HelloGcc 2011 Workshop call for topic speakers
Hello, In case someone is interested with it, I put the notice here. Regards, Mingjie HelloGcc Working Group was set up in 2007 by Chinese free software fans and developers in Beijing. With the goal of constructing a free, open, sharing technical community, we not only discuss and learn about GNU system tools(such as GCC, GDB, Binutils etc), provide helps on related study and work, but also make our contributions to free software community. Every year, we hold a technical workshop in order to improve communication among open source developers and fans. The activity will be held in Oct. this year. We're calling for topic speakers now. As soon as you prefer to give a technical report, welcome to contact us. Topics includes, but not limited to, * Introduction on your original work, or the work of others. * Researching work or engineering work. * Code explanation and program demonstration. * etc, We need to get the speaker's slides ahead of time and post it on the Internet, with author's approval. It's better if you intend to provide the text of articles, of course. The whole activity is free. We hope to get some sponsorship to be used as the reward of speakers and the support of the community development. Please send mail to following address below if you have any questions on this workshop: hellogcc.workgr...@gmail.com Note: Topics in HelloGcc 2010 Workshop (http://hellogcc.blogbus.com/c3688812). * Memory management mechanism and optimization * Discussion on debugger's breakpoint mechanism * Bintuils porting to embedded CPU * Implementation and discussion on visualization of GCC * How To Port GNU ToolChain * Demo of Linux Kernel GDB tracepoint module Topics in HelloGcc 2009 Workshop. * Analyze and improve the program's data locality with GCC * GCC Internals and Porting * gdbproxy: An open source GDB stub for Blackfin * GDB reverse debug and process record and replay target You can find us on * blog: http://hellogcc.blogbus.com * mail list: http://www.freelists.org/archive/hellogcc * irc: #hellogcc（freenode）
Re: HelloGcc 2011 Workshop calling for topic speakers
Hey Hui, I put the GCC development mailing list on CC ... Andi HelloGcc Working Group was set up in 2007 by Chinese free software fans and developers in Beijing. With the goal of constructing a free, open, sharing technical community, we not only discuss and learn about GNU system tools(such as GCC, GDB, Binutils etc), provide helps on related study and work, but also make our contributions to free software community. Every year, we hold a technical workshop in order to improve communication among open source developers and fans. The activity will be held in Oct. this year. We're calling for topic speakers now. As soon as you prefer to give a technical report, welcome to contact us. Topics includes, but not limited to, * Introduction on your original work, or the work of others. * Researching work or engineering work. * Code explanation and program demonstration. * etc, We need to get the speaker's slides ahead of time and post it on the Internet, with author's approval. It's better if you intend to provide the text of articles, of course. The whole activity is free. We hope to get some sponsorship to be used as the reward of speakers and the support of the community development. Please send mail to following address below if you have any questions on this workshop: hellogcc.workgr...@gmail.com Note: Topics in HelloGcc 2010 Workshop (http://hellogcc.blogbus.com/c3688812). * Memory management mechanism and optimization * Discussion on debugger's breakpoint mechanism * Bintuils porting to embedded CPU * Implementation and discussion on visualization of GCC * How To Port GNU ToolChain * Demo of Linux Kernel GDB tracepoint module Topics in HelloGcc 2009 Workshop. * Analyze and improve the program's data locality with GCC * GCC Internals and Porting * gdbproxy: An open source GDB stub for Blackfin * GDB reverse debug and process record and replay target You can find us on * blog: http://hellogcc.blogbus.com * mail list: http://www.freelists.org/archive/hellogcc * irc: #hellogcc（freenode） -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Can You Put Comments Into GCC Compiler Options Files?
