On Feb 2, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Unless we have a lot more stability in plugin API than I expect we're
actually going to have at first, I suggest we check something like the
md5sum of the GCC binary itself. (Yes, I see the recursive problem in
building such a binary.) The chance
Dear Ian,
Thanks the reply.
>> Is there a way to make the instruction has to allocate to run without
>> using the scheduler for particular instruction ?
>
> I don't understand the question.
The target we are using supports parallel instruction execution, Max 7.
For one cycle, one instruction pac
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I agree with checking once at startup, but that should be GCC's job, not
> the plugin's.
Yes.
> The plugin should export the exact version string and
> target triplet (and maybe configure options) of the compiler it was built
> to be plugged into (the configure macro
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Taras Glek wrote:
> Regarding versions: I think it's crazy to be passing a version in every single
> function call. The plugin should check the gcc version it is being loaded
> into on startup and bail if it doesn't match.
I agree with checking once at startup, but that shoul
Taras,
On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Taras Glek wrote:
Regarding versions: I think it's crazy to be passing a version in
every single function call. The plugin should check the gcc version
it is being loaded into on startup and bail if it doesn't match.
Since you and Diego seem to be of one m
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 19:34, Taras Glek wrote:
> Regarding versions: I think it's crazy to be passing a version in every
> single function call. The plugin should check the gcc version it is being
> loaded into on startup and bail if it doesn't match.
Agreed. Let's start with simpler mechanis
Sean Callanan wrote:
Benjamin,
On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
It's possible for the plugin to implement every possible dlsym entry
point
and then farm the calls out to each individual script pass
internally, but
since GCC is already going to have to maintain a list of ca
Hi,
Gcc doesn't follow x86-64 psABI when passing and returing
union with long double:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39082
Gcc converts X87UP to SSE if X87UP is not preceded by X87.
I don't believe x86-64 psABI calls for it. I think psABI should
be updated with:
Index: low-level-sy
Michael Meissner wrote:
> I am just starting to think about adding OpenCL support into future versions
> of
> GCC, as it looks like a useful way of programming highly parallel type
> systems,
> particularly with hetrogeneous processors. At this point, I am wondering what
> kind of interest peop
Benjamin,
On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
It's possible for the plugin to implement every possible dlsym entry
point
and then farm the calls out to each individual script pass
internally, but
since GCC is already going to have to maintain a list of callbacks,
it seems
2009/2/2 Sean Callanan :
> I updated the page http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_PluginAPI.
>
Is there a reason for not using just -plugin=? What is with the -f*?
Cheers,
Manuel.
I updated the page http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_PluginAPI.
I cleaned up the formatting and added syntax coloring where
appropriate. I also changed the API to reflect the comments so far,
making it easier to register many callbacks at once while preserving
the ability to register callbacks d
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 02:00:33PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ian Lance Taylor:
>
> > After the e-mail flurry, here is my personal summary of the issues
> > regarding the GCC Runtime Library Exception
> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html).
>
> Thanks!
>
> > One way to reso
* Ian Lance Taylor:
> After the e-mail flurry, here is my personal summary of the issues
> regarding the GCC Runtime Library Exception
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html).
Thanks!
> One way to resolve this might be to say that a compilation process
> is Eligible so long as the
* Ian Lance Taylor:
>>> Your argument here seems to be that linking against libgcc makes a
>>> program be covered by the definition of "GCC" in the runtime library
>>> license.
>>
>> Right. Why do you think this would not be the case? libgcc is part
>> of GCC, so a program linking to libgcc is a
Piotr Wyderski writes:
> The PE header walker is able to
> dump PE sections,
> but they have strange, numeric names, e.g.:
>
> sec[5]: name = /4
That strange numeric name is used when the section name is more than 8
characters long. The value after the '/' is an offset into the string
table.
I
raja.sal...@iap-online.com writes:
> In gcc, while instruction scheduling can it be possible to suspend the
> scheduling for some instructions ? or
No. You can turn off instruction scheduling for the entire
compilation. You can use #pragma GCC optimize to turn scheduling off
for a specific func
Two quick questions:
(1) Is the feature roadmap for 4.5, 4.6 ... published anywhere
(2) What is the recommended way to force 32 bit build on 64 eg 86_64 and will
it work with libtool and all. I have a solution but its very ugly!
--
Greetings, Brian
Eric Christopher writes:
>>> So my question is whether the saving in the size of the debug info with
>>> -msym32 is really worth the trouble here or should we just start generating
>>> 64-bit addresses with -msym32?
>>
>> Generating 64-bit addresses would be fine with me FWIW. I'm not sure
>> the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/31/09 10:06 PM, Sean Callanan wrote:
> (1) register_callback is an unnecessary API. It's already possible to
> use dlsym() to get a pointer to a symbol in a plug-in. A plug-in could
> export a function symbol corresponding to each hook it is in
Sean Callanan wrote:
1- Agree on a common API and document it in
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_PluginAPI
So to get the ball rolling, here are some comments on the API as
documented:
-
(1) register_callback is an unnecessary API. It's already possible to
use dlsym() to get a pointer to a s
I would like to add stack traces to my program (Cygwin/MinGW, Windows XP).
I've already implemented a stack walker, but there is an open problem with
symbol name/line lookup. The compiler (GCC 4.4-trunk) emits DWARF2-compatible
debug information, but I don't know how to reach the appropriate
sectio
Hi,
In gcc, while instruction scheduling can it be possible to suspend the
scheduling for some instructions ? or
Is there a way to make the instruction has to allocate to run without
using the scheduler for particular instruction ?
Currently there is RTL template in machine description unspec_vo
actually, I just find out that this seems a 4.4 issue, compiled with 4.3 the
gdb session just goes fine... I also seem to be able to debug small examples
with either 4.3 or 4.4, just CP2K seems to cause troubles (as usual ;-)
I've filed PR39073 for this, somehow hope this can be solved before
24 matches
Mail list logo
