Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

I rather create a new tree for template usage really, so you don't create an extra tree and save a little amount of memory. This, however, would consume another scarce resource, i.e. tree codes. The attached patch, in the meanwhile, has been bootstrapped and regtested i686-pc-linux-gnu, C/C+

Re: Signed int overflow behavior in the security context

Paul Schlie wrote: - agreed, and thereby objects having no legitimate trap representation, such as most if not all implementations of integers and floating point objects on most if not all current target machines, and thereby their access does not invoke an undefined behavior. First of all, tr

Re: Signed int overflow behavior in the security context

Paul Schlie wrote: >> Joseph Myers wrote: >> DR#260 seems clear enough that indeterminate values may be treated >> distinctly from determinate values including randomly changing at any >> time. > > One can only hope that the recommendati

Re: Signed int overflow behavior in the security context

Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Jarc wrote: >> As noted in the defect report, a trap representation can have the >> same bit pattern as a valid value. Trapness depends not just on >> the bit pattern, but also how the bit pattern was produced. > > - that's not what is says Did you re

Re: Signed int overflow behavior in the security context

Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, James Dennett wrote: > >> Therefore, a case can be made that *for an implementation >> in which a type has no trap values*, an indeterminate >> value must correspond to some specific value. In other >> words: reading an uninitialized int is undefined

Re: Signed int overflow behavior in the security context

> Paul Jarc wrote: >> Paul Schlie wrote: >> One can only hope that the recommendations won't see the light of day in >> their present form, as it's fairly clear that once an unspecified value is >> read (presuming absents of a trap representation), it becomes logically >> visible, and thereby clear

Re: Signed int overflow behavior in the security context

Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One can only hope that the recommendations won't see the light of day in > their present form, as it's fairly clear that once an unspecified value is > read (presuming absents of a trap representation), it becomes logically > visible, and thereby clearly no

GCC 4.1.2 RC1

GCC 4.1.2 RC1 is now on ftp://gcc.gnu.org and its mirrors. The canonical location is: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070128 As with all prereleases, the issue of most concern to me is packaging. Therefore, please test the actual pre-release tarballs, rather than sources from SVN.

Re: Signed int overflow behavior in the security context

> Joseph Myers wrote: > DR#260 seems clear enough that indeterminate values may be treated > distinctly from determinate values including randomly changing at any > time. One can only hope that the recommendations won't see the light of

Re: [PATCH for] Re: gcc-4.0-20070128 is now available

Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote: | > It's probably time to turn off 4.0 snapshots; the last ones will | > probably be Gaby's prerelease snapshots, and the release should come | > soon. | | That's a good idea. You're right, there is no need to wait

Re: Gcc Cross Compile

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 01:18 +0200, idipous wrote: > I am trying to cross compile gcc-4.1.0 ( I have also > tried 3.3.2) for powerpc using a Freebsd 6.1 box. I > configure using: First, this is a list for GCC development, not for users trying to use GCC. gcc-help is the right list to use in futur

Gcc Cross Compile

Hi all, I am trying to cross compile gcc-4.1.0 ( I have also tried 3.3.2) for powerpc using a Freebsd 6.1 box. I configure using: var/gcc-4.1.0/configure --host=i386-freebsd --target=powerpc-linux --prefix=/var/gcc --disable-shared --disable-threads --enable-languages=c,c++ --without-fp and eve

gcc-4.1-20070129 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070129 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070129/ 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

[PATCH for] Re: gcc-4.0-20070128 is now available

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote: > It's probably time to turn off 4.0 snapshots; the last ones will > probably be Gaby's prerelease snapshots, and the release should come > soon. That's a good idea. You're right, there is no need to wait until the 4.0.4 release itself. Done thusly. I also u

GCC-4.0.4 prerelease

Hi, The tarballs for GCC-4.0.4 are available for download at ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.4-20070129/ Please download and test them. Baring any major problem, the final release will be made withing 3 days. And the GCC-4.0.x series will be definitely closed. -- Gaby

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

On 1/29/07, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a later ;) simley in the mail and maybe you missed one after > the second paragraph. (certainly you did) Then I guess the question is: what is the scope of a smiley? Does it retroactively cover all the preceding sentences, includin

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

> There's a later ;) simley in the mail and maybe you missed one after > the second paragraph. (certainly you did) Then I guess the question is: what is the scope of a smiley? Does it retroactively cover all the preceding sentences, including the subject? -- Eric Botcazou

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

On 1/29/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Steven Bosscher wrote: > On 1/29/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Email is a tricky thing. I've learned -- the hard way -- that it's best >> to put a smiley on jokes, because otherwise people can't always tell >> that they're jo

