Jason Merrill wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> When I mark a PR as "P1", that means "This is a regression, and I think
>> it's embarrassing for us, as a community, to have this bug in a
>> release." Unfortunately, every release goes out with P1 bugs open, so
>> we can't really call them "release b
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 18:44 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 23 October 2007 18:25, skaller wrote:
>
> > In
> >
> >
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.2/gcc/Explicit-Reg-Vars.html#Explicit-Re
> g-Vars
> >
> > it explains how to use register variables .. but doesn't list them.
> >
> > Is there
> (call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI (\"check_match.7758\") [flags 0x3]
0x404a3e80 check_match>) [0 S1 A8])
> (const_int 0 [0x0]))
>
> Q: does this instruction call the function check_match.7758 or
check_match ?
I think that when we do function specialization/cloning (for the IPA
constant pro
> Here are two examples of the challenging RTL instructions:
>
> (call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI (\"stpcpy\") [flags 0x41] 0x401f000 0 __builtin_stpcpy>) [0 S1 A8])
> (const_int 8 [0x8]))
>
> Q: does this instruction call the function stpcpy or __builtin_stpcpy ?
The compiler will emit a cal
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:54:55AM +0800, Franklin wrote:
> Hi, list.
>
> Right now I'm building new toolchain using old one provided by our vendor. I
> have built binutils and gcc-4.1.1 successfully. However while building
> glibc-2.4 it always told me:
>
> running configure fragment for npt
Hi list,
I have a need to understand some call RTL instructions,
but I have difficulties to understand some of them.
Here are two examples of the challenging RTL instructions:
(call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI (\"stpcpy\") [flags 0x41] ) [0 S1 A8])
(const_int 8 [0x8]))
Q: does this instructi
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:20:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >When I mark a PR as "P1", that means "This is a regression, and I think
> >it's embarrassing for us, as a community, to have this bug in a
> >release." Unfortunately, every release goes out with P1 bugs open,
Mark Mitchell wrote:
When I mark a PR as "P1", that means "This is a regression, and I think
it's embarrassing for us, as a community, to have this bug in a
release." Unfortunately, every release goes out with P1 bugs open, so
we can't really call them "release blockers". My judgment isn't alwa
On 23 October 2007 18:25, skaller wrote:
> In
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.2/gcc/Explicit-Reg-Vars.html#Explicit-Re
g-Vars
>
> it explains how to use register variables .. but doesn't list them.
>
> Is there a document somewhere which lists
>
> a) each CPU macro name
Don't at a
In
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.2/gcc/Explicit-Reg-Vars.html#Explicit-Reg-Vars
it explains how to use register variables .. but doesn't list them.
Is there a document somewhere which lists
a) each CPU macro name
b) all the registers supported
?
I need to get the stack pointer when __
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I think that the release process for recent releases has given undue
>> priority to bugs marked as regressions. I agree that it's important
>> for things that worked in the previous release to keep working in the
>> new rele
On Monday 22 October 2007, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > It is also worth noting that just declaring a variable 'volatile' does
> > not help all that much in making it safer to use in a threded environment
> > if you have multiple CPUs. (There is nothing that says that a multi-CPU
Is the new RTL of a define_peephole2 substitution subject to further
peepholing? From the code, it appears the answer is no. The
internals doc doesn't say.
Thanks,
Brian
Hi Ian,
have you had time to look at this? Or does anyone else like to
comment?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-10/msg00092.html
Bye,
-Andreas-
I'm a guy working on IA64 and I need to compile glibc with gcc4.2.
I tried gcc version 4.2.2 to build glibc 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7, all failed with:
internal compiler error: RTL flag check: INSN_DELETED_P used with
unexpected rtx code 'plus' in output_constant_pool_1, at varasm.c:
3393
I also tried gc
In RTL level, it is difficult to reverse the optimization. In our 3.4.6
-based porting, the GCC actually generates the latter code. How to
avoid CSE under such situation? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.
You are probably not defining the ADDRESS_COST or (if you have no
ADDRESS_COST hook
Hello,
I am porting GCC4.2.1 to our 2-issue VLIW processor and encounter the
following problem.
Source code:
#define MIN(a, b) (a:
D.1510 = snr + (short int *) ((unsigned int) toneIx * 2);
*D.1510 = (short int) ((short unsigned int) *D.1510 + 5);
return;
}
Note that D.1510 is extracted a
Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| But in any case, nobody has code that relies on getting an error from
| a previous version of the compiler that would be broken by moving to
| 4.3. Only regressions on valid code seem serious enough to me to
| warrant blocking a release.
I strongly agre
Mark Shinwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - 64-bit arguments are aligned on 64-bit boundaries -- which may mean
> that padding is inserted beneath them (for example if there is a
> 32-bit argument aligned to a 64-bit boundary beneath the 64-bit
> argument). No more padding than is require
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 03:05 -0400, David Fang wrote:
> > I still think that is too strong a position. A good fraction
> > of compiler time is spent bugging out user code.. one could
> > even say the job of a compiler is not generating machine code,
> > but telling programmers they're idiots :)
>
Tomash Brechko writes:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 18:48:02 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Err, not exactly. :)
> >
> > See http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/c++mm/why_undef.html
>
> Why, I'd say that page is about original races in the program, not
> about what compiler should do w
For those interested in OpenMP.
Tobias
-- Forwarded Message --
From: Meadows, Lawrence F
Date: Sun Oct 21 19:12:10 PDT 2007
Subject: [Omp] Announcing OpenMP 3.0 draft for public comment
21 October 2007
The OpenMP ARB is pleased to announce the release of a draft of Version
3.0
I still think that is too strong a position. A good fraction
of compiler time is spent bugging out user code.. one could
even say the job of a compiler is not generating machine code,
but telling programmers they're idiots :)
Every compiler version I've tried has been telling me this for years.
I think this is a very important point. If it didn't block a previous
release, it shouldn't block the current release. It doesn't mean it
shouldn't get looked at, but it also shouldn't be a blocker. I think
the high priority regressions should be ones that are new to 4.3 because
they have c
24 matches
Mail list logo
