于 2011/10/22 13:13, xunxun 写道:
Hi, all
It seems that gcc's auto-omit-frame-pointer has other problems.
The example is from mingw bug tracker:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3426555&group_id=2435&atid=102435
g++ -O3 main.cpp running will crash.
g++ -O2 m
Hi, all
It seems that gcc's auto-omit-frame-pointer has other problems.
The example is from mingw bug tracker:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3426555&group_id=2435&atid=102435
g++ -O3 main.cpp running will crash.
g++ -O2 main.cpp running no crash.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:53:16 -0500
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:43:29 +0200
> > Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> So there is no inherent limitation with the GGC machinery.
> >
> > There are at least some annoyanc
>There are lots of parts of the compiler that don't optimize well when an insn
>has more than one output. For the normal insn, just clobber the flags; don't
>include a second SET.
Yes, but... isn't the whole point of CC modeling that you can take advantage of
the CC left around by an instructi
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 10:15 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> So I have implemented the nadd and addc as:
>>
>> (define_insn "negqi2"
>> [(set (match_operand:QI 0 "register_operand" "=c")
>> (neg:QI (match_operand:QI 1 "register_operand" "0"
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:43:29 +0200
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> So there is no inherent limitation with the GGC machinery.
>
> There are at least some annoyances:
can you think of C++ ways to remove those without prescribing more GC?
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20111021 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20111021/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 10/21/2011 10:15 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> So I have implemented the nadd and addc as:
>
> (define_insn "negqi2"
> [(set (match_operand:QI 0 "register_operand" "=c")
> (neg:QI (match_operand:QI 1 "register_operand" "0")))
>(set (reg:CC_C RCC) (eq (match_dup 1) (const_int 0)))
>
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:43:29 +0200
Richard Guenther wrote:
> So there is no inherent limitation with the GGC machinery.
There are at least some annoyances:
If a C++ class is GTY-ed, or is pointed by a field inside a GTY-ed struct, and
if
that class contains for example a PPL data (or simply if
On 2011-10-21 AM 12:34, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hi,
For trunk-version I have a tentative patch for this issue. On 4.6.x
and older branches this doesn't work, as here we can't differenciate
that easy between ms- and sysv-abi.
But could somebody give this patch a try?
Regards,
Kai
ChangeLog
On 19/10/11 01:48, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Henderson
On 10/17/2011 03:50 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
...
(for example, it would be ok to output negqi2, xorqi3 and
addc_internal since xorqi3 only sets N and Z, not
On 10/21/2011 09:13 AM, Peter Bigot wrote:
> Are there any existing machine descriptions that do model the carry
> flag separately, specifically to model rotate operations that use the
> carry flag as the destination and source for the shifted bit? Or is
> the best I can do for that is to have the
On 21 October 2011 15:31, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> we thought to take this conversation to the list because it is related
> to the GCC implementation of Cilk+. My questions to Balaji are quoted,
> Balaji's replies are marked with BVI>.
>
> On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 10:42 -0700, Iyer,
On 10/20/2011 07:41 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> (define_insn_and_split "neghi_internal"
>[(set (match_operand:QI 0 "register_operand" "=c")
> (neg:QI (match_dup 0)))
> (set (match_operand:QI 1 "register_operand" "=c")
> (plus:QI
>(plus:QI
> (ltu:QI
On 10/21/2011 06:10 AM, BELBACHIR Selim wrote:
> Is it possible to define arithmetic standard parttern with operands matched
> by memory_operand only?
No.
r~
Hi,
I'm trying to port gcc 4.6.1 for a new target for which Pmode=PSI.
I have an ICE in size_binop_loc, at fold-const.c:1433 when compiling
gcc.c-torture/compile/92-1.c
Here is the back trace
#1 0x0060f8f3 in size_binop_loc (loc=0, code=PLUS_EXPR,
arg0=0x2e8d8150, arg1=0x2e8
Hello everyone,
we thought to take this conversation to the list because it is related
to the GCC implementation of Cilk+. My questions to Balaji are quoted,
Balaji's replies are marked with BVI>.
On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 10:42 -0700, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > 1) Implicit syncs are said to be called
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 21:30, Cary Coutant wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebugFission
>
> I expect we'll be ready to merge our work into trunk when Stage 1
> opens for GCC 4.8.
>
> Any objections? Is it OK to make a git-only branch?
Anyone with SVN write access can create a new branch. Th
Hi,
My target has arithmetic instruction whose operands can ONLY be memory
(offseted, post/pre inc, ...).
For example 'add' can only have a memory operand as its first operand :
add mem($C1), $C2, $C3
I tried to simply write the addsi3 pattern with using memory_operand as
predicate for oper
Quoting "Paulo J. Matos" :
This is a very strange insn indeed:
(set (ge (reg:QI 0 AH [orig:26 w ] [26])
(const_int 0 [0]))
(plus:QI (plus:QI (ltu:QI (reg:CC 13 CC)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(lt (reg:QI 0 AH [orig:30 a ] [30])
(const_int 0 [0])))
On 21/10/11 10:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/20/2011 07:46 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
However, it failed to compile libgcc with:
../../../../../../../devHost/gcc46/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:272:1:
internal compiler error: in df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3178
This feels like a GCC bug. I will
On 10/20/2011 07:46 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
However, it failed to compile libgcc with:
../../../../../../../devHost/gcc46/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:272:1:
internal compiler error: in df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3178
This feels like a GCC bug. I will try to get a better look at it tomorrow.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:13:46 +0200 (CEST)
> Marc Glisse wrote:
>
>> Can't you use GTY-ed memory in PPL? Sorry for the naive question, but
>> std::vector can take an allocator parameter, gmp lets you specify an
>> allocation function..
23 matches
Mail list logo
