On Apr 20, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
One possibility would be to have a -Om switch (or whatever) that
says "do all optimizations for this machine that help".
Ick, gross. No.
I must say the rule about all optimizations being the same on
all machines seems odd to me
I'd look at i
Robert Dewar wrote on 04/20/07 21:42:
> One possibility would be to have a -Om switch (or whatever) that
> says "do all optimizations for this machine that help".
I think this is a good compromise. I personally don't think we should
limit ourselves to doing the exact same optimizations across al
H. J. Lu wrote on 04/20/07 21:30:
> -fprefetch-loop-arrays shouldn't be on by default since HW prefetch
> usually will have negative performance impact on Intel.
We are talking about one specific architecture where it usually helps: ia64.
Diego Novillo wrote:
H. J. Lu wrote on 04/20/07 21:30:
-fprefetch-loop-arrays shouldn't be on by default since HW prefetch
usually will have negative performance impact on Intel.
We are talking about one specific architecture where it usually helps: ia64.
Right, but the follow on discussion
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:19:28AM +0200, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > Steve Ellcey wrote:
> >
> > >This seems unfortunate. I was hoping I might be able to turn on loop
> > >unrolling for IA64 at -O2 to improve performance. I have only started
> > >looking into this idea but it seems to
Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
Hello,
Steve Ellcey wrote:
This seems unfortunate. I was hoping I might be able to turn on loop
unrolling for IA64 at -O2 to improve performance. I have only started
looking into this idea but it seems to help performance quite a bit,
though it is also increasing size q
Hello,
> Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> >This seems unfortunate. I was hoping I might be able to turn on loop
> >unrolling for IA64 at -O2 to improve performance. I have only started
> >looking into this idea but it seems to help performance quite a bit,
> >though it is also increasing size quite a bi
Hi,
How about a patch like this to support signed and unsigned
multiplication and addition? We can extend to MSUB/MSUBU as well.
Thanks!
2007-04-20 Chao-ying Fu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* optabs.c (init_optabs): Initialize smadd_widen_optab and
umadd_widen_optab.
* optabs.h (opt
Steve Ellcey wrote:
This seems unfortunate. I was hoping I might be able to turn on loop
unrolling for IA64 at -O2 to improve performance. I have only started
looking into this idea but it seems to help performance quite a bit,
though it is also increasing size quite a bit too so it may need s
> It came up in a few side conversations. As I understand it, RMS has
> decreed that the -On optimizations shall be architecture independent.
> That said, there are "generic" optimizations which really only apply
> to a single architecture, so there is some precedent for bending this
> rule.
>
>
drizzle drizzle wrote:
Any developer sense on what it might take to extend the gcc
preprocessor to do these ? I have some experience with gcc front end.
I am especially keen abt multiline macros, so that the lines can be on
separate lines. Any neat trick that can accomplish this by using
#define
drizzle drizzle wrote:
Any developer sense on what it might take to extend the gcc
preprocessor to do these ? I have some experience with gcc front end.
I am especially keen abt multiline macros, so that the lines can be on
separate lines. Any neat trick that can accomplish this by using
#define
Any developer sense on what it might take to extend the gcc
preprocessor to do these ? I have some experience with gcc front end.
I am especially keen abt multiline macros, so that the lines can be on
separate lines. Any neat trick that can accomplish this by using
#define ?
dz
On 4/20/07, Joe B
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070420 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070420/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
> "Dan" == Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Alternatively, filtering by regex would work just as well for me.
Dan> It *is* a regex :)
Hmm. I type "cpp|preprocessor" into the text area and I get no
results. I also tried emacs-style: cpp\|preprocessor. What am I
missing?
Tom
On 20 Apr 2007 11:42:57 -0600, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian> I proposed automatic e-mail pings, but that wasn't generally
Ian> welcomed.
Bummer. Why?
Dan> If people are okay with this, I have no problem implementing it.
If you're taking feature requests, it would be handy to cano
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:27:48PM -0400, drizzle drizzle wrote:
> Ok can you tell me what directives does it provide to do what I
> have said . And I am not a beginner to gcc.
The answer is that gcc provides what the C standard specifies and nothing
more. You appear to want a more complica
> "Dave" == Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you're taking feature requests, it would be handy to canonize the
>> Area field somehow. I was filtering based on "preprocessor" and then
>> yesterday noticed things filed against "libcpp" and "cpp".
Dave> Heh. Guilty as charged.
So
On 20 April 2007 18:43, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Ian> I proposed automatic e-mail pings, but that wasn't generally
> Ian> welcomed.
>
> Bummer. Why?
>
> Dan> If people are okay with this, I have no problem implementing it.
>
> If you're taking feature requests, it would be handy to canonize the
> A
Ian> I proposed automatic e-mail pings, but that wasn't generally
Ian> welcomed.
Bummer. Why?
