Hi,
Why can't we replace function force_expr_to_var_cost directly with function
computation_cost in tree-ssa-loop-ivopt.c?
Actually I think it is inaccurate for the current recursive algorithm in
force_expr_to_var_cost to estimate expr cost. Instead computation_cost can
count some back-end factor
committed in revision 187494.
thanks.
On 05/14/2012 08:05 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
Should i change the section 16.9 doc to indicate that this pattern is
only to be used if the machine can do this with a single rounding?
Sure.
Ian
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> Should i change the section 16.9 doc to indicate that this pattern is
> only to be used if the machine can do this with a single rounding?
Sure.
Ian
On 5/14/2012 6:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
This seems to defeat the purpose, and adding
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wpragmas"
is a little gross. How am I supposed to do this?
The gcc mailing list is for gcc development, not
quetions about the use of gcc, please address such
questions t
This code warns (incorrectly, but that's a whole separate issue):
double foo(double a, double b)
{
bool option1_ok, option2_ok;
double option1, option2;
if (a == 0) {
option1_ok = false;
} else {
option1 = b;
option1_ok = true;
}
if (a == 1) {
option2_ok = false;
} el
Am 14.05.2012 23:01, schrieb James Dennett:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Sven Köhler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> currently, our software (www.lejos.org, build with a gcc 4.3.x based
>> arm-elf toolchain) manages to compare floats correctly most of the time.
>> But sometimes, the comparisons don't ha
Section 16.9 of the current gcc doc is as follows. It implies that the
fma pattern should/could be used on a machine that double rounds the
multiply add.
`fmam4'
Multiply operand 2 and operand 1, then add operand 3, storing the
result in operand 0. All operands must have mode m. This pa
Quoting paul_kon...@dell.com:
I'm running into an ICE due to what looks like wrong register
allocation, and I'm trying to figure out where the problem lies. It
shows up with today's GCC (trunk). I haven't yet tried to narrow
it down to a particular change.
It shows up in the pdp11 ta
Quoting James Dennett :
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Sven Köhler wrote:
Hi,
Is gcc 4.3 still supported? Will there be release of gcc 4.3.7?
No. http://gcc.gnu.org/ describes GCC 4.5.x as the "oldest maintained
release series".
Of course, if he has the resources and willingness to d
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Sven Köhler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently, our software (www.lejos.org, build with a gcc 4.3.x based
> arm-elf toolchain) manages to compare floats correctly most of the time.
> But sometimes, the comparisons don't have the expected result.
> Basically, comparisons be
Hi,
currently, our software (www.lejos.org, build with a gcc 4.3.x based
arm-elf toolchain) manages to compare floats correctly most of the time.
But sometimes, the comparisons don't have the expected result.
Basically, comparisons behave non-deterministically.
We believe, that this is the result
On 05/14/12 12:59, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> > For rl78 there is a comment in gcc/config/rl78/rl78.h that suggests
>> > there should be a tablejump insn, but it's not there.
> The only unconditional branches rl78 has are immediate and
> register-indirect, i.e. "BR $label" and "BR AX".
>
The later is c
> For rl78 there is a comment in gcc/config/rl78/rl78.h that suggests
> there should be a tablejump insn, but it's not there.
The only unconditional branches rl78 has are immediate and
register-indirect, i.e. "BR $label" and "BR AX".
> This is unfortunate because rl78 is a "#define DWARF2_UNWIND
> -Original Message-
> From: generic-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:generic-
> a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Suprateeka R Hegde
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:40 PM
> To: generic-...@googlegroups.com; 'GCC Development'; 'Binutils'; 'GNU C
> Library'; 'Ansari, Zia'
> Subject: RE: Add ST
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/14/2012 10:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Support for the x32 psABI:
>>
>> http://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
>>
>> is added in Linux kernel 3.4-rc1. X32 uses the ILP32 model for x86-64
>> instruction set with size of long and
On 05/14/2012 10:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Support for the x32 psABI:
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
>
> is added in Linux kernel 3.4-rc1. X32 uses the ILP32 model for x86-64
> instruction set with size of long and pointers == 4 bytes. X32 is
> already supported in GCC 4.7.0 an
Hi,
Support for the x32 psABI:
http://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
is added in Linux kernel 3.4-rc1. X32 uses the ILP32 model for x86-64
instruction set with size of long and pointers == 4 bytes. X32 is
already supported in GCC 4.7.0 and binutils 2.22. I am now working
to integrate x32 suppo
> -Original Message-
> From: generic-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:generic-
> a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lowell, Randy
> Sent: 14 May 2012 07:12 PM
> To: generic-...@googlegroups.com; GCC Development; Binutils; GNU C
> Library; Ansari, Zia
> Subject: RE: Add STB_SECONDARY to gABI
>
I've just merged cxx-conversion up to rev 187449.
