Hi Ian,
Thanks for the review. Here's v2, which I think addresses both of your
comments.
Kind Regards,
Matt.
2013-05-22 Matt Burgess
other/PR56780
* libiberty/configure.ac: Move test for --enable-install-libiberty
outside of the 'with_target_subdir' test so that it ac
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> So if we can represent array notation as an OpenMP SIMD loop and re-use the
> OpenMP code generation, that's a significant win. I realize the OpenMP SIMD
> stuff is still in-progress, but from a design standpoint we'd like to separate
> out the front-end iss
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> But to be honest, I still don't really understand why we emit a
>> barrier at all if we're in cfglayout mode. They're ignored, they're
>> going to be overlooked if someone looks for
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Matt Burgess
wrote:
>
> 2013-05-22 Matt Burgess
>
> other/PR56780
> * libiberty/configure.ac: Move test for --enable-install-libiberty
> outside of the 'with_target_subdir' test so that it actually gets run.
> Add output messages to
On 05/22/2013 02:25 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Yes, they are both the same. A while back, I found a couple corner cases
> where the TREE_TYPE of the array notations inside __sec_reduce functions
> that was getting changed. This is a storage location that will be untouched
> so that I can get the o
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard Henderson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:18 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkpl
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>>> But to be honest, I still don't really understand why we emit a
>>> barrier at all if we're in cfglayout mode. They're i
On 05/19/2013 08:59 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Some ports have
> CFG-aware machine-reorg passes but verify_flow_info fails after the
> machine-reorg pass because the port emits insns between basic blocks,
> e.g. for const pools. What's missing is a way for verify_flow_info to
> be tolerant of suc
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
This ICE reported here happens because the array storing the
function versions that should be processed is not indexed correctly.
This patch fixes this. This only happens when some versions cannot be
dispatched because a dispatcher for t
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:12:14PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 22 May 2013 16:36:52 David Edelsohn wrote:
> >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:05:47AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>> Why does cross need the functions in libgcc a
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
>
>This ICE reported here happens because the array storing the
> function versions that should be processed is not indexed correctly.
> This patch fixes this. This only happe
The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
since 2004 (in r80564).
As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
them as const.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu against r199189, and
has the same test results as an unpatched bo
I'm attempting to eliminate global state from the insides of gcc.
gcc/tracer.c has various global variables, which are only used during
the lifetime of the execute callback of that pass, and cleaned up at the
end of each invocation of the pass.
The attached patch introduces a class to hold the st
On 05/22/2013 06:30 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
since 2004 (in r80564).
As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
them as const.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu against r199189, a
On 05/22/2013 04:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
The problem here is two things:
1. Many GCC developers still don't fully grasp the difference between
cfglayout mode and the older cfgrtl mode.
Absolutely true. I'd actually love it if someone (you?) could write up
the basics of cfglayout mode.
On 05/22/2013 03:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Regarding commonality between OpenMP and Cilk, note also the new C
Parallel Language Extensions WG14 study group chaired by Clark Nelson and
aiming to propose a standard set of C extensions for parallel programming,
announced yesterday on the WG14 r
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:11 PM
> To: Joseph S. Myers
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 19:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 06:30 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
> > since 2004 (in r80564).
> >
> > As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
> > them as const.
>
Another issue with delayed folding of sizeof. On the trunk, we should
fold everything before passing it on to warnings_for_convert_and_check;
on the branch, I'm inclined to be conservative and only fold SIZEOF_EXPR.
Jakub, do you have an opinion about whether this should go into 4.8.1 or
4.8.
If we run into an error during template instantiation, we try to avoid
starting more instantiations in order to limit the error cascade. If as
a result of this we decide not to instantiate a lambda call operator, we
shouldn't try to generate a conversion operator.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
Mike,
When you committed the patch, you did not add the new rs6000/crypto.md
file to the repository.
- David
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:30 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
>> This patch adds the builtins for the new ISA 2.07 crypto instruc
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:41:44PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Mike,
>
> When you committed the patch, you did not add the new rs6000/crypto.md
> file to the repository.
Right. I remembered to add the new test, but not crypto.me. I just committed
it. I'm sorry about that.
--
Michael Meiss
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:11 PM
> To: Joseph S. Myers
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
On 05/22/2013 04:53 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
Ah, I see, it works. Then we end up with three solutions:
1) remove the pow(double,double) overload
2) add a specialization template <> pow(double,double)
3) add an extern "C" declaration to refer to the C library function
I don't have a strong prefere
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:30:35PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
> since 2004 (in r80564).
>
> As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
> them as const.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknow
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:45:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> I'm attempting to eliminate global state from the insides of gcc.
>
> gcc/tracer.c has various global variables, which are only used during
> the lifetime of the execute callback of that pass, and cleaned up at the
> end of each invo
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 04:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>>
>> The problem here is two things:
>>
>> 1. Many GCC developers still don't fully grasp the difference between
>> cfglayout mode and the older cfgrtl mode.
>
> Absolutely true. I'd actually love
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:08:40PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Another issue with delayed folding of sizeof. On the trunk, we
> should fold everything before passing it on to
> warnings_for_convert_and_check; on the branch, I'm inclined to be
> conservative and only fold SIZEOF_EXPR.
>
> Jakub,
2013/5/23 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer :
>
> On 22 May 2013 10:08, "Paolo Bonzini" wrote:
>>
>> Il 18/05/2013 04:37, Chung-Ju Wu ha scritto:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
[...]
>> > +# Necessary to build GCC with the Graphite loop optimizations.
>> > +if [ "$GRAPHITE_LOOP_OPT" == "yes" ] ; then
>
> s/==/=/g
>
> T
101 - 129 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
