://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/
There is no _G_USING_THUNKS macro (any more).
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell:: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
pendencies might be relying on that.
I ran into this problem with my hack to add a module-server into make,
and hacked around it in an ugly fashion.
(I've not run this by the GNU-Make maintainers)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
ll need to fix such messages, so why not just get them right in the
first place?
Are you using 'merge' with some meaning other than git merge? because
merging to trunk is verboeten.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
s are extracted from GIT. In fact, that's
precisely what I'd like to see us do.
The GCC10 release date would seem a good point to do this. That gives us around
3 months to figure the details (and get stakeholder buy-in)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 2/3/20 5:15 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 25/01/2020 16:11, Jeff Law wrote:
On Sat, 2020-01-25 at 10:50 -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 1/24/20 4:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 20:32 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git
e brief summary.
Also, use the shortened form, as the topic part is more usefully
conveyed in the proper topic field (see above).
I've not seen any follow-up to this version. Should we go ahead and
adopt this?
do it!
do it! do it! do it!
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
or not.
Recently Honza, me and others discussed LTO's interaction with build
systems, and that perhaps the module mapper could be generalized for
other purposes. (Yes, still need to resurrect my Make PoC)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 3/2/20 8:01 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 27/02/2020 13:37, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 2/3/20 6:41 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 22/01/2020 17:45, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
[updated based on v2 discussions]
This patch proposes some new (additional) rules for email
cc-patches/2020-March/date.html just
gives a list of emails, no dates shown. There's no indication what the
ordering is -- and apparently it is not most recent first.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 3/9/20 1:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 16:58, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 3/9/20 9:57 AM, Thomas König wrote:
Hi,
I concur with what Jakub wrote. The new web interface is much less useful than
the old one; a severe regression for developers, so to speak.
OMG I&#x
rce?
The ARM (32) abi has some extensions to that, which originally came from
Alex Oliva and then I implemented (The GNU2 TLS stuff). I think the
smarts is in the linker for that though.
IMHO bfd might be a better source of information than gcc.
natan
--
Nathan Sidwell
tics, at the C
abstract machine level, for accessing *a any number of times. Thus
depending on a specific number of accesses is unreliable.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
files produced on the side. We simply
disallowed having the user pass -gsplit-dwarf directly to the
compiler.
Feel free to share this.
--
Nathan Sidwell
move to newer C++ standards over time, it
is more likely we will start using newer constructs, and some of those
may make the code potentially less readable.
--
Nathan Sidwell
#x27;)
test cl, cl
setnz al; eax |= (c != '\0')
shreax, cl ; eax >>= (c % ' ')
^^ operand type mismatch on this instruction
xoredx, edx
cmpecx, 33 ; CF = c <= ' '
adcedx, edx ; edx = (c <= ' ')
andeax, edx
ret
regards
Stefan Kanthak
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 8/16/20 9:54 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
"Nathan Sidwell" wrote:
What evidence do you have that your alternative sequence performs
better?
45+ years experience in writing assembly code!
Have you benchmarked it?
Of course! Did you?
I didn't include the numbers in
it
more robust - e.g. diagnose the mismatch in the call(s) synthesized to
__cxa_guard_acquire.
It seems we only try to build these function decl(s) once - lazily - so that a
wrong one will persist for the whole TU (and we don’t seem to check that
the decl matches the itanium ABI - perhaps that’s intentional tho).
cheers
Iain
--
Nathan Sidwell
proper compilation, and in general would be difficult to
get right, considering
#define bob 1
#if bob
#else
#endif
where 'bob' is only used during the preprocessing.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
r (0?) and the
other is the data pointer (1?).
I can never remember more than that, and usually go build a compiler and
inspect its output to figure more.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 10/1/20 5:49 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi Nathan!
On 9/29/20 7:58 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 9/29/20 11:22 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I'm looking for an information regarding exception handling on Linux/m68k, in
particular
I need to know what registers are us
On 10/1/20 8:32 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi Nathan!
Thanks for the explanations!
On 10/1/20 2:27 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
do you know what those 2 functions you mention provide on say x86? Then it
might be easier to map onto 68k.
From [1]:
Register X86TargetLowering
they should be. I don't know why that might be
but a full clean/rebuild fixed it. I've never had this problem
before... so odd.
Sorry for the noise!
heh, it was an amusing story :)
'the bug must be over there. oops, no it wasn't'
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
tx->return_pn, and we SEGV at runtime
dereferencing a NULL pointer.