Diego.
How about stating that the behavior of
STB_SECONDARY symbols in areas not specified
by this proposal matches that of STB_WEAK?
For example, we may not want to go into
runtime details when an unresolved-hence-zero-valued
secondary reference (type STT_FUNC) is hit at runtime.
In such instances let
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/12/12 06:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> * toplev.c (process_options): Fail for sjlj exceptions if the
>> target machine
>> has no casesi insn and no tablejump insn.
>
> Looks good. How many targets have neither case/
I'm running into an ICE due to what looks like wrong register allocation, and
I'm trying to figure out where the problem lies. It shows up with today's GCC
(trunk). I haven't yet tried to narrow it down to a particular change.
It shows up in the pdp11 target, -O2. Not clear that this is pdp11
On 05/12/12 06:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> * toplev.c (process_options): Fail for sjlj exceptions if the
> target machine
> has no casesi insn and no tablejump insn.
Looks good. How many targets have neither case/tablejump?
r~
Postovani,
Prvi centar koji svim pravnim i fizickim osobama omogucuje potpuno besplatno
prodaju svih vrsta nove i rabljene robe i usluga .
Svu svoju robu ili uslugu mozete odmah - vec danas potpuno besplatno prodavati
direktno iz svog poduzeca, obrta, gospodarstva po svojim cijenama
preko porta
This looks good. I just want to check one thing with you. In point 5
you state that unresolved secondary symbols have a zero value. Are
you implying that unresolved secondary symbols should not result in a
link or load-time error? If that's the case, you should also make it
clear that a second
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:24 PM, wrote:
> Quoting "H.J. Lu" :
>
>> What is the run-time result when overflow happens?
>
>
> Assuming you use a 32 bit unsigned base address, and the space beyond 4G
> is unmapped, you'll get a SEGV.
So, when used for load and store, "base + offset" with overflow/
Został przekroczony limit przechowywania w skrzynce pocztowej.
Nie będą mogli wysyłać i odbierać nowe wiadomości do uaktualnieniem
e-mail kontyngent.
Skopiuj poniższy link i wypełnij formularz w celu aktualizacji konta.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHhlZVdORm1lVjU2aXRJUFg
Thanks for correcting me Manuel.
I am just getting acquainted with GCC4.7, good to know that information
has been added.
Cheers,
Paulo Matos
On 14/05/12 10:07, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
This information is incorrect.
GCC tracks macro expansion information since GCC 4.7, and it has been
fur
This information is incorrect.
GCC tracks macro expansion information since GCC 4.7, and it has been
further improved and enabled by default in GCC 4.8. See the option
ftrack-macro-expansion and the interface located in
libcpp/include/line-map.h.
If you have trouble understanding the interface, f
Hi Alberto,
As far as I understand it you want to know if a statement was expanded
from a preprocessor macro, right?
This isn't possible. The preprocessor is a separate thing altogether and
I doubt any preprocessing information remains for the compiler proper to
deal with.
Cheers,
Paulo M
Hello.
I'am developing an statement detector for c++ and I would like to
detect if an statement is expanded from macro.
Can I detect in ast tree if an statement is expanded code from macro?
Thanks.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> On May 13, 2012, at 21:17, amyl...@spamcop.net wrote:
>> The expectation is wrap-around. Note that loop strenght reduction can
>> cause assumed wrap-around semantics in RTL for strictly conforming C input
>> where no such wrap-around is in e
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:58 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am trying to optimize memory address for x32. X32 runs in 64-bit mode.
>>> 64-bit address is base + index * scale +
33 matches
Mail list logo