Dan> If people are okay with this, I have no problem implementing it.
If you're taking feature requests, it would be handy to canonize the
Area field somehow. I was filtering based on "preprocessor" a
On 20 April 2007 18:28, drizzle drizzle wrote:
> Ok can you tell me what directives does it provide to do what I
> have said . And I am not a beginner to gcc.
Then you should have RTFMd by now.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
Ok can you tell me what directives does it provide to do what I
have said . And I am not a beginner to gcc.
1. Repeating a block a certain number of times
for example
repeat expr
foo()
end
Then you can call expr 5 to have foo called 5 times.
2. Multiline macros with new lines
We discussed the patch tracker. None of the active maintainers who
were there appear to use it very much or at all.
This is because it does not enable them to easily review patches, only
to see which they have missed ;)
I proposed
automatic e-mail pings, but that wasn't generally wel
Hi folks.
I have some preliminary code laying out the tuples infrastructure as has
been documented in the tuples design document.
I'd like to get this out for public review sooner than later, to make sure
I'm not taking any wrong approaches, and folks know where things are. I'll
be reviving the
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:58:39AM -0700, Ollie Wild wrote:
> >Related to this: have you guys ever considered to making the -On
> >flags dependent on the architecture?
>
> It came up in a few side conversations. As I understand it, RMS has
> decreed that the -On optimizations shall be architectur
> > 10) Eric Christopher reported that Tom Tromey (who was not present)
> > had suggested a new mascot for gcc: a unicorn with rainbows. This
> >was met with general approval, and Eric suggested that everybody
> >e-mail Tom with their comments. I personally would like to see
> >
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> I realise no-one else has spoken out in support of me, so perhaps
>> >> I'm in a minority of one he
Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I realise no-one else has spoken out in support of me, so perhaps
> >> I'm in a minority of one here. But it does seem to me that in the
> >> Tree-SS
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I realise no-one else has spoken out in support of me, so perhaps
>> I'm in a minority of one here. But it does seem to me that in the
>> Tree-SSA world, it makes less sense to duplicate standard optabs
Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I realise no-one else has spoken out in support of me, so perhaps
> I'm in a minority of one here. But it does seem to me that in the
> Tree-SSA world, it makes less sense to duplicate standard optabs
> in the backend purely for the reason of keepin
Nigel Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, so maybe as the person who removed adddi3 from the MIPS backend, and
> the main proponent of the new fused opcodes, you get to volunteer to
> implement this? :)
Hey, I was pretty happy with the status quo ;)
Richard
Hi Dorit,
SSE4 has vector zero/sign-extensions like:
(define_insn "sse4_1_zero_extendv2siv2di2"
[(set (match_operand:V2DI 0 "register_operand" "=x")
(zero_extend:V2DI
(vec_select:V2SI
(match_operand:V4SI 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "xm")
(parallel [(c
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Nigel Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I notice that at least the 32-bit rs6000, i386, sparc, frv, sh, cris,
mcore, score, arm & pa backends still implement adddi3 as either a
define_insn which outputs two instructions or an explicit define_expand
followed def
Kenneth Hoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A related question: how is decided which priority a bug gets?
In general the release manager, Mark Mitchell, sets the priorities of
bugs in the bug database. He follows general guidelines where
wrong-code is more important, primary platforms are more i
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 4/20/07, Vladimir N. Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, you have complained that you believe the data structure of DF is
> too fat. I guess that is a valid complaint. I don't see the "rtl info
> duplication" though. You've only complained about the current data
Those frame offsets are relative to $fp, not $sp. *Those* offsets are
the same for those functions. Your debugger needs to interpret the
DW_CFA_def_cfa_reg codes.
Nigel Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I notice that at least the 32-bit rs6000, i386, sparc, frv, sh, cris,
> mcore, score, arm & pa backends still implement adddi3 as either a
> define_insn which outputs two instructions or an explicit define_expand
> followed define_split and associated
On 4/20/07, Vladimir N. Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, you have complained that you believe the data structure of DF is
> too fat. I guess that is a valid complaint. I don't see the "rtl info
> duplication" though. You've only complained about the current data
> structures, but I have
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Nigel Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
While I agree with you philosophically, it feels like (b) might be quite
a major task. A number of optimisation passes which currently recognise
and MUL and PLUS separately (e.g. loop strength reduction) would now
need to
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 4/20/07, Vladimir N. Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did not I write several times that the data structure of DF is too fat
(because rtl info duplication) and that is probably the problem?
Yes, you have complained that you believe the data structure of DF is
too
On 4/20/07, Vladimir N. Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did not I write several times that the data structure of DF is too fat
(because rtl info duplication) and that is probably the problem?
