Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> and that is called a false positive if in fact the loop does
> not overrun. this sounds very dubious to me
The problem is that the compiler has no other information about the
number of iterations in the loop, otherwise it wouldn't spend cycles
on computing such estimations
Vasanth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the recommended way to do DW2 frame unwinding based exception
> handling for targets that do not support unaligned accesses in
> hardware? I did see the documentation about UNALIGNED_INT_ASM_OP, but
> not sure if that is meant to generate a directive t
Hi,
With reference to the following info in the EH handling newbie document,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-07/msg00391.html
The exception handing via dwarf2 debugging information requires
several things to work:
.
-Unaligned accesses to read dwarf2 information
What is the recommend
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 11:02:12PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> This is most likely the same problem as PR 22504.
>
> Could you attach your program to that PR?
>
I'm still cutting it down. I'll attach it to
the PR when its much small than it is now.
--
Steve
On Jul 18, 2005, at 10:45 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:31:27PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
Here's the output from a program that brought the problem
to my attention. It uses downward recursion to compute
spherical Bessel functions.
NAG's F95 compiler
n x jn(x
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:31:27PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> Here's the output from a program that brought the problem
> to my attention. It uses downward recursion to compute
> spherical Bessel functions.
>
> NAG's F95 compiler
> n x jn(x) jn(cmplx(x,0))
> 0 2.2900
This is a heads up. Someone has broken complex arithmetic
on mainline. I've just found this problem and unfortunately
it will take me some time to cut the test program down to
something managable. This could be a gfortran bug or it
may be a middle/back end bug.
Here's the output from a program
Brooks Moses wrote:
As per a recent conversation with Steve Kargl on the fortran list, I'm
submitting this patch, which adds a small "Documentation" section to
the gfortran "home page", right below the "Binaries" section.
Oh, bother. I just noticed that I failed to update the link when I cut-
As per a recent conversation with Steve Kargl on the fortran list, I'm
submitting this patch, which adds a small "Documentation" section to
the gfortran "home page", right below the "Binaries" section.
I can't seem to find any examples of ChangeLog entries for wwwdocs
entries; is one needed?
- B
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:53:01PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
>
> I'm trying to build 4.0.1 release on powerpc64-linux, but without success
> so far, since build fails with:
>
> I've configured it with:
> ../gcc-4.0.1/configure --prefix=$HOME/usr/local/gcc-4.0.1 --enable-shared
> --enable-thre
On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:48 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
C++ has resisted, for two decades, the temptation of "improving" the
meaning of volatile :-) considering that it is C's baby.
Do you know what the semantics of:
a;
are in C and C++?
:-(
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 17:24 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > No, I have no such plan. (And the branch has seen no much development
> | > recently)
> |
> | But you still plan on working on it late
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| If you don't plan on using it for a while, you may be better off just
| taking a diff against the branchpoint exclude the branch from the
| conversion (which is about a month or so away), and recreate it after
| the move.
I have no plan of committing an
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Janis Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:53:01PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
I'm trying to build 4.0.1 release on powerpc64-linux, but without success
so far, since build fails with:
I've configured it with:
../gcc-4.0.1/configure --prefix=$HOME/usr/local/gcc-4.0.1
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:48 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > C++ has resisted, for two decades, the temptation of "improving" the
| > meaning of volatile :-) considering that it is C's baby.
|
| Do you know what the semantics of:
|
| a;
|
| are in C and
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Andreas" == Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andreas> So, which rule is responsible for creating the header files? And why
> Andreas> is there no dependency of gij.lo on it?
>
> headers.stamp is what builds the header files.
>
> Can you
> "Andreas" == Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andreas> So, which rule is responsible for creating the header files? And why
Andreas> is there no dependency of gij.lo on it?
headers.stamp is what builds the header files.
Can you try the appended patch? It ensures that the header
Thanks for your help: using constraint "b" instead of "r" solved my problem.
-- Stefan
> Try using 'b' for the constraint - that selects for an "address base
> register", as opposed to 'r' that is any of the general registers
(including
> R0)
>> I have some problems with using inline PowerP
> "Gerald" == Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gerald> This weekend 4.1 snapshot installs two new info files,
Gerald> hacking.info and vmintegration.info.
Gerald> I believe these are related to the classpath import last week.
Gerald> Do we really want/need these installed as part of
Sebastian Pop wrote:
I don't really see what a false positive could be in this case. In
the patch that I have proposed, the warning is triggered every time
the flag -Wloop-bound-estimated is used and the loop optimizer
triggers the estimation of loop bounds for a parametric loop, as in
the foll
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> As with all warnings, you have to run this over a large test suite
> of real applications to find out whether there are too many false
> positives.
I don't really see what a false positive could be in this case. In
the patch that I have proposed, the warning is triggered
| From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > | void foo(void) {
| > |int *x = 4;
| > | *x = 3;
| The point I was attempting to make, was that just because a specified
| statement's effective behavior/side-effects are not well defined, it doesn't
| mean that it's clearly specif
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Furthermore, 9.3.1/3 is at odds with 3.9.3/1, which says:
|
|Each type which is a cv-unqualified complete or
|incomplete object type or is void (_basic.types_) has three corre-
|sponding cv-qualified versions of its type: a const-qua
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Tom Tromey dixit:
I'm finally ready to check in the big classpath merge, and I wanted to
post a short warning before I went ahead with it.
Is it possible to use a current libgcj or classpath with gcc 3.4?
Not really. It would probably be possible to backpo
Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > No, I have no such plan. (And the branch has seen no much development
| > recently)
|
| But you still plan on working on it later?
Yes, we do.
| Do you think cvs.html
| could be updated, one way or
Thank you for so much help.
