ front-ends
> > so they don't use the tree structure at all except when
On 3/12/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> When I said, let's support Doug, I meant let's support Doug from a
> *practical* point of view. Either we suggest something doable with
> a realistically sized effort or a little larger and at th
Uh, since when did 4.1 support IPA GIMPLE?
On 3/13/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/13/07, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > int x;
> > {
> > int y;
> > {
> > int z;
> > ...
> > }
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > just ha
On 3/13/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/13/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, since when did 4.1 support IPA GIMPLE?
>
>
What do you mean by that?
I'm pretty sure there were a number of cgraph and other related
changes necessary t
On 3/20/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 March 2007 22:16, Karthikeyan M wrote:
> What should I do if I want a list of all file-scope variables inside
> my own pass ?
>
> The file_scope variable is local to c-decl.c . Is there a reason why
> the scope holding variables are local to
d static in C")
Will the cgraph nodes also have global declarations that are never
used inside any
function .
If you ask for all of them, it will give you all of them
If you ask for only the needed ones, it will give you all of the
needed ones (see FOR_EACH_STATIC_VARIABLE)
On 3/20/0
trunk (or a branch of the development
trunk).
If for no other reason than we only fix regressions on release branches.
Thanks a lot.
On 3/20/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Karthikeyan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks.
> >
On 3/21/07, Nicholas Nethercote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Paul Brook wrote:
> The problem is that I don't think writing a detailed "mission statement" is
> actually going to help anything. It's either going to be gcc contributors
> writing down what they're doing anyway, or
On 3/22/07, Alexander Lamaison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The tree_opt_pass for my pass has PROP_ssa set in the
> properties_required
> > field. Is this all I need to do?
>
> You need to put your pass after pass_build_ssa. Setting PROP_ssa does
> not build SSA itself, but it will cause an a
On 3/23/07, Alexander Monakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I would be pleased to see Ayal Zaks as my mentor, because proposed
improvement is primarily targeted as modulo scheduling improvement. In
case this is not possible, I will seek guidance from Maxim Kuvyrkov.
Ayal has not signed up
On 3/23/07, Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On 19 Mar 2007 19:12:35 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> similar justifications for yet another small% of slowdown have been
>> given routinely for over 5 years now. small% build up;
On 3/27/07, Antoine Eiche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear all,
I want to insert functions calls during a new pass.
Which version of GCC?
The problem is to
create parameters. At this time, I successfully create a function call
with two constante as parameter and insert it (I can see that in t
t; >the memory. After a few optimization passes many of the expressions
> >have no location anyhow.
> And I know from past experiences, that this is really a bug that they
> don't produce expressions with locations. I remember Daniel Berlin
> was talking about how SRA does th
1 - 100 of 1072 matches
Mail list logo
