On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Tianwei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it won't query the aliaser for more precise information, maybe the
> code is a little older.
Not at all, the DDG file is for the SMS pass which is relatively new.
One of the problems is that you can't really compute a dependence
"Cary Coutant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We've started working on the driver and WPA components for whopr.
>> These are some of our initial thoughts and implementation strategy. I
>> have linked these to the WHOPR page as well. I'm hoping we can
>> discuss these at the Summit BoF, so I'm po
"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008-07-04 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * ggc-zone.c (lookup_page_table_if_allocated,
> set_page_table_entry, zone_find_object_size, alloc_small_page,
> alloc_large_page, ggc_free, gt_ggc_m_S, ggc_marked_p, init_ggc,
>
"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008-07-03 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * alloc-pool.c (hash_descriptor, eq_descriptor,
> alloc_pool_descriptor): Fix -Wc++-compat warnings.
> * bitmap.c (hash_descriptor, eq_descriptor, bitmap_descriptor):
> Likewi
> We've started working on the driver and WPA components for whopr.
> These are some of our initial thoughts and implementation strategy. I
> have linked these to the WHOPR page as well. I'm hoping we can
> discuss these at the Summit BoF, so I'm posting them now to start the
> discussion.
I've
>
> Meantime, patch below bootstrapped with --with-gc=zone on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Okay for mainline?
>
yes, this looks good.
Thanks for doing this.
-- Gaby
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > Can you suggest a few things to try? E.g. I did --with-gc=zone and a
> > couple of errors cropped up. If there are other configurations that come
> > to mind, let me know.
>
> I had these in mind:
>
> --disable-checking
> --enable-checking=all,valgrin
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 19:57, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on history there's a good chance they'll each have a few minor nits.
Yeah.
> Can you suggest a few things to try? E.g. I did --with-gc=zone and a
> couple of errors cropped up. If there are other configurations tha
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I wonder if other major configuration modes may also trigger
> warnings (e.g., --disable-checking). I tried
> --enable-checking=release and that works fine.
> Diego.
Based on history there's a good chance they'll each have a few minor nits.
Can you sugg
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 19:02, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually it's --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats ("mem" not "memory"),
> this threw me for a while as I was unable to reproduce any failures until
> I figured that out. :-)
Oops, sorry! I composed the message in a hurry an
Paul Koning:
> > "Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ralf> I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but maybe you're just
> Ralf> trying to rediscover feature-based tests: do a test compile
> Ralf> that exposes the compiler bug or feature you're looking for.
>
> Ralf> Au
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Tianwei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Tianwei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi, all,
>>>My current project wants to reuse DDG's infrastructure to get so
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Tianwei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi, all,
>>My current project wants to reuse DDG's infrastructure to get some
>> loop carried dependency information, I debug these code for a whil
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Kaveh,
>
> I'm testing trunk as of revision 137346 with
> --enable-gather-detailed-memory-stats and I'm getting a bootstrap
> failure due to C++ cast problems. Since you've been hacking at this
> and added the stricter checking, could you fix the invalid
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20080703 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20080703/
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/branches
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Tianwei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, all,
>My current project wants to reuse DDG's infrastructure to get some
> loop carried dependency information, I debug these code for a while,
> but have some questions, Hope you can
> give me some suggestions.
>
> 1. my
On Jul 3, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Taking an approach reduces startup time of the preprocessor,
because it
doesn't have to populate the identifier table with tons of
predefines.
I'd hope this is not a significant cost (certainly not compared to the
thousands of built-in funct
Hi, all,
My current project wants to reuse DDG's infrastructure to get some
loop carried dependency information, I debug these code for a while,
but have some questions, Hope you can
give me some suggestions.
1. my platform is X86, and gcc version is 4.3.1, when i use -fsms,
and debug the cod
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Chris Lattner wrote:
> is much better than some mismash of version checking, which isn't guaranteed
> to be right in the future. One disadvantage of this is that it will put even
> more burden on the already overloaded preprocessor. It would be much nicer to
> have a feature
On Jul 3, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
I'd suggest defining exactly one new preprocessor symbol, to advertise
the support for the feature-testing mechanism. For instance,
__HAVE_EXTENSION_SUPPORTED__, or __FEATURE_SUPPORTED_SUPPORTED__. :)
The rest could use syntax like you suggest abo
[Adding the Sparse mailing list to CC.]