Basile Starynkevitch writes: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:09:40 -0800 > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> No comments are permitted in the contents of options files read using >> the @file syntax. The contents of the file are simply interpreted as >> command line arguments separated by whitespace. Double quotes, single >> quotes, and backslashes may be used in the usual way to add whitespace >> to arguments. > > Maybe we should change that. Do people find such a change useful for 4.7? > > If yes, with what comment lexical syntax? A leading # on a line? I believe lThese option files were adapted from Windows, and they are primarily for use on Windows, which has much stricter limits on command line length than most Unix systems. We should implement whatever Windows implements. Ian
TARGET_HELP: --target-help vs. --help=target
Hi, I noticed a difference between --target-help and --help=target Whilst --target-help also calls target hooh TARGET_HELP to display additional information, using --help=target does not. This is in sync with the documentation, but appears a bit odd. It this a desired behaviour and is there a specific rationale to not display all information with --help=target? Thanks, Johann
How working with bugzilla?
Hi, what is needed to work with bugzilla like: - assigning a bug to me - confirming a bug (changing status) - adding affected versions like "known to fail" My user name is avr at gjlay dot de. It there a connexion between gcc role like maintainer and bugzilla access rights? Thanks, Johann
Re: How working with bugzilla?
On 23 February 2011 16:28, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Hi, what is needed to work with bugzilla like: > > - assigning a bug to me > - confirming a bug (changing status) > - adding affected versions like "known to fail" You can edit bugs you create. To edit other bugs you need the right privileges. Confirming a bug needs to be done by someone with the right privileges, or many people would just confirm their own invalid bugs. > My user name is avr at gjlay dot de. > > It there a connexion between gcc role like maintainer and bugzilla > access rights? Yes, bugzilla privs are automatically given to any user with a @gcc.gnu.org email address, which is usually given when access to the source code repoistory is granted. They can be given to specific users, but not usually to someone without previous contributions (I'm not sure of the exact guidelines used to decide.) You don't need the bug confirmed or assigned to you in order to work on a patch though. Patches should be sent to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org and you can add a URL to the archived post as a comment on the bug.
Re: Can You Put Comments Into GCC Compiler Options Files?
Ian Lance Taylor writes: > I believe lThese option files were adapted from Windows, and they are > primarily for use on Windows, which has much stricter limits on command > line length than most Unix systems. We should implement whatever > Windows implements. IIRC they were adapted from DJGPP, which got them from Borland C. Neither of these allowed comments, because who knows what a "comment" is for every single program out there? Historically, @files were generated by the Makefile just before they were used. There was never a need to add documentation inside them.
Ramana Radhakrishnan appointed co-maintainer of ARM port
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has appointed Ramana Radhakrishnan as co-maintainer of the ARM port. Please join me in congratulating Ramana on his new role. Ramana, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file. Happy hacking! David
pattern problem with register assignment
Hello,
I have a problem with register allocation. Our architecture has some pointer registers
"pX" (24bit)
and some data registers "dX" (32bit). Since pointers are only 24bit, we're
using PSImode for them.
There are restrictions in the "add" opcode, we can do
pX = add(pX,)
pX = add(pX,dX)
pX = add(dX,pX)
dX = add(pX,pX)
dX = add(pX,)
dX = add(dX,dX)
dX = add(dX,)
dX = add(pX,dX)
dX = add(dX,pX)
pX is allowed in at most 2 of the registers involved, but not in all 3 of them.
The pattern to add 2 PSImode values looks like this:
(define_insn "*addpsi3"
[(set (match_operand:PSI 0 "p_d_operand" "=a,d0d3,?d0d9 m,?d0d9
m")
(plus:PSI (match_operand:PSI 1 "p_d_general_operand" "%a,d0d3,d0d9 a m,d0d9
a i")
(match_operand:PSI 2 "p_d_general_operand" "i d0d9 m,d0d3 m i,d0d9
i a,d0d9 a m")))]
""
"%0=add(%1,%2)"
)
It worked fine in the gcc version from 2 years ago, but I'm updating the port
to current gcc, and
I get a testsuite failure (one of many :-)) in
gcc.c-torture/compile/20080812-1.c:
20080812-1.c: In function 'foo':
20080812-1.c:21:1: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 49 76 77 3 (set (reg:PSI 6 p2 [144])
(plus:PSI (reg:PSI 5 p1 [orig:145 ivtmp.1 ] [145])
(reg:PSI 7 p3))) 20080812-1.c:15 193 {*addpsi3}
(nil))
20080812-1.c:21:1: internal compiler error: in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at
postreload.c:401
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See for instructions.
