2009/12/18 Hans-Peter Nilsson :
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
>> I tried implementing the suggestion given by Richard, but got into
>> issues. The GCC frame work is written assuming that there are no modes
>> with HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode) < 2 *
>> HOST_BITS_PER
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> I tried implementing the suggestion given by Richard, but got into
> issues. The GCC frame work is written assuming that there are no modes
> with HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode) < 2 *
> HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT.
(Not seeing a reply regard
Yes, that was my point. If you want to make a separate section for
volatile, that would indeed be helpful.
I checked and there are about 37,000 harvested functions containing the
volatile qualifier. Next time, there will be even more since we'll be
harvesting code from the FreeBSD kernel in
On 12/18/2009 06:27 AM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
Actually, I just finished updating my 4.3.2 to 4.3.3 and tested it and
I still have the same issue.
This seems to be a problem more than "just" 4.3.2.
Here is the test program:
#include
#include
int main() {
mpz_t a,b;
mpz_init_se
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20091217 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20091217/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Actually, I just finished updating my 4.3.2 to 4.3.3 and tested it and
I still have the same issue.
This seems to be a problem more than "just" 4.3.2.
Here is the test program:
#include
#include
int main() {
mpz_t a,b;
mpz_init_set_str(a, "100", 10); // program works with 10^9,
On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/16/2009 03:21 AM, John Regehr wrote:
>> Hopefully the results are more fair and useful now. Again, feedback is
>> appreciated.
>
> I would also avoid testcases using volatile. Smaller code on these
> testcases is often a sign of miscomp
> Yes I explained it during the presentation (on native vs cross) but I
> couldn't remember in what version the change was made so I erred on the
> safe side :).
GCC 4.2 I think.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 21:02 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > The 43 slides presentation in english is available here
> > in PDF and openoffice format:
> >
> > http://guerby.org/ftp/gcc-toulibre-20091216.pdf
> > http://guerby.org/ftp/gcc-toulibre-20091216.odp
>
> A small nit: you don't need to do 'm
> The 43 slides presentation in english is available here
> in PDF and openoffice format:
>
> http://guerby.org/ftp/gcc-toulibre-20091216.pdf
> http://guerby.org/ftp/gcc-toulibre-20091216.odp
A small nit: you don't need to do 'make bootstrap' anymore, 'make' is enough.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 07:48:37PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Given the lack of progress/bug reporting on ARM uclinux, the lack of
> platform support and the lack of configurations, my view is that there
> is no one actually using it. I know that I don't particularly take any
> care
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 19:54, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> However I would prefer to leave these testcases in, unless there is a
>> strong feeling that they are too distracting. They serve as poignant
>> little reminders about how easy it is to get volatile wrong...
>
> They skew the results in favor
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 07:38:26PM +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > > Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches relate
Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches related
> > > to null pointer dereferences lately? If page 0 can be mapped,
Joe Buck wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches related
to null pointer dereferences lately? If page 0 can be mapped, you
suddenly
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:14:01AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches related
> > > to null pointer dere
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches related
> > to null pointer dereferences lately? If page 0 can be mapped, you
> > suddenly won't
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches related
> to null pointer dereferences lately? If page 0 can be mapped, you
> suddenly won't get your trap.
Page 0 can not be mapped on ARM kernels since the late 1990s, and
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Let me put it another way: I want this function to terminate with an
> explicit NULL pointer dereference in every case.
__builtin_trap cannot be used because the GCC manual says "The
mechanism used may vary from release to release so you should not rely
on any par
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Douglas Gemignani
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What command line? I found this -nostdinc and -I to include folders, -b also?
Here is a Makefile to link against the newly built glibc.
H.J.
> []s
> Douglas Gemignani
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM, H.J. Lu wro
> However I would prefer to leave these testcases in, unless there is a
> strong feeling that they are too distracting. They serve as poignant
> little reminders about how easy it is to get volatile wrong...
