David Fang writes:
> I'd like to post gcc testresults for 4.6.1 on powerpc-darwin8,
> but the length of my message (appx. 1MB due to large number of -flto
> failures) probably exceeds the mailing list's limit. What is this
> limit, and how would you recommend I prune the summary before
> r
Michael Matz writes:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> But there's still the separate point that, when not considering
>> addresses, this transformation doesn't seem to be a win, except
>> in the constant case.
>
> My first example shows that on some targets it can be a win, also i
Hi,
I'd like to post gcc testresults for 4.6.1 on powerpc-darwin8, but
the length of my message (appx. 1MB due to large number of -flto failures)
probably exceeds the mailing list's limit. What is this limit, and how
would you recommend I prune the summary before re-sending it while
keeping
> "Kevin" == Kevin André writes:
Pierre> I would like user of the plugin to give in arguments the name of
Pierre> the functions on which he would like a test to be run. That
Pierre> means that I must convert the string containing a function name
Pierre> (like "myclass::init") and get either t
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 18:00, Pierre Vittet wrote:
> I would like user of the plugin to give in arguments the name of the
> functions on which he would like a test to be run. That means that I must
> convert the string containing a function name (like "myclass::init") and get
> either the mangled
Hello,
I am working on a plugin which permits simple static analysis. I would
like my plugin to work with C++ but I have to take in account the C++
mangling.
I would like user of the plugin to give in arguments the name of the
functions on which he would like a test to be run. That means tha
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > It's only a strict win on targets where the addition in "(q-p) + n"
> > can be hidden in either address generation, or combined with other
> > arithmetic, or on all targets if (q-p) is a constant.
>
> Agreed on the constant thing. But is it
On 06/07/11 16:08, Richard Guenther wrote:
See cgraph.c:clone_function_name, it uses the NO_DOT_IN_LABEL
and NO_DOLLAR_IN_LABEL target macros and ASM_FORMAT_PRIVATE_NAME. I
don't see where a '?' should
enter this picture anywhere.
Thanks, exactly what I needed!
Thanks also to Jakub who rep
Michael Matz writes:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> But what I mean is: even with your starting loop, I'm comparing the
>> transformation that this code does with the alternative, but rejected,
>> transformation of simply treating both addresses as separate ivs. I.e.:
>>
>>
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> But what I mean is: even with your starting loop, I'm comparing the
> transformation that this code does with the alternative, but rejected,
> transformation of simply treating both addresses as separate ivs. I.e.:
>
> i=0; i < end; i+=1
>
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 04:02:57PM +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> I have finally ported my backend to the latest 4.6.1 after years of
> trying to play catch with the latest release version.
>
> I am now fixing some details.
>
> A source file has a function called: lm_change_to_active which, when
Hi Pierre,
regarding your IRC problems, try a web-based client, for example
http://chat.mibbit.com
Dimitris
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have finally ported my backend to the latest 4.6.1 after years of trying
> to play catch with the latest release version.
>
> I am now fixing some details.
>
> A source file has a function called: lm_change_to_active which, when
Michael Matz writes:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > If the target allows (q-p)[n] to be used directly as an address, and
>> > if the target has no post-increment instruction, then it might be
>> > better. But I think it's a loss on other targets. It might even be a
>> > lo
Hi all,
I have finally ported my backend to the latest 4.6.1 after years of
trying to play catch with the latest release version.
I am now fixing some details.
A source file has a function called: lm_change_to_active which, when
compiled with -Os is inlined.
When I compile it with -fno-inlin
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > If the target allows (q-p)[n] to be used directly as an address, and
> > if the target has no post-increment instruction, then it might be
> > better. But I think it's a loss on other targets. It might even be a
> > loss on targets (like Po
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 04:13:36PM +0200, pier...@pvittet.com wrote:
> *** build-melt-plugin.sh 2011-07-06 12:51:07.0 +0200
> --- build-melt-plugin_check_MELT_installed.sh 2011-07-06 16:08:25.186986287
> +0200
I applied that patch, with a slight improvement: also check about melt-run
The following patch on the build script add an explicit error if we try
to build the plugin while we have already another version of the plugin
installed.
Thanks !
Pierre Vittet
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:50:39 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:39:58PM +0200, pier...@p
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:39:58PM +0200, pier...@pvittet.com wrote:
> Hello, I got warnings and errors while trying to compile this rc.
I talked with Pierre, and we are suspecting that old files remaining from
his 0.7 MELT plugin installation might cause the issue.
Regards.
--
Basile STARYNKEV
The problem was that I had already a MELT plugin (0.7) installed on my
system.
I will write a patch to the install script, checking that MELT is not
already installed. this is a 'better than nothing' solution...
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:39:58 +0200, wrote:
> Hello, I got warnings and errors while
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Michael Matz writes:
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> If so, then:
>>>
>>> (a) That doesn't happen at the tree level. The subtraction is still inside
>>> the loop at RTL generation time.
>>>
>>> (b) What's the advantage of introducing a new ho
Michael Matz writes:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> The individual difference_cost and add_cost seem reasonable (4 in each
>> case). I don't understand the reasoning behind the division though. Is
>> the idea that this should be hoisted?
>
> Yes, it should be hoisted outside
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> The individual difference_cost and add_cost seem reasonable (4 in each
> case). I don't understand the reasoning behind the division though. Is
> the idea that this should be hoisted?
Yes, it should be hoisted outside the loop. The differenc
Hello, I got warnings and errors while trying to compile this rc.
See attachment.
Regards
Pierre Vittet
build-melt-plugin: build-melt-plugin: entering build mode
build-melt-plugin: Evaluating GCC=gcc-4.6
build-melt-plugin: Evaluating HOSTADMINCMD=sudo
build-melt-plugin: GCC-MELT source tree is
Hello All
I am glad to announce the first release candidate of MELT plugin 0.8 for GCC 4.6
http://gcc-melt.org/
You can download it from http://gcc-melt.org/melt-0.8rc1-plugin-for-gcc-4.6.tgz
NEWS:
###
NEWS for 0.8rc1 MELT plug
Consider:
void
loop (unsigned char *restrict ydst,
unsigned char *restrict udst,
unsigned char *restrict vdst,
unsigned char *restrict src,
int n)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
ydst[2*i+0] = src[4*i+0];
udst[i] = src[4*i+1];
Hi,
I am Pierre Vittet, one of the GSOC students. I am writing a plugin
which is a simple statical analysis tools. The idea is to write some
tests (like testing that a function call is tested to return somethings
(not) null, or testing that a call to a given function is followed by a
call to
27 matches
Mail list logo
