Re: Cost of having an immediate use in the phi argument

On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 14:59, Daniel Berlin wrote: > It seems the only reason we have PHI_ARG_IMM_USE_NODE (and a struct > ssa_use_operand_d) in a phi node argument (struct phi_arg_d) is *just* > so we can iterate over the uses and hand back use_operand_p. > > I'm talking, in particular, about: >

Re: Cost of having an immediate use in the phi argument

On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 09:13 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 14:59, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > It seems the only reason we have PHI_ARG_IMM_USE_NODE (and a struct > > ssa_use_operand_d) in a phi node argument (struct phi_arg_d) is *just* > > so we can iterate over the uses and han

GCC 4.0.2 RC2

Thanks to all who tested GCC 4.0.2 RC1. GCC 4.0.2 RC2 is now available here: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.2-20050917/ This version differs from RC1 only slightly: a few C++ fixes, Joseph's HUGE_VAL fixincludes fix, a fix for a typo in the Darawin configuration. Since all of the te

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Gabriel Dos Reis said: > "Zack Weinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Gabriel Dos Reis said: > | > C++98 came before C99, so who diverged from whom? > | > | It doesn't matter. > > Yet, you're you were construeing it as an argument to support your position. I'm only bringing up the divergence

Re: Warning C vs C++

* Tommy Vercetti: >> The warning is controlled by -Wsign-compare, which is turned on by >> -Wextra (also known as -W) but not by -Wall. It's not turned on by >> -Wall because it is not normally a problem. > That's strange, all users I know expected it to turn ALL warnings, > hence name. Some pe

Re: pointer checking run time code

* Robert Dewar: > shreyas krishnan wrote: > >> Ideas, other pointers would be great > > Note that of course this kind of check is standard in Ada > and hence in GNAT, so you can get an idea from GNAT > generated code how well the backend can eliminate > such checks (answer: getting better with gcc

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

"Zack Weinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis said: | > "Zack Weinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | Gabriel Dos Reis said: | > | > C++98 came before C99, so who diverged from whom? | > | | > | It doesn't matter. | > | > Yet, you're you were construeing it as an argument

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC2

On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 09:41 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Thanks to all who tested GCC 4.0.2 RC1. > > GCC 4.0.2 RC2 is now available here: > [...] > Please test, post test results to gcc-testresults, and send me an email > pointing at the results. Still ok for c,ada on x86 and x86_64-linux: http

data dependence for pointers broken?

All this code in tree-data-ref.c is supposed to work on pointers, isn't it? The comments seem to say so. Except that it doesn't seem to work for even the simplest of test cases. For instance, it reports dont_know for two uses of the same SSA_NAME. This doesn't fill me with confidence ... Here'

Re: data dependence for pointers broken?

On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 12:59 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > All this code in tree-data-ref.c is supposed to work on pointers, > isn't it? Only in the absolute most basic of cases. Pointer data dependence is very non-trivial to do, which is why i wanted the MEM_REF stuff. > The comments seem

Re: data dependence for pointers broken?

> > > > Except that it doesn't seem to work for even the simplest of test > > cases. For instance, it reports dont_know for two uses of the > > same SSA_NAME. > > > > This doesn't fill me with confidence ... > > We have code on autovec to do more advanced data dependence testing. > > Howev

[PATCH]: Re: data dependence for pointers broken?

> > > > Here's the test case I'm looking at with -O2 -ftree-vectorize. > > > > We will lose the restrict info here, and think that image1 and image2 > can point to the same thing, so we can't go further. Sigh, we don't actually get to that point before we lose due to a missing casezerodiff.diff

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC2

Mark Mitchell wrote: > Please test, post test results to gcc-testresults, and send me an email > pointing at the results. s390(x)-ibm-linux is still fine: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00883.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00884.html In fact, as far as I

Re: Warning C vs C++

On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 06:54:26PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Tommy Vercetti: > > >> The warning is controlled by -Wsign-compare, which is turned on by > >> -Wextra (also known as -W) but not by -Wall. It's not turned on by > >> -Wall because it is not normally a problem. > > > That's stra

Gcc 4.1 has been failing SPEC CPU 2000 on 64bit platforms

http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000/ shows that gcc 4.1 has been failing vortex in SPEC CPU 2000 on Linux/EM64T and Linux/PPC64 at least since Aug. 7, 2005. The current gcc 4.1 also failed vortex on Linux/ia64. Is that a known issue? I got (gdb) r lendian1.raw Starting program: /export/spe

Re: Gcc 4.1 has been failing SPEC CPU 2000 on 64bit platforms

On Sep 19, 2005, at 12:46 AM, H. J. Lu wrote: http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000/ shows that gcc 4.1 has been failing vortex in SPEC CPU 2000 on Linux/EM64T and Linux/PPC64 at least since Aug. 7, 2005. The current gcc 4.1 also failed vortex on Linux/ia64. Is that a known issue? Yes t

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC2

Mark Mitchell wrote: Please test, post test results to gcc-testresults, and send me an email pointing at the results. darwin ppc should be ok. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00898.html Andreas