Now I can successfully combine a arith instrucion & compare.
But another problem occurs, that is our RISC machine has
logical instructions which only update the Zero flag.
Thus only eq & neq branch can be combined with.
For example
case 1 (can combine)
or_c
Hi,
Thanks a lot. Basically, I want to obtain dynamic basic block frequency at
RTL
level just before register allocation. Look at the following piece of
code(a.c):
void foo(int i, int *a, int *p) {
int x1,j;
for(j=0;j<200;j++) {
x1=a[i]+j;
*p=99;
a[i]=x1;
}
}
main() {
int *
772: config.guess
i686-pc-linux-gnu
778: ../bin/gcc -v
Reading specs from /home/projects/nisac/current-third-party/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.4/specs
Configured with: ./configure --prefix=/home/projects/nisac/current-third-party --x-includes=/usr/X11R6/include --x-lib=/usr/X11R6/lib
Thread mod
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to profile the frequency of each basic block of
> SPEC 2000 benchmarks by compiling them using -fprofile-arcs and opt -O3.
> After running the benchmark, when I try to read "bb->count" while
> compiling
> using "-fbranch-probabilities and -O3", I get "0" values for basic bl
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> How about now?
Thanks for the update, Dan!
I saw that I had forgot to preapprove this in my previous message, so I
went ahead an installed the patch right away (after updating the date and
removing the "Thanks" part which we haven't doing historically
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The function type is no more
cv-qualified than any other function type; the only thing that's
cv-qualified is the type pointed to by the first argument.
The standard does not agree with you though, see 9.3.1/3.
It does indeed s
Hi,
I am trying to profile the frequency of each basic block of
SPEC 2000 benchmarks by compiling them using -fprofile-arcs and opt -O3.
After running the benchmark, when I try to read "bb->count" while
compiling
using "-fbranch-probabilities and -O3", I get "0" values for basic blocks
which wer
This weekend 4.1 snapshot installs two new info files, hacking.info and
vmintegration.info.
I believe these are related to the classpath import last week. Do we
really want/need these installed as part of a regular GCC install? If
so, are the names sufficiently conflict-free? What happens, if
> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | - Just as if given:
> |
> | void foo(void) {
> |int *x = 4;
> | *x = 3;
The point I was attempting to make, was that just because a specified
statement's effective behavior/side-effects are not well defined, it doesn't
mean tha
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Mike Stump wrote:
> I had a friend call up and ask where he could find the gcc-4.0.0 tarball. I
> did a quick survey of the GNU FTP mirrors and only 1 out of the first 7 had
> gcc-4.0.0 on it. :-( At least some of the GNU mirrors aren't carrying
> gcc-4.0.0.
Is the situatio
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> If GCC4 causes this much problem with X, I wonder what GCC4 will do to
> the Linux kernel.
Current combinations of the Linux kernel and GCC 4.0 seem to work just
fine, as far as I can tell.
Gerald
> "D" == D Hugh Redelmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
D> This is true. And an abomination. But I will explain a bit more
D> where this came from. ...
Thanks Doug.
"Abomination" is a good word for it.
paul
> "Vincent" == Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vincent> On 2005-07-17 12:55:38 -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>> Are you sayinvg that a-b is not always "guaranteed to work" when a
>> and b point to elements of the same array? That sounds wrong; can
>> you given an example or standar
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> No, I have no such plan. (And the branch has seen no much development
> recently)
But you still plan on working on it later? Do you think cvs.html
could be updated, one way or the other to reflect the current status
and plans?
Gerald
> From: Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:29:11PM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote:
>
>>> Note that I'm explicitly not taking a position on what the standard says.
>>> The standard is notoriously incomplete with respect to object model issues,
>>> including volatility, so I
Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >> I don't understand what you mean here. Are you seriously suggesting
| >> that
| >>
| >> int main(void) {
| >> const int x = 4;
| >> *(int*)
Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > | With all due respect, unless there is an explicit reference in the
standard
| > | to contradict it's clearly stated requirement that an object's qualified
| > | lvalue ("locator value") designates the object being referenced, all
| > | interpr
> From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I don't understand what you mean here. Are you seriously suggesting
>> that
>>
>> int main(void) {
>> const int x = 4;
>> *(int*)&x = 3;
>> }
>>
>> is well-defined?
>
> Actually y
- The assignment reference to x is valid as it's not specified as const,
therefore must be performed, unless:
You simply got the purpose of optimization and, to some extent,
high-level languages wrong. This thread shows that if people are
reasonable (on both sides) a solution will be found.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:29:11PM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote:
> > Note that I'm explicitly not taking a position on what the standard says.
> > The standard is notoriously incomplete with respect to object model issues,
> > including volatility, so I think that trying particularly hard to parse its
> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > Note that I'm explicitly not taking a position on what the standard says.
> | > The standard is notoriously incomplete with respect to object model
> | > issues, including volatility, so I think that tryi
Hello,
I'm trying to build 4.0.1 release on powerpc64-linux, but without success
so far, since build fails with:
/usr/include/bits/stdio.h:77: undefined reference to `.__overflow'
build/errors.o(.text+0x214): In function `warning':
../../gcc-4.0.1/gcc/errors.c:50: undefined reference to `.fpr
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The function type is no more
> cv-qualified than any other function type; the only thing that's
> cv-qualified is the type pointed to by the first argument.
The standard does not agree with you though, see 9.3.1/3. In fact, what
happens is that we curren
Hi Timothy,
Unfortunately the Nios II port of GCC is not (yet) in the gcc tree so
most people don't have access to it.
The reason it is parallel is that if define_insn contains more than one
element, that defines a parallel. Have a look at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Patterns.html
Jon
49 matches
Mail list logo
