gcc-4.8-20130815 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.8-20130815 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20130815/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

ORDER INFORMATION

Sir/Madam PRODUCT INQUIRY LETTER Our company is interested in your product that we saw in trading site Please quote us the following to enable us submit our Purchasing order immediately. 1.The minimum Order Quantity 2.Delivery time 3.The payment term and other terms and

Re: Questions about LTO infrastructure and pragma omp target

Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:36:39PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: >> 2. The second question, regarding #pragma omp target implementation. >> I'm going to reuse LTO approach in a prototype, that will produce 2 >> binaries - for host and target architectures. Target binary will >c

Re: What does the RTX_FLAG volitil mean?

Andrew -- I'm looking at something declared as a volatile "register" so I'm pretty sure it's not a load/store... ;-) Note, I'd prefer not to tell what this is all about because things would just spiral down a rathole and I need to solve a problem... -- Gary -- View this message in context: ht

Re: ssa-pre-21.c / PRE for truncated indices

On 8/15/13 1:35 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > I see that gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-21.c fails for avr. > The computation of k + 1L is done as unsigned int (16 bit), > but later ++k is performed as unsigned long (32 bit), and thus > array[k+1] is not re-used. > > Is this to be considered a big in the o

Re: Questions about LTO infrastructure and pragma omp target

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:36:39PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > 2. The second question, regarding #pragma omp target implementation. > