Re: I have questions regarding the 4.3 codebase...
Awesome, thanks Richard! On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 2:44 AM Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:26 PM Sid Maxwell via Gcc > wrote: > > > > I have another gcc 4.3 question. I'm trying to find where in the code > base > > the instrumentation for basic block coverage is done. I've tracked down > > where/how mcount() calls are generated, but I haven't even been able to > > determine what function(s) are called to increment a basic block's count. > > I'd also like to find more detailed information regarding profiling, > > coverage, and function instrumentation. > > Look into gcc/tree-profile.c > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 6:27 PM Sid Maxwell > wrote: > > > > > Is there anyone on the list with experience with the gcc 4.3 codebase? > > > I'm currently maintaining a fork of it, with a PDP10 code generator. > > > > > > I've run into an issue involving the transformation of a movmemhi to a > > > single PDP10 instruction (an xblt, if you're curious). > > > The transformation appears to 'lose' its knowledge of being a store, > > > resulting in certain following stores being declared dead, and code > > > motion that shouldn't happen (e.g. a load moved before the xblt that > > > depends on the result of the xblt). > > > > > > I'm hoping to find someone who can help me diagnose the problem. We > want > > > to use this instruction rather than the copy-word-loop currently > generated > > > for struct assignments. > > > > > > Thanks, in advance, for any assistance. > > > > > > -+- Sid Maxwell > > > >
Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: require a BZ account field
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: >> 1) MAINTAINERS should list a field containing either the gcc.gnu.org >> email in full, or their gcc username (bikeshedding semi-welcome); > I like the proposal. I'd say it should be fine to just put the gcc > username (without the @gcc.gnu.org part) because the lines are long > enough already, and repeating the domain on every line is redundant. Plus it would look like an e-mail address to use which in many cases (like mine) may not be desirable. Now, a bigger question: Why would anyone need to know my gcc.gnu.org username (or e-mail address) in the Bugzilla context? A counter proposal for the original request would be an optional field to include in case the e-mail address listed in the MAINTAINERS file does not serve as the Bugzilla account. Gerald
Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: require a BZ account field
Gerald Pfeifer writes: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2024, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: >>> 1) MAINTAINERS should list a field containing either the gcc.gnu.org >>> email in full, or their gcc username (bikeshedding semi-welcome); >> I like the proposal. I'd say it should be fine to just put the gcc >> username (without the @gcc.gnu.org part) because the lines are long >> enough already, and repeating the domain on every line is redundant. > > Plus it would look like an e-mail address to use which in many cases > (like mine) may not be desirable. > > Now, a bigger question: Why would anyone need to know my gcc.gnu.org > username (or e-mail address) in the Bugzilla context? Isn't it answered in the original proposal? It makes CCing the committer of a bisect result way easier.
gcc-11-20240703 is now available
Snapshot gcc-11-20240703 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20240703/ and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch releases/gcc-11 revision ce713016fb50796e906e39ba4244fbaf47ae77a9 You'll find: gcc-11-20240703.tar.xz Complete GCC SHA256=d61915de47e9609ed081b9a197cc5a73fdc9916d431e5c906e2b35573fc82202 SHA1=b136aa5314843da75793907cd1ed1c99fcef0b27 Diffs from 11-20240626 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-11 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: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: require a BZ account field
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Sam James wrote: >> Now, a bigger question: Why would anyone need to know my gcc.gnu.org >> username (or e-mail address) in the Bugzilla context? > Isn't it answered in the original proposal? It makes CCing the committer > of a bisect result way easier. No, it's not. And no, it does not in my case, for example. Hence my counter proposal (with emphasis added): A counter proposal for the original request would be an OPTIONAL field to include in case the e-mail address listed in the MAINTAINERS file does NOT serve as the Bugzilla account. Gerald
Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: require a BZ account field
Gerald Pfeifer writes: > On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Sam James wrote: >>> Now, a bigger question: Why would anyone need to know my gcc.gnu.org >>> username (or e-mail address) in the Bugzilla context? >> Isn't it answered in the original proposal? It makes CCing the committer >> of a bisect result way easier. > > No, it's not. And no, it does not in my case, for example. > > Hence my counter proposal (with emphasis added): > > A counter proposal for the original request would be an OPTIONAL field > to include in case the e-mail address listed in the MAINTAINERS file > does NOT serve as the Bugzilla account. I don't think this helps the usecase I mentioned though. There are a bunch of developers who have a blank or unrelated "real name" on Bugzilla, so you can't go from a committing email -> Bugzilla account easily. If every developer has to use @gcc.gnu.org on Bugzilla, and we normalise on @gcc.gnu.org, things become easier to map. So, for example with your counter proposal, this doesn't aid me if someone committed with a third email they use for commits/authorship, as MAINTAINERS won't provide any information in mapping it to a Bugzilla account (as I have no idea what to lookup).
Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: require a BZ account field
Sam James via Gcc writes: > Gerald Pfeifer writes: > >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2024, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: 1) MAINTAINERS should list a field containing either the gcc.gnu.org email in full, or their gcc username (bikeshedding semi-welcome); >>> I like the proposal. I'd say it should be fine to just put the gcc >>> username (without the @gcc.gnu.org part) because the lines are long >>> enough already, and repeating the domain on every line is redundant. >> >> Plus it would look like an e-mail address to use which in many cases >> (like mine) may not be desirable. >> >> Now, a bigger question: Why would anyone need to know my gcc.gnu.org >> username (or e-mail address) in the Bugzilla context? Also, as I pointed out, there are *very few* accounts which are n...@gcc.gnu.org with Bugzilla permissions, and on IRC, Jakub et. al expressed a reluctance in adding more of those. So most people not using their @gcc.gnu.org email on BZ aren't able to close or modify bugs anyway, which isn't good.