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

Steven Bosscher wrote: > On 1/29/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Email is a tricky thing. I've learned -- the hard way -- that it's best >> to put a smiley on jokes, because otherwise people can't always tell >> that they're jokes. > > I did use a smiley. > > Maybe I should put t

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

On 1/29/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Email is a tricky thing. I've learned -- the hard way -- that it's best to put a smiley on jokes, because otherwise people can't always tell that they're jokes. I did use a smiley. Maybe I should put the smiley smiling then, instead of a sa

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

On 1/29/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:24:56PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: > But then to have Mark *support* rth's change, that really shows the > total lack of leadership and a common plan in the design of gcc. There you go again. Actually, there *you* go

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

David Edelsohn wrote: > Have any of you considered that Steven was using hyperbole as a > joke? Are some people so overly-sensitized to Steven that they assume the > worst and have a knee-jerk reaction criticizing him? Yes, I did consider it; that's why I said: > I can't tell if you have

Re: After GIMPLE...

"Paulo J. Matos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've been looking into the gcc sources and I'm somewhat confused. > Are gcc/g++ comepletely independent programs or do they share a backend? In the source code, they share a backend. As executables, they are different programs: cc1 and cc1plus. > T

Re: Interprocedural optimization question

On 1/29/07, Razya Ladelsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Razya Ladelsky/Haifa/IBM wrote on 29/01/2007 13:46:33: > Hi, > > Does gcc apply inter-procedural optimizations across functions called using > a function pointer? I guess that gcc performs conservatively assuming that > the pointer could poin

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

On 1/29/07, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe Buck writes: Joe> There you go again. Mark did not support or oppose rth's change, he just Joe> said that rth probably thought he had a good reason. He was merely Joe> opposing your personal attack. We're all human, we make mista

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

> Joe Buck writes: Joe> There you go again. Mark did not support or oppose rth's change, he just Joe> said that rth probably thought he had a good reason. He was merely Joe> opposing your personal attack. We're all human, we make mistakes, there Joe> can be better solutions. Joe> If you th

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:24:56PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: > But then to have Mark *support* rth's change, that really shows the > total lack of leadership and a common plan in the design of gcc. There you go again. Mark did not support or oppose rth's change, he just said that rth probably

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --050002020005030600040801 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > >> You know (or so I assume) this was a very Very VERY BAD thing to do > > > > are not helpful. Of cou

Re: 2007 GCC Developers Summit

Hello, > >> One idea I've always pondered is to have brief (perhaps 1-2 hr) > >> tutorials, given by people in their area of expertise, as a means for > >> other developers to come up to speed on a topic that interests them. Is > >> this something that appeals to others? > >> > >Sounds good to me

Re: 2007 GCC Developers Summit

On 1/29/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben Elliston wrote on 01/28/07 17:45: > One idea I've always pondered is to have brief (perhaps 1-2 hr) > tutorials, given by people in their area of expertise, as a means for > other developers to come up to speed on a topic that interests th

After GIMPLE...

Hi all, I've been looking into the gcc sources and I'm somewhat confused. Are gcc/g++ comepletely independent programs or do they share a backend? This question comes from the fact that I was trying to find a point in the source where I could get the GIMPLE tree and do with it what ever I wished

Re: [c++] switch ( enum ) vs. default statment.

Paweł Sikora wrote: >> On the other hand, if you are writing a portable library designed >> to be used with other people's programs, you might every well want >> the warning -- because you can't be sure that they're not going to >> pass "7" in as the value of "e", and you may want to be robust in

Re: Which optimization levels affect gimple?

On 1/29/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Paulo J. Matos wrote on 01/29/07 06:35: > On 1/29/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -fdump-tree-all gives you all the dumps by the high-level optimizers. >> -fdump-all-all gives you all the dumps by both GIMPLE and RTL optimizers.

[PATCH]: Fix hang while compiling cpu2k6/perlbench at -O2

MAIL PROTECTED]> * tree-ssa-structalias.c (do_complex_constraint): Mark correct variable as changed. - Grigory Index: testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20070129.c === --- testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20070129

Re: Trunk GCC fails to compile cpu2k6/dealII at -O2

On 1/29/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi! GCC 4.3 compiler revision 121206 gets ICE while compiling cpu2006/447.dealII source file data_out_base.cc at -O2 optimization level on x86_64-redhat-linux. Similar to previously reported cpu2k6/perlbench failure, this regression is ca

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

On 1/29/07, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hope Steven accepts a little deal: he exits angry-stevenb-mode, and I donate him this untested patch to remove TREE_COMPLEXITY from C++. No, thank you. I've decided long ago that I'm not going to work on anything unless there is nobody wor

Re: Signed int overflow behavior in the security context

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, James Dennett wrote: > Therefore, a case can be made that *for an implementation > in which a type has no trap values*, an indeterminate > value must correspond to some specific value. In other > words: reading an uninitialized int is undefined behavior > only if int includes

