The problem is that with new costs and new code for inlining functions called
once
we end up inlining empty virutal function to itself hoping to kill it.
I am testing the following that makes us to give up in such a werid case.
Thanks!
Paolo.
On 07/03/2012 03:18 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
2) Object layout changes to std::list and std::basic_string. For these
types, there is no way to both retain backward compatibility with older
C++98 code and conform to the C++11 standard. The best we can hope for
is to allow old code to coexist with
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Richi,
Let me explain to you what a broken api is. I have spent the last week
screwing around with tree-vpn and as of last night i finally got it to work.
In tree-vpn, it is clear that double-int is the precise definition of a
broken api.
The tr
> I see one case that seems really stupid, and one that's just wrong. I'm
> thinking that either I have something really flawed with my port's handing
> of DImode or that there was a bug in 4.6.1.The port is only failing
> about 2100 dejagnu tests (passing 64000+) and a good chunk of the failu
So, I found the patch to do_jump_by_parts_greater_rtx() by Eric Botcazou that
should address the stupid code and the redundant branch.
Should have done a broader search before I wasted email bandwidth...
On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Alan Lehotsky wrote:
> I'm looking at code generated for a new
Jakub,
it is hard from all of the threads to actually distill what the real
issues are here. So let me start from a clean slate and state them simply.
Richi has three primary objections:
1) that we can do all of this with a templated version of double-int.
2) that we should not be passing in
On 10/31/2012 09:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
> wrote:
>> jakub,
>>
>> i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov 5.
>> I am under some adverse conditions here: hurricane sandy hit her pretty
>> badly. my house is hoo
I'm looking at code generated for a new port of gcc using 4.6.1 and failing
execute/950607-2.c with -O0 only
The target chip has only 32 bit instructions, so it's using
do_jump_by_parts__rtx() to expand the compare.
I've set up my .md to use the CCmode.
I see one case that seems really stupid
Hi,
It is my pleasure to announce gcc-lua:
gcc‑lua extends the GNU Compiler Collection with the ability to run Lua
scripts. The plugin provides an interface to register callback functions for
plugin events, and inspect the abstract syntax tree of a translation unit. The
plugin is useful for stati
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Paolo Carlini
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > whoever a few days ago or so broke this test, can please either fix the
> > > testcase, the compiler or just xfail for now the testcase itself, to avoid
> > > everybody the waste of time?
> > >
> > > If you want m
I was not planning to do that mangling for 4.8.My primary
justification for getting it in publicly now is that there are a large
number of places where the current compiler (both at the tree and rtl
levels) do not do optimization of the value is larger than a single
hwi.My code generali
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > whoever a few days ago or so broke this test, can please either fix the
> > testcase, the compiler or just xfail for now the testcase itself, to avoid
> > everybody the waste of time?
> >
> > If you want me to do go ahead w
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:04:58AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> if one looks at where intel is going, they are doing exactly the
> same thing.The difference is that they like to add the
> operations one at a time rather than just do a clean implementation
> like we did. Soon they will get t
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> whoever a few days ago or so broke this test, can please either fix the
> testcase, the compiler or just xfail for now the testcase itself, to avoid
> everybody the waste of time?
>
> If you want me to do go ahead with option 3 above,
Hi,
whoever a few days ago or so broke this test, can please either fix the
testcase, the compiler or just xfail for now the testcase itself, to
avoid everybody the waste of time?
If you want me to do go ahead with option 3 above, just let me know!
Thanks!
Paolo.
jakub
my port has 256 bit integers. They are done by strapping together all
of the elements of a vector unit.
if one looks at where intel is going, they are doing exactly the same
thing.The difference is that they like to add the operations one at
a time rather than just do a clean imple
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:44:50AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> The tree-vpn uses an infinite-precision view of arithmetic. However,
> that infinite precision is implemented on top of a finite, CARVED IN
> STONE, base that is and will always be without a patch like this,
> 128 bits on an x86-64.
Richi,
Let me explain to you what a broken api is. I have spent the last week
screwing around with tree-vpn and as of last night i finally got it to
work. In tree-vpn, it is clear that double-int is the precise
definition of a broken api.
The tree-vpn uses an infinite-precision view of a
On 31 October 2012 10:25, JonY wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 01:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Status
>> ==
>>
>> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
>> on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
>> like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 06:25:45PM +0800, JonY wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 01:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> > on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> > like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soo
On 10/30/2012 01:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon. Patches
> posted before the freeze, b
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon.
Reminds me of the stable
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
>> wrote:
>>> jakub,
>>>
>>> i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov 5.
>>> I am under some adverse conditions here: hurricane s
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
> wrote:
>> jakub,
>>
>> i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov 5.
>> I am under some adverse conditions here: hurricane sandy hit her pretty
>> badly. my house is hooked up to a small gene
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> jakub,
>
> i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov 5.
> I am under some adverse conditions here: hurricane sandy hit her pretty
> badly. my house is hooked up to a small generator, and no one has any power
>
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:57 AM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2012-10-29), Stage 1 to end soon
26 matches
Mail list logo