They skew the results in favor of the less careful compilers so they are more
than simpl
Hi,
What command line? I found this -nostdinc and -I to include folders, -b also?
[]s
Douglas Gemignani
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Douglas Gemignani
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to know if it is possible to link binaries agai
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:17:18AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > It shouldn't as *(int *)0 = 0; might trap. But if you want to be sure
> > use
> >__builtin_trap ();
> > instead for the whole sequence (the unreachable is implied then).
> > GCC choses a size-optimal trap representat
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 06:17:11PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:09 PM, David Daney
> wrote:
> > Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >>
> >> Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Use the new unreachable() macro instead of for(;;);
> >>> *(int *)0 = 0;
> >>> /* Avoid "
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Douglas Gemignani
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to know if it is possible to link binaries against old
> versions of glibc. What's the best way to do that?
> If I specify -L to point to my old glibc will be enough? I don't want
> to "install" those old librarie
Hello,
I would like to know if it is possible to link binaries against old
versions of glibc. What's the best way to do that?
If I specify -L to point to my old glibc will be enough? I don't want
to "install" those old libraries on my machine, so I just compiled the
old glibc with my current stabl
Hi Paolo,
I would also avoid testcases using volatile. Smaller code on these testcases
is often a sign of miscompilation rather than optimization. For example,
http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/src_harvested_dec_09/076389.c is
miscompiled on GCC 3.4 and SunCC 5.10.
Yeah, there are defin
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:09 PM, David Daney wrote:
> Jamie Lokier wrote:
>>
>> Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>>
>>> Use the new unreachable() macro instead of for(;;);
>>> *(int *)0 = 0;
>>> /* Avoid "noreturn function does return" */
>>> - for (;;);
>>> + unreachable();
>>
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Use the new unreachable() macro instead of for(;;);
*(int *)0 = 0;
/* Avoid "noreturn function does return" */
- for (;;);
+ unreachable();
Will GCC-4.5 remove ("optimise away") the *(int *)0 = 0 because it
knows the branch o
2009/12/17 Zdenek Dvorak :
> Hi,
>
>> > Is there a way to pass to the unroller the maximum number of iterations
>> > of the loop such that it can decide to avoid unrolling if
>> > the maximum number is small.
>> >
>> > To be more specific, I am referring to the following case:
>> > After the vecto
Hi,
> > Is there a way to pass to the unroller the maximum number of iterations
> > of the loop such that it can decide to avoid unrolling if
> > the maximum number is small.
> >
> > To be more specific, I am referring to the following case:
> > After the vectorizer decides to peel for alignment
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Revital1 Eres wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Is there a way to pass to the unroller the maximum number of iterations
> of the loop such that it can decide to avoid unrolling if
> the maximum number is small.
>
> To be more specific, I am referring to the following case:
>
Hello,
Is there a way to pass to the unroller the maximum number of iterations
of the loop such that it can decide to avoid unrolling if
the maximum number is small.
To be more specific, I am referring to the following case:
After the vectorizer decides to peel for alignment
it creates three lo
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FYI I just did a ~2 hours presentation of the GCC project to
> my local LUG in Toulouse, France:
>
> http://toulibre.org
>
> The 43 slides presentation in english is available here
> in PDF and openoffice format:
>
> http://guerby.o
Hi,
FYI I just did a ~2 hours presentation of the GCC project to
my local LUG in Toulouse, France:
http://toulibre.org
The 43 slides presentation in english is available here
in PDF and openoffice format:
http://guerby.org/ftp/gcc-toulibre-20091216.pdf
http://guerby.org/ftp/gcc-toulibre-2009121
If it's the bug being discussed here:
http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2009-April/003717.html
... then it was reported as fixed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-04/msg00562.html
Jay.
Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Found on http://gmplib.org/.
>
> "N.B. gcc 4.3.2 miscompiles GMP 4.3.x on 64-bit machines. The problem
> is specific to that very release; specifically gcc 4.3.1 and 4.3.3
> seem to work fine."
>
> Since porting to a newer version is difficult for me
37 matches
Mail list logo
