Picasso Events Team

2006-12-08 Thread Picasso Middle East | Events Team
Take the Lead with Us! www.picassome.com

Re: Adding New Function Attributes

2006-12-08 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
"Rohit Arul Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. Do i have to modify the GCC source base like adding a new flag in > tree_function_decl(tree.h), adding a new handler to set the flag in > c-common.h. > or can i do it from the backend itself. Do it in the backend. See TARGET_ATTRIBUTE_TABLE and f

Re: gfortran testsuite failures with 4.3.0 on powerpc64-apple-darwin8.8.0

2006-12-08 Thread Bradley Lucier
On Dec 8, 2006, at 1:43 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: In case anyone does not know yet, the warning is the same as PR 29779. I don't remember if this was mentioned or not. Thank you very much for that info. That is indeed the problem with these test cases, as can be seen if I specify a 64-bit C

Serious SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance regressions on IA32

2006-12-08 Thread H. J. Lu
Gcc 4.3 revision 119497 has very poor SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance regressions on P4, Pentium M and Core Duo, comparing aganst gcc 4.2 20060910. With -O2, the typical regressions look like Gcc 4.2 Gcc 4.3 410.bwaves 9.899.14-7.58342% 41

Re: Serious SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance regressions on IA32

2006-12-08 Thread Uros Bizjak
H. J. Lu wrote: Gcc 4.3 revision 119497 has very poor SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance regressions on P4, Pentium M and Core Duo, comparing aganst gcc 4.2 20060910. With -O2, the typical regressions look like I think that you are looking at the same problem as http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/

Re: Serious SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance regressions on IA32

2006-12-08 Thread H. J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:39:45PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > H. J. Lu wrote: > > >Gcc 4.3 revision 119497 has very poor SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance > >regressions on P4, Pentium M and Core Duo, comparing aganst > >gcc 4.2 20060910. With -O2, the typical regressions look like > > > > > > > I th

RE: Serious SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance regressions on IA32

2006-12-08 Thread Menezes, Evandro
HJ, I'll run the three worst offenders below and get back to y'all. The full results will take longer. -- ___ Evandro Menezes AMDAustin, TX > -Original Message- > From: H. J. Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

gcc-4.1-20061208 is now available

2006-12-08 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20061208 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20061208/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

Re: destruction of GTY() data

2006-12-08 Thread Basile STARYNKEVITCH
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 09:06:13PM +0100, I (Basile) wrote in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00158.html > > I want to have a GTY() garbage collected structure such that, when it > is destoyed, some specific routine is called (this should indeed be > possible, since GGC is a mark& sweep garb

Re: destruction of GTY() data

2006-12-08 Thread Basile STARYNKEVITCH
Le Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:08:09AM +0100, basile écrivait/wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 09:06:13PM +0100, I (Basile) wrote in > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00158.html > > > > > I want to have a GTY() garbage collected structure such that, when it > > is destroyed, some specific routin

Re: destruction of GTY() data

2006-12-08 Thread Daniel Berlin
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

Version of gcc , for which patch submitted?

2006-12-08 Thread h2005421
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? Kindly help me to figure it out soon. Thanking You. Shweta