RE: Question about omp-low.c
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:40 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: Question about omp-low.c
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:14:16AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > I looked into this, but the issue I have is, for the following code:
> >
> > Int main (void) {
> > _Cilk_for (int ii = W; ii < (X+Y); ii = ii + (q+z))
>
> This doesn't have a body, Int won't compile either. Can you post -fdump-
> tree-{original,gimple,omplower,ompexp} dump for some short simple
> testcase just to see what design decisions you've made so far? Perhaps
> something should be reconsidered...
Yes I didn't put a body because it wasn't relevant for what I was talking
about. I wanted to talk about parameters of the _Cilk_for. The body should be
pushed into the child function and that is straight forward.
Int is int after Outlook decided to capitalize it :-) and I forgot to undo it
:-(
>
> Jakub
gcc-4.8-20131219 is now available
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20131219 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20131219/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_8-branch revision 206135 You'll find: gcc-4.8-20131219.tar.bz2 Complete GCC MD5=666ef08f87649f941bc5512e13a88fdc SHA1=37ab603250d7b68ae3a4a909b811a42720f2518e Diffs from 4.8-20131212 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-4.8 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
Re: Remove spam in GCC mailing list
More spam posts to be removed! http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-12/msg00883.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg00649.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg00650.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg00651.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00686.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00687.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00689.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00690.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00692.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00693.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00694.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00695.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00696.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00697.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00698.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00699.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00700.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00701.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00702.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00704.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00705.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00709.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00710.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00711.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00713.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00715.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00716.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00717.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00721.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00726.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00731.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00737.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00738.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00742.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00744.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00745.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00747.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00749.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00752.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00753.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00755.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00757.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00758.html A. Julliard removed posting permissions for wine-devel for the seotaewong40 at gmail.com email address. You log on as seotaewong40 in Mozilla Bugzilla. And you get message account disabled. Please enable your account from Mozilla Bugzilla. -- Tae-Wong Seo Korea, Republic of
Re: Remove spam in GCC mailing list
On 19 December 2013 23:15, Tae Wong wrote: > More spam posts to be removed! Using an email address with "seo" in it makes you look like a spammer. Posting links to spam makes you look like a spammer. Posting meaningless crap about mozilla bugzilla permissions and wine-devel makes you look like a bot. Can we ban this sender?
Re: Remove spam in GCC mailing list
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:04 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 19 December 2013 23:15, Tae Wong wrote: > > More spam posts to be removed! > > Using an email address with "seo" in it makes you look like a spammer. > > Posting links to spam makes you look like a spammer. > > Posting meaningless crap about mozilla bugzilla permissions and > wine-devel makes you look like a bot. > > Can we ban this sender? Agreed, FWIW see also: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-December/130727.html
Re: Remove spam in GCC mailing list
On 20 December 2013 01:12, David Malcolm wrote: > On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:04 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 19 December 2013 23:15, Tae Wong wrote: >> > More spam posts to be removed! >> >> Using an email address with "seo" in it makes you look like a spammer. >> >> Posting links to spam makes you look like a spammer. >> >> Posting meaningless crap about mozilla bugzilla permissions and >> wine-devel makes you look like a bot. >> >> Can we ban this sender? > > Agreed, FWIW see also: > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-December/130727.html The motivation seems obvious to me: create archived links to the spam posts, giving them higher page rank. We should find him and kneecap him, or if that's not possible ban him from the list.
Re: proposal to make SIZE_TYPE more flexible
Where is the right place to set the array of "this __intN mode is enabled" flags? I initially set it in tree.c where __int128 is set up, but that happens *after* c_parse_init() needs the flag to set up the RID_* keywords for them. Alternately, should I be calling targetm.scalar_mode_supported_p() all over the place? We'd need to be careful to not call that too early too...