It seems that gcc wants to create an instruction like "p2=add(p1,p3)". How can
I tell him not to do that?
I tried to fiddle with the "p_d_general_operand" predication and use a modified
one for operand 2, but
at the time the constraint is called, I only see pseudo registers, and don't
know in which hard register
they will appear at the end.
I'm using a gcc snapshot from Jan-19-2011.
regards,
chris
Make minmax detection more flexible in tree-ssa-phiopt.c
Hi,
I'm trying to improve the asm code generated for C code like:
long f(long a, long b) {
_int64 s;
s = (((long long) a) + ((long long) b));
s = (s > 0x7fffL ? (long) 0x7fffL :
(s <-0x8000L ? (long)-0x8000L :
s));
return((long) s);
}
A key step is minmax detection in tree-ssa-phiopt.c. However, in my test cases
sometimes minmax detection fails because of input like:
if (D.5591_11 <= 2147483647)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
D.5594_19 = MAX_EXPR ;
iftmp.0_20 = (long int) D.5594_19;
:
# iftmp.0_1 = PHI
Minmax detection expects the middle block to have one statement, but in this
case there is an additional cast. Minmax would be detected if the cast
was moved after the middle block:
...
:
D.5594_19 = MAX_EXPR ;
:
# s_1 = PHI
iftmp.0_20 = (long int) s_1;
The limitation occurs around line 725 in tree-ssa-phiopt.c in GCC 4.5.2:
/* Recognize the following case, assuming d <= u:
if (a <= u)
b = MAX (a, d);
x = PHI
This is equivalent to
b = MAX (a, d);
x = MIN (b, u); */
gimple assign = last_and_only_stmt (middle_bb);
tree lhs, op0, op1, bound;
I was wondering if anyone could give me guidance on how to add flexibility
to minmax detection in order to handle this case.
Thanks,
John Lu
Re: Proposal: Improving patch tracking and review using Rietveld
I have addressed some of the requests brought up in this thread by modifying Rietveld's upload.py script. The new version of the upload script is called upload-gcc-patch.py and it's available at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/rietveld. It adds a couple of new features: 1- It takes a patch file to determine what files to upload to your patch dashboard. 2- It always sends mail to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org 3- It does not have a limit on the patch size (only the limits imposed by gcc-patches are used). Diego.
Re: Can You Put Comments Into GCC Compiler Options Files?
On 23/02/2011 17:59, DJ Delorie wrote: > Ian Lance Taylor writes: >> I believe lThese option files were adapted from Windows, and they are >> primarily for use on Windows, which has much stricter limits on command >> line length than most Unix systems. We should implement whatever >> Windows implements. > > IIRC they were adapted from DJGPP, which got them from Borland C. MSVC also has them, since at least VC6.0 if not earlier. Can't speak to the exact etymology of them, but I don't think it really matters in any case, because... > Neither of these allowed comments, because who knows what a "comment" is > for every single program out there? > > Historically, @files were generated by the Makefile just before they > were used. There was never a need to add documentation inside them. Well, there's no question of compatibility being needed between GNU ones and MSVC ones in any case, since none of our command-line options match anyway, so I don't see that compatibility should necessarily guide our decisions in this matter. So if anyone (Basile?) does want to implement this, I can't see any problem with choosing any arbitrary start-of-line-comment-char that can't legally be part of a DOS filename; that should be unambiguous enough FAPP. cheers, DaveK
Re: Can You Put Comments Into GCC Compiler Options Files?
The GNU "doschk" (in non-gnu/) utility can tell you what's legal and what isn't. http://www.delorie.com/gnu/dl/ftp.gnu.org/non-gnu/doschk/doschk-1.1.tar.gz/doschk-1.1/doschk.c Note, however, that @files used by gcc *in djgpp* will *not* support comments, because @files in djgpp are parsed and expanded by the djgpp runtime itself, not passed to gcc. So breaking compatibility with djgpp's implementation means that @files given to gcc will act differently on djgpp than on other systems.