Isn't that code breaking the type-based aliasing rules?
'struct pnode *' and 'unsigned int' are not alias-compatible.
does -fno-strict-aliasing resolve things?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
ected unqualified-id before string constant
3 | extern "C" __attribute__((__visibility__("default")))
I don't see why it should be will-formed. 'extern "C"' is a linkage
specification, which precedes (or encloses) a declaration. It is not
storag
On 10/26/20 7:08 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/25/20 7:52 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi
Given that GNU attributes are not part of the standard..
I wonder if the following is expected to work?
__attribute__((__deprecated__))
extern "C" __attribute__((__visibility__("defau
tion. If we fail to do so, it will continue
to be harder and harder to attract new talent to GCC development.
Address this as a priority. Address it now.
--
Nathan Sidwell
pen, functional and
inclusive body (which includes, nothing).
nathan
FWIW, I am surprised that you, the SC, chose to respond only to the
mailing list, and not CC me, the original complainant, of your decision.
Perhaps that seems petty, but it is personally insulting.
--
Nathan Sidwell
Ian,
thank you for taking the time to write this. I appreciate that you have
reached out. I do have a couple of comments though.
On 4/1/21 3:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I think you want the steering committee to issue a statement
vation for this move right now?
I gave them in my initial email. You can go find them in the archive.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
please report it to the FSF board of directors, copying me?
Nice bit of deflection there. I see what you're doing.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
to restore credibility and
integrity to this discussion.
People, and companies can chose to support whatever organizations they desire,
and they can chose to withdraw such support. For what ever reasons they may have.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 4/12/21 5:32 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
release of GCC 11 out of the door.
Then it is important this is resolved.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki
or website finds nothing. The mission statement mentions nothing.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 4/14/21 9:18 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Nathan Sidwell :
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki or
website finds nothing. The mission statement mentions nothing.
I'm not a GCC in
ing like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki
or website finds nothing. The mission statement
On 07/31/15 13:37, David Edelsohn wrote:
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Nathan Sidwell as nvptx maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Nathan on his new role.
Nathan, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file.
thanks
Richard,
I got the min/max VRP optimization I mentioned working, but it uncovered a bug
in phiopts where that pass is constructing MIN and MAX exprs. (Funnily enough,
I only found that failure due to a broken test of decimal fp).
We start with the following bit of code:
// X has unknown rang
On 07/25/16 04:14, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
I've just analyzed PR68080, which exposes 2 interesting problems we have:
1) Majority of instrumented profiling code is not thread-safe, for instance
edge profiler:
PROF_edge_counter_11 = __gcov0._ZL20__gthread_mutex_lockP15pthread_mutex_t[0];
On 07/25/16 08:14, Richard Biener wrote:
There's pthread_detach () - do we wrap that appropriately? That said, another
way to make counters thread-safe is to allocate per-thread counters and update
those (for example by making the counters __TLS). The interesting part is then
to merge them wit
On 07/25/16 08:28, Martin Liška wrote:
I'm also surprised about it :) Let's start without invention of a new flag,
I'll work on that.
As using atomic add doesn't result in a change to the libgcov interface or
structures, that's probably the best first approach. (It also probably gets the
9
On 07/25/16 08:46, Richard Biener wrote:
There is also the question about optimization - we go great lengths to ensure
that for example loop store motion applies to counter updates so we get
old_ctr = values[42];
for (;;)
...
values[42] = old_ctr + # iterations
using atomics there might s
On 10/03/16 19:48, Martin Sebor wrote:
In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention
commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments
in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment
along the lines of
foo (1, 2, /*bar_p=*/true);
I like this if there's
On 10/04/16 08:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 07:40:09AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/03/16 19:48, Martin Sebor wrote:
In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention
commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments
in calls to functions
On 10/14/16 05:28, Richard Biener wrote:
The BB_VISITED flag has indetermined state at the beginning of a pass.
You have to ensure it is cleared yourself.
In that case the openacc (&nvptx?) passes should be modified to clear the flags
at their start, rather than at their end.
nathan
++),
whether there are some differences between gcc template syntax?
Your code requires the typename. See 14.6.2 of the std for reasons.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
'Don't Repeat Yourself)
- I didn't find a single function to print full nested, scoped id
so had to check if ENUM_IS_SCOPED to output nested specifiers.
This seems a fine approach, given the code base.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
provided a written copyright waiver for the
FSF, though they have agreed and my contract already works out well in that
regard.
