I'd just like to ask if this is noticed:
/usr/local/src/trunk/gcc/gcc/unwind-dw2.c:324: warning: dereferencing
type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
/usr/local/src/trunk/gcc/gcc/unwind-dw2.c:789: warning: dereferencing
type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
/usr/local/
Hi,
I am using powerpc-eabi-gcc (3.4.1) and trying to retarget it for a
fully pipelined FPU. I have a DFA model for the FPU. I am looking at
the code produced for a simple FIR algorithm (a loop iterating over an
array, with a multiply-add operation per iteration). (I am not using
the fused-madd)
updated http://gcc.gnu.org/java/cni-2.txt for 3.3.4
cni-3.txt
Here is a sample project demonstrating the basics of building a CNI
application with GCJ version 3.3.4.
It assumes that you have installed the binaries in a directory
in your path.
==> Makefile <==
sample: sample.o sampNat.o
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Two colleagues (Rafael Dantas de Castro and Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri) and I
> decided to try to make a scheme frontend for gcc. Since the task is proving
> quite difficult we decided to write a very small frontend that could be used
> as
On Jun 12, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
The following from man atanh has an error. Should not refer tp acosh()
DESCRIPTION
The atanh() function calculates the inverse hyperbolic
tangent of x;
that is the value whose hyperbolic tangent is x. If the
absolute
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Are you sure nobody is doing this? Or to phrase it differently: have
> you checked Bugzilla and the ChangeLogs as to what kind of reports and
> patches SUSE and Red Hat have contributed to GCC 4.0 in recent months
> and weeks? :-)
My suggestion stems from the code-generati
The following from man atanh has an error. Should not refer tp acosh()
DESCRIPTION
The atanh() function calculates the inverse hyperbolic tangent
of x;
that is the value whose hyperbolic tangent is x. If the
absolute
value of x is greater than 1.0, acosh() returns n
We have investigated these benchmarks for PowerPC. The high-level
analysis is:
> Daniel Berlin writes:
>> An interesting examples are:
>> -177.mesa (this is a c test), where icc is almost 40% faster
FP to Int conversion.
Dan> SSE Vectorization, I believe.
>> -178.galgel, wh
Hi,
On Sunday 12 June 2005 19:51, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > Given the recent problems with the 4.0.0 release and major packages like
> > KDE and the kernel, has anyone considered testing releases by completely
> > compiling a Linux system?
> > I'm willing to implement this, if it's deemed useful
On Sunday 12 June 2005 11:21, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> There is an interesting comparison of SPEC scores between gcc and icc:
> http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/individual-run-ratio.ht
>ml . A quick look at the graphs shows a big differences in achieved scores
> between gc
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Given the recent problems with the 4.0.0 release and major packages like
> KDE and the kernel, has anyone considered testing releases by completely
> compiling a Linux system?
Are you sure nobody is doing this? Or to phrase it differently: have
you c
Two colleagues (Rafael Dantas de Castro and Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri) and I
decided to try to make a scheme frontend for gcc. Since the task is proving
quite difficult we decided to write a very small frontend that could be used
as a tutorial. We call this small frontend "hello world" because it
Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I think I'm not the only person, that finds these results rather
> "dissapointing". As Scott is currently writing a paper on gcc's FP
> performance, perhaps someone has an explanation, why gcc's results are
> so low on Pentium4 for these tests?
Interesting results.
I'm not a
On 6/12/05, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I could tell you why for PPC (where we aren't that far behind xlc or icc
> on a lot of them, if you use the right options), but no clue for x86.
It would be interesting to see what the difference is with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 11:21 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> There is an interesting comparison of SPEC scores between gcc and icc:
> http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/individual-run-ratio.html
> . A quick look at the graphs shows a big differences in achieved scores
> b
Uros Bizjak wrote:
I know that these graphs don't show the results of most aggresive
optimization options for gcc, but that is also the case with icc (only
-O2). However, it looks that gcc and icc are not even in the same class
regarding FP performance. Perhaps there is some critical optimizat
> Hello!
>
> There is an interesting comparison of SPEC scores between gcc and icc:
> http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/individual-run-ratio.html
> . A quick look at the graphs shows a big differences in achieved scores
> between gcc and icc, mostly in SpecFP tests. I was tryi
Hello!
There is an interesting comparison of SPEC scores between gcc and icc:
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/individual-run-ratio.html
. A quick look at the graphs shows a big differences in achieved scores
between gcc and icc, mostly in SpecFP tests. I was trying to find
> I think you should consider trying to fix bugs (Bugzilla has a broad choice
> of these things :-), maybe front-end bugs to start with, say the C and C++
> front-ends (relatively simple C++, not the fancy stuff), for example
> related to warnings and errors.
I filed http://gcc.gnu.org/PR22020 yes
19 matches
Mail list logo