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 09:37 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> IMO, the whole notion of a compiler-specific macro has pretty limited
> usefulness. Why not add macros for specific *features* offered by the
> compiler. For example:
>
> #ifdef __SUPPORTS_NEST
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, David Miller wrote:
From: Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 00:39:35 -0400 (EDT)
The ABI is very vague about it. The V9 ABI just displays that 6-word space
in a figure bug doesn't say anything about it's usage. The V8 ABI just
says that "the function
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> The __GNUC__ macro serves two different purposes:
>
> 1. permitting the extremely useful GCC languages extensions which, for sad and
> various reasons, did not enter any official C standard (in particular,
> computed gotos, statement exprs, typeof
On Jul 3, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello,
Chris Lattner wrote:
IMO, the whole notion of a compiler-specific macro has pretty
limited
usefulness. Why not add macros for specific *features* offered by
the compiler. For example:
#ifdef __SUPPORTS_NESTED_FUNCTIONS__
[...]
> "Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralf> I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but maybe you're just
Ralf> trying to rediscover feature-based tests: do a test compile
Ralf> that exposes the compiler bug or feature you're looking for.
Ralf> Autoconf provides a framework
Hello,
>> Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, the whole notion of a compiler-specific macro has pretty limited
>>> usefulness. Why not add macros for specific *features* offered by
>>> the compiler. For example:
>>>
>>> #ifdef __SUPPORTS_NESTED_FUNCTIONS__
[...]
>> Hmm, looks like this could
>> g
Jim Wilson wrote:
x z wrote:
If we want to fix this, gcc must change. And this may
also require GNU libc changes and linux kernel changes, etc.
Maybe you can enlighten us a bit on why GNU libc and linux kernel need
changes so that we can realize better how complicated the issue is.
Because th
On Jul 3, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Chris Lattner wrote:
IMO, the whole notion of a compiler-specific macro has pretty limited
usefulness. Why not add macros for specific *features* offered by
the
compiler. For example:
#ifdef __SUPPORTS_NESTED_FUNCTIONS__
is much better t
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 09:37 -0700, Robert Henry wrote:
> I'm pondering some extension to gcov and its compile-time and run-time
> support.
>
> I want to be able to run an unchanging instrumented victim binary
> multiple times. Each time I run the victim binary I have a
> unique invocation handle
Chris Lattner wrote:
> IMO, the whole notion of a compiler-specific macro has pretty limited
> usefulness. Why not add macros for specific *features* offered by the
> compiler. For example:
>
> #ifdef __SUPPORTS_NESTED_FUNCTIONS__
>
> is much better than some mismash of version checking, which
I'm pondering some extension to gcov and its compile-time and run-time support.
I want to be able to run an unchanging instrumented victim binary
multiple times. Each time I run the victim binary I have a
unique invocation handle. The handle can be an integer; some client
of gcov and the driver
On Jul 3, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Jim Wilson wrote:
x z wrote:
If we want to fix this, gcc must change. And this may
also require GNU libc changes and linux kernel changes, etc.
Maybe you can enlighten us a bit on why GNU libc and linux kernel
need changes so that we can realize better how complic
x z wrote:
If we want to fix this, gcc must change. And this may
also require GNU libc changes and linux kernel changes, etc.
Maybe you can enlighten us a bit on why GNU libc and linux kernel need
changes so that we can realize better how complicated the issue is.
Because there are header file
Kaveh,
I'm testing trunk as of revision 137346 with
--enable-gather-detailed-memory-stats and I'm getting a bootstrap
failure due to C++ cast problems. Since you've been hacking at this
and added the stricter checking, could you fix the invalid casts? If
not, I may try to produce a patch soonish
Thank you for your thoughtful and patient reply. I should probably
apologize for the strident tone of my first letter to this mailing list.
It reflects a decades-long frustration with the trends in the computer
industry, rather than a specific critique of ggc development itself. Gcc
is a won
Steven,
I just created a bug report. You should receive a CCed mail now.
I can see these issues are solvable at RTL-level, but require lots of
efforts. The main optimization in loop unrolling pass, split iv, can
reduce dependence chain but not extra ADDs and alias issue. What is the
main reason th
36 matches
Mail list logo