Any progress on this?
Tim and I are at the same conference, we've been chatting.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
t out.
IIUC the functionality is moved to the newly named powerpcspe-*-* target?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
thing earlier has convinced them otherwise -- usually a dereference
will do that.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
implications, and save
The point is that tsubst_expr can return NULL_TREE, we should check for it.
Are there cases that tsubst_expr returns NULL when the incoming T is
non-null? I.e. I'm hypothesizing DEF is NULL already.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
a native english speaker, 'at any cost' would be my preferred
formulation.
I also stumbled over "on not introducing" ... would that be better as
"to not introduce"?
Either seems fine to me
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
) and take care constructing the
__has_include macro expansion to have a token with exactly that spelling?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
__ is a defined macro, so there must
be some other subtlety with __has_include?
nathans@zathras:6>gcc -xc - <:2:2: error: #error DATE IS A MACRO
(typing that makes me realize why users think it is __has_include__,
that's a really unfortunate name to use for an implementation detail)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
also fixing a regression?
b) perhaps we shouldn't be sending non-dependent expressions through the
capture machinery, but instead wrapping them in an appropriate
view_convert_expr to make them const?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
nore version' developer option, but
as it's only me right now, that's not been a need.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
spanning tree used to
determine where to place them.
2) What exactly is the purpose of the constructor (__gcov_init()) and
where are the values of the passed gcov_info struct set (probably
related to 1)?
It's a global constructor, libgcc/libgcov-$something
natha
--
Nathan Sidwell
rs is that I seem to remember some
GCC devs saying they wanted to rip out pre-compiled headers completely
once the C++ modules branch is merged, so I'm not sure if it's worth
putting that much work into something that might be removed soon,
anyways... I'm pretty sure Nathan Sidwel
My first reading was that 1 gets
you a warning level, (with the implication that 2 got you an error level
or something?)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
d
there did appear to be something funky going on with its interaction
with PCH. I didn't investigate, but have some patches that I'll be
merging in the not too distant future.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
override that extended type.
2) how do you define 'doesn't fit'? decimal 0.1 has a recurring binary
representation. Should that become the longest floating point type?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
tes or
just incrementally adds
them to new object files).
I'm not opposed to removing -frepo from GCC 10 but then I would start
noting it is obsolete
on the GCC 9 branch at least.
I concur. frepo's serial reinvocation of the compiler is not compatible
with modern C++ code bases.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 7/9/19 9:00 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:41 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 7/9/19 6:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:04 PM Martin Liška wrote:
Same happens also for GCC7. It does 17 iteration (#define MAX_ITERATIONS 17) and
apparently 17 is not enough to
On 7/10/19 7:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Great, thank you.
There's a patch for deprecating of the option in GCC 9 changes.
May I install the patch right now or should I wait?
I think there needs to be a code patch so that use of the option gives a
warning.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
e.g.:
$ ./gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -mmpx /tmp/main.c
xgcc: warning: switch ‘-mmpx’ is no longer supported
Great! I must have missed that patch. All good to go for gcc-9 deprecation
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
backs.
There are cases where the overhead of threads is too expensive. For
instance hiding (cache-missing) load latencies by doing other work while
waiting -- a context switch at that point is far too expensive.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
the end
of stage1.
I think it'd be ok to install it during stage3 (perhaps early feb?).
More chance of people speaking up.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 9/5/19 6:03 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/5/19 12:01 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:57 PM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 9/4/19 7:20 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/4/19 11:22 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The point of the warning was to see if users complain. Three weeks
Is it time to deprecate traditional preprocessing? It's been 30 years
since C89. Are (non-compiler) tools that use it still things?
Handling it gets its hooks into a bunch of odd places in libcpp.
To be specific: deprecate -traditional-cpp for GCC10, remove in GCC11.
nathan
--
N
through anything that increments tinst_depth.
Why doesn't the std specify the satisfaction nesting limit in the same
way as template instantiation? (at least that's what I infer from your
question).
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 12/23/19 12:30 PM, Erick Ochoa wrote:
Hi,
I am working on an LTO pass which drops unused fields on structs. On my
tests, I found that the gimple generated for `sizeof` is a constant. For
example, for the following C code:
```
you also need to pay attention to offsetof.
nathan
--
Nathan
even stored).
I've looked into options.h but I cannot figure out how to use it in an
architecture-neutral way.