Trunk GCC fails to compile cpu2k6/dealII at -O2

Hi! GCC 4.3 compiler revision 121206 gets ICE while compiling cpu2006/447.dealII source file data_out_base.cc at -O2 optimization level on x86_64-redhat-linux. Similar to previously reported cpu2k6/perlbench failure, this regression is caused by "Rewrite of portions of points-to solver" patch

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

You know (or so I assume) this was a very Very VERY BAD thing to do are not helpful. Of course, if RTH had thought it was a bad thing, he wouldn't have done it. Well, I must agree that there is probably no justification other than the quote that Richard posted. :-P Still, I agree with you

Re: Trunk GCC hangs while compiling cpu2k6/perlbench at -O2

Grigory Zagorodnev wrote: GCC 4.3 compiler revision 121206 goes into infinitive loop while compiling cpu2k6/perlbench source file regcomp.c at -O2 optimization level on x86_64-redhat-linux. This regression is caused by "Rewrite of portions of points-to solver" patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-

Re: Which optimization levels affect gimple?

Paulo J. Matos wrote on 01/29/07 06:35: On 1/29/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -fdump-tree-all gives you all the dumps by the high-level optimizers. -fdump-all-all gives you all the dumps by both GIMPLE and RTL optimizers. Is this -fdump-all-all version specific? Doesn't work on

Re: remarks about g++ 4.3 and some comparison to msvc & icc on ia32

On 1/29/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It doesn't need to be a small testcase. If you have a preprocessed source file and a command-line, I'm sure one of the GCC developers would be able to analyze the situation. We're all good at isolating problems, even starting with big complic

RE: Interprocedural optimization question

Razya Ladelsky/Haifa/IBM wrote on 29/01/2007 13:46:33: > Hi, > > Does gcc apply inter-procedural optimizations across functions called using > a function pointer? I guess that gcc performs conservatively assuming that > the pointer could point everywhere because the pointer is a declared as

Re: Ada and the TREE_COMPLEXITY field on struct tree_exp

On 1/28/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK, attached is the preliminary hack I created some time ago. After some changes, it now bootstraps, but I haven't tested it yet. I'm passing it as an RFC. This patch is hereby withdrawn. Gr. Steven

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

On 1/28/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's entirely reasonable to look for a way to get rid of this use of TREE_COMPLEXITY, but things like: > You know (or so I assume) this was a very Very VERY BAD thing to do are not helpful. Of course, if RTH had thought it was a bad thing, h

Re: Which optimization levels affect gimple?

On 1/29/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -fdump-tree-all gives you all the dumps by the high-level optimizers. -fdump-all-all gives you all the dumps by both GIMPLE and RTL optimizers. Is this -fdump-all-all version specific? Doesn't work on 4.1.1: $ g++ -fdump-all-all allocation.c

java: mark calls to external fndecls DECL_EXTERNAL

We weren't marking calls to external fndecls DECL_EXTERNAL, and this was causing build failures on PPC64. Andrew. 2007-01-29 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * class.c (add_method_1): Mark fndecl as external unless we are compiling it into this object file. Index: class.c ===

Re: [c++] switch ( enum ) vs. default statment.

On 29/01/07, Paweł Sikora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: > So, now, what should we do about the warning? I think there are good > arguments in both directions. On the one hand, portable programs > cannot assume that assigning out-of-range values to "e" does anything > pre

Trunk GCC hangs while compiling cpu2k6/perlbench at -O2

GCC 4.3 compiler revision 121206 goes into infinitive loop while compiling cpu2k6/perlbench source file regcomp.c at -O2 optimization level on x86_64-redhat-linux. GDB attached to cc1 process, gives the hang point: 0x00711bd8 in solve_graph (graph=0xd37150) at /home/testbot/bootstra

Interprocedural optimization question

Hi, Does gcc apply inter-procedural optimizations across functions called using a function pointer? I guess that gcc performs conservatively assuming that the pointer could point everywhere because the pointer is a declared as a global variable and could be changed in any place. Is it true? In

Re: 2007 GCC Developers Summit

Ben Elliston wrote on 01/28/07 17:45: One idea I've always pondered is to have brief (perhaps 1-2 hr) tutorials, given by people in their area of expertise, as a means for other developers to come up to speed on a topic that interests them. Is this something that appeals to others? Sounds good

Re: [c++] switch ( enum ) vs. default statment.

Mark Mitchell wrote: > For GCC, what happens (though we need not document it) is that the > value is converted to the underlying type -- but not masked down > to { 0, 1 }, because that masking would be costly. > So, "((int) e == 7)" may be true after the assignment above. > (Perhaps, in some mode