On 4/12/07, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SPECFp2000 compilation time (user time):
machine mainline branch change
-
x86_64 104.8s117.7s +12.3%
ppc64312.3s367.8s +17.8%
ia64 377.6s502.9s +33.2%
Hi Vlad,
Thanks for testing
A reminder. This will happen next week.
Several gcc developers are presenting at the Gelato conference in San
Jose this April. Google is inviting them and all other interested
parties to a gcc mini-summit at Google's Mountain View campus. The
mini-summit will be on Wednesday, April 18, in Googl
Having not read the entire thread, I risk reiterating an idea that may have
already been brought up, but I believe I've got a few thoughts that may be of
value... and if somebody's already mentioned them, I hope they take this as a
compliment and a vote in their favor.
> Otherwise as
> you said
Hi,
I have a mips-like architecture which has prefetch instructions. I'm
writing an optimization pass that inserts prefetch instructions for all
array reads. The catch is that I'm trying to do this even if the reads
are not in a loop.
I have two questions:
1. Is there any work out there that
Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> Jason Merrill wrote:
>> Sergio Giro wrote:
>>> I perceived that many people think that the throw qualifiers, as
>>> described by the standard, are not useful
>>
>> Yes. But that's not a reason to add a slightly different non-standard
>> feature that would require peop
DF made a big progress especially with recent Ken Zadeck's DCE/DSE
improvements. I think dataflow benchmarking will be interesting to
people. Here is the comparison of dataflow-branch as of Apr 7. with
the mainline on the last merge point (r123656) done by Daniel Berlin
on Apr 7.
Compilers f
Dave Korn wrote:
Using a delta is even better than an XOR, because it remains constant when
you relocate the data.
Could someone explain why we are re-inventing VAX instructions here ?
[ OK, 1/2 :-) ]
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG
On 11 April 2007 17:05, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> Adding a xor is basically free and much cheaper than any cache miss
>>> from larger data structures.
>>
>> Using a delta is even better than an XOR, because it remains constant
>> when you relocate the data.
>
> You can xor deltas as well as pointe
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 04:55:02PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 11 April 2007 12:53, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 11:13:44AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >>> The obvious way to make the proposed tuples position independ
On 11 April 2007 12:53, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 11:13:44AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> The obvious way to make the proposed tuples position independent would
>>> be to use array offsets rather than pointers.
>>
>> I su
On 11 April 2007 16:48, Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I had a single movsf insn that accepts all alternatives for the reload to
> work.
>
> (define_insn "movsf"
> [(set (match_operand:SF 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=f,m,f,f,d,d")
>(match_operand:SF 1 "general_operand" "m,
"Rohit Arul Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I had a single movsf insn that accepts all alternatives for the reload to
> work.
>
> (define_insn "movsf"
> [(set (match_operand:SF 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=f,m,f,f,d,d")
>(match_operand:SF 1 "general_operand" "m,f,f,d,f,i"))
>
Hi All,
I had a single movsf insn that accepts all alternatives for the reload to work.
(define_insn "movsf"
[(set (match_operand:SF 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=f,m,f,f,d,d")
(match_operand:SF 1 "general_operand" "m,f,f,d,f,i"))
]
But for the alternative 3, i need a anot
Brendon's point is a good one:
It avoids having to define special attributes in the code, the only
difference is the set of command line flags you pass to the compiler.
It does however mean that you cant provide function level
"enable/disable of static checking". I.e. It will check for all
functi
If you go this way (and require special GC/debugger support) you
could as well xor next/prev too and save another field.
Adding a xor is basically free and much cheaper than any cache miss
from larger data structures.
The only thing that wouldn't work is that when you have a pointer
to an arbi
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 06:53:07PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Self-relative, not PC-relative, right?
Yes. I tend to use the terms interchangably, since if you're generating
object files, the relocation is still named "pc-relative".
r~
Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 11:13:44AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > The obvious way to make the proposed tuples position independent would
> > be to use array offsets rather than pointers.
>
> I suggest instead, if we want something like this, tha
Jason Merrill wrote:
Sergio Giro wrote:
I perceived that many people think that the throw qualifiers, as
described by the standard, are not useful
Yes. But that's not a reason to add a slightly different non-standard
feature that would require people already using standard exception
specifi
18 matches
Mail list logo