Um, AVX and such are arch-specific. It sounds like you need some kind
of (new?) langhook that targets can register?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
irror works for me. Thanks to Maxim anyway for all the work - without that
we'd not switch in 10 other years...
Joseph's conversion please
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
mean, and what did that do?
* should I be using user branches for this?
* is it possible do that all in one command?
> git COMMAND ../../error/src SOMETHING
... now ../../error/src has a checked out /users/nathan/error branch
created from master?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 1/13/20 10:58 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Jan 13 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:29 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
If I drop 'master' from the command I get:
>git worktree add ../../error/src
Preparing ../../error/src (identifier src1)
* what does &#x
tyle guidelines from Scott Meyers'
@cite{Effective C++} series of books:
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
nd" "aim")))]
The sh port may be instructive, IIRC it has a bunch of 2-op insns.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
"addhi3"
[(set (match_operand:HI 0 "general_operand" "=m,r")
(plus:HI (match_operand:HI 1 "general_operand" "%0,0")
(match_operand:HI 2 "general_operand" "di,g")))]
@dots{})
no need for an expander and 2 insn patterns.
--
Nathan Sidwell
Given the way your expander's working, I think you'll come to grief with
this insn, once you turn the optimizer on.
That insn will allow any immediate for op-2, and that;s what the
optimizer will pay attention to. You probably want your own predicates
to exactly match what things an instruction can take.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
rget, or feasible at all.
this is what occurred to me as the way to go. Some existing targets do
the moral equivalent of that to hold a 64-bit double in an even/odd pair
of 32 bit regs. Don't think there's one that's quite as extreme as what
you describe.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
a compiler that supports what a previous version supported,
you know where to find it :)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
lack
of test failure is promising).
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
it?'
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
uot;=a,b")
(mem:SI (match_operand:SI "register" "a,b")))
+ variants for reg+const if you have them?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 08/31/2017 07:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
So ok to default to a lazy one, or are suggesting we leave things
as they are?
Either leave as-is or default to the lazy one.
Agreed.
--
Nathan Sidwell
://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/EasyHacks
I've lust added a link to EasyHacks from GettingStarted (it wasn't
obvious to me how to find it).
Is there a different page for 'more involved changes'? We could likn to
that from EasyHacks.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
irely correct.
Given that you apparently only recently learnt about --sysroot it
seems a bit presumptuous to assume Codesourcery's experts don't know
what they're doing.
I think they know about it in all its Canadian crossy system-bootstrappy
goodness :)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 10/04/2017 02:10 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Incidentally, I don't understand why there is no "Professional Support"
page where we can direct people to find professional support. It could
My recollection is that the FSF explicitly prohibit this.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 10/05/2017 07:47 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
I like the table with direct links to talks/slides/videos on
last year's page, so I spent a while this morning adding a table
to this year's page. Hope others find that useful too.
yay! thanks. now to go find my slides ...
nathan
On 10/16/2017 07:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16 October 2017 at 08:25, Ramón García wrote:
ping
As previously stated, nobody is working on it.
Not because nobody cares, but because of lack of time against higher
priority things.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
X is a relocation section generated by the assembler. GCC emits
debug information using assembler pseudos such as .word etc. Those will
name relocations. The syntax for relocations is target-specific. The
above will be some_symbol@dtpoff or something.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
.rela'
(or .rel' depending on the target ABI) to hold the relocation
data. This is handled by the assembler & BFD.
It's not clear to my why you want this level of detail -- curiosity?
http://www.sco.com/developers/gabi/latest/contents.html
https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/article/402129/mpx-linux64-abi.pdf
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
ture an outer scope
object.
lambdas can be templates.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
odules and trunk may be educational, as
that has to do similar things to enable the new keywords.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
--
Nathan Sidwell
mbolic-functions is now a thing, which would be better
--
Nathan Sidwell
's other data to let code generation know some vtable
inspection is needed when the dynamic type is unknown).
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
making it not a tree would win -- you'd be pushing the
int->INTEGER_CST conversions into each base conversion generation.
Don't forget, small integer_csts are commonized)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
lfcontained testcase, that'd make a great bug
report. (Sadly, 'ivopts can cause code differences' is probably too vague.)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 03/12/2018 09:24 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
x86_64-fedora -> i586-linux
x86_64-fedora -> i586-mingw32
Ah, I'd interpreted it as
host:linux -> some (embedded) system
host:mingw32 -> same (embedded) system
I answered that question.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
101 - 200 of 254 matches
Mail list logo