Yes, you have complained that you believe the data structure of DF is
too fat. I guess that is a val
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
And I am disagree that it is within compilation time guidelines set
by SC. Ken fixed a big compilation time degradation a few days ago
and preliminary what I see now (comparison with the last merge point)
is
x86_64
SPECInt2000 5.7%
SPECFp200 8.7%
ppc64
SPECInt200
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 4/20/07, Vladimir N. Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am afraid that merging it earlier stops progress on the df
infrastructurey (e.g. Ken will work only on LTO)
There's nothing holding you, and many others, back from helping out,
other than that the work is on
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
4) A discussion of dataflow. Ken Zadeck described the current state
of dataflow branch. It seems stable, and just about within the
compilation time guidelines set by the SC. He will do more testing
and retesting this weekend, and hopes to commit it to mainline
On 4/20/07, Vladimir N. Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am afraid that merging it earlier stops progress on the df
infrastructurey (e.g. Ken will work only on LTO)
There's nothing holding you, and many others, back from helping out,
other than that the work is on a branch. By merging, the
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:15:34AM +0200, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Attached is a first draft of a patch to add a -fstatic-libgfortran
>option. This new option is recognized by the driver and instead of
>adding "-lgfortran" to the various subprocesses, it adds "-Wl,-Bstatic
>-lgfor
On 20/04/07, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> This does sound like a useful feature, not only for
> gfortran, but for all of gcc.
GCC has -Werror=foo in 4.2 or later (with warning option names, not
numbers). That gives you the command-line
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> This does sound like a useful feature, not only for
> gfortran, but for all of gcc.
GCC has -Werror=foo in 4.2 or later (with warning option names, not
numbers). That gives you the command-line syntax and semantics; to use it
in gfortran, you'd need
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Fran?ois-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> Attached is a first draft of a patch to add a -fstatic-libgfortran
> option. This new option is recognized by the driver and instead of
I think -static-libgfortran (no initial "f") would be a better spelling,
for consistency with -static-libg
On 17 Apr 2007, at 16:27, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Kenneth Hoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* When using -falign-loops or -fno-align-loops the corresponding
internal variable 'align-loops' should be set to 0 (= use default
setting) or 1 (= no aligning) resp. When parsing the various flags, a
[adjusting Subject and also forwarding to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 12:12 -0700, Vivek Rao wrote:
> Here is a feature of g95 that I would like to see in
> gfortran. G95 assigns numbers to warnings and allows
> selected warnings to be treated as errors.
[...]
> g95 -Wall -Wextra -W
Hi,
I have built a tool chain for m32c target using the latest sources.
I am using a third party debugger to debug the application built
using this tool chain. However, I am not able to view the complete
call stack. It seems that the ".debug_frame" section is not
generating the correct unwind in
> 10) Eric Christopher reported that Tom Tromey (who was not present)
> had suggested a new mascot for gcc: a unicorn with rainbows. This
>was met with general approval, and Eric suggested that everybody
>e-mail Tom with their comments. I personally would like to see
>the drawing
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 10:24 +0200, Victor Librado wrote:
> Hello all,
> I`m working with an arm core 9260EJ-S under Linux (Linux kernel 2.6.15;
> armv5l-linux toolchain with compiler gnu gcc 3.4.2). I would like to
> take advantage of the asm DSP like functions the core provides. I
> compile th
On Apr 20, 2007, at 1:24 AM, Victor Librado wrote:
Hello all,
I`m working with an arm core 9260EJ-S under Linux (Linux kernel
2.6.15; armv5l-linux toolchain with compiler gnu gcc 3.4.2). I
would like to take advantage of the asm DSP like functions the core
provides. I compile this way:
Hello all,
I`m working with an arm core 9260EJ-S under Linux (Linux kernel 2.6.15;
armv5l-linux toolchain with compiler gnu gcc 3.4.2). I would like to
take advantage of the asm DSP like functions the core provides. I
compile this way:
arm-linux-gnu -msoft-float -mtune=arm926ejs -S mul.c
C
Hi all,
Attached is a first draft of a patch to add a -fstatic-libgfortran
option. This new option is recognized by the driver and instead of
adding "-lgfortran" to the various subprocesses, it adds "-Wl,-Bstatic
-lgfortran -Wl,-Bdynamic". I have two questions about this:
+ linkers other than th
Related to this: have you guys ever considered to making the -On
flags dependent on the architecture?
It came up in a few side conversations. As I understand it, RMS has
decreed that the -On optimizations shall be architecture independent.
That said, there are "generic" optimizations which real
On 20 Apr 2007, at 08:30, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
13) Michael Meissner raised the idea of compiling functions
differently for different processors, choosing the version based
on a runtime decision. This led to some discussion of how this
could be done effectively. In particular if
On 20 Apr 2007, at 08:30, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
11) H.J. Lu discussed SPEC CPU 2006. He reported that a couple of the
tests do not run successfully, and it appears to be due to bugs in
the tests which cause gcc to compile them in unexpected ways. He
has been reporting the proble
60 matches
Mail list logo
