Snapshot gcc-4.1-20061027 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20061027/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 10/26/06, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is not a note, it's a statement. The problem with RTL loop notes
was that they were not statements, but rather markers, e.g. "a loop
starts/ends here". The LOOP_HEADER node, on the other hand, is more
like a placeholder for the result o
> The idea is a bit complex. Anyway the fold function has no one only
> return so i can't compare input tree with output one, and it's called
> from a lot of others functions of others files. Ian said to create a
> counter and increment it every time a role is triggered, it's seems
> better but it'
On Oct 26, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
The ones that were of particular interest were the libgfortran
ones, Jack was trying to build on a G4 and had hopes they might fix
his build.
Jack confirms that a regeneration of libgfortran fixed his build. He
also reports that boehm-gc has
On Oct 26, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Murali Vemulapati wrote:
what is the release number for gcc trunk (mainline)?
$ cat gcc/BASE-VER
will always show you the correct information, presently it says:
4.3.0
Mark Mitchell wrote on 10/27/06 12:25:
Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Does the tuples branch include the CALL_EXPR reworking from the LTO branch?
No.
Though, that is a similar global-touch-everything project, so hopefully
whatever consensus develops from tuples will carry over.
I feel the same abou
Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Does the tuples branch include the CALL_EXPR reworking from the LTO branch?
No.
Though, that is a similar global-touch-everything project, so hopefully
whatever consensus develops from tuples will carry over.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3
Dino Puller wrote on 10/27/06 11:25:
The idea is a bit complex. Anyway the fold function has no one only
return so i can't compare input tree with output one, and it's called
from a lot of others functions of others files.
>
Of course you can. fold() does not modify the input tree anymore. Ju
2006/10/26, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Dino Puller wrote on 10/26/06 10:11:
> How many times gcc simplify expressions like: x/x, 0*x, 1*y, a+0,
> x*x/x and so on
>
You are probably looking at folding then. An initial idea might be to
put some code in fold-const.c:fold that compares the
> Does the tuples branch include the CALL_EXPR reworking from the LTO branch?
No.
On 10/27/06, Aldy Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My vote is to merge into mainline sooner rather than later. However, it
> is a big patch and affects just about every module in the compiler, so I
> wouldn't want to barge in without getting some consensus first.
I agree with you and Mark
Aldy Hernandez wrote on 10/27/06 09:35:
How does this sound to y'all?
Sounds good to me. I would add an additional memory savings check
between 4 and 5.
> My vote is to merge into mainline sooner rather than later. However, it
> is a big patch and affects just about every module in the compiler, so I
> wouldn't want to barge in without getting some consensus first.
I agree with you and Mark.
What I'd like to do next is:
1. Merge mainline into
Aldy Hernandez wrote on 10/26/06 10:40:
As we have hoped, every single function exhibits memory savings. Yay.
Nice!
I don't know if this merits merging into mainline, or if it's preferable to
keep plodding along and convert the rest of the tuples. What do you guys
think? Either way, I hav
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Having analyzed about 8000 functions taken from Diego's .i sandbox (includes
> GCC files, spec files, and a potpourri of other .i files), here are the
> average memory savings:
>
> -O0:-0.243863%
> -O1:-0.977962%
> -02:-0.9
Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I don't know if this merits merging into mainline, or if it's preferable to
keep plodding along and convert the rest of the tuples. What do you guys
think? Either way, I have my work cut out for me, though I believe the
hardest part is over (FLW).
I thinking merging as
16 matches
Mail list logo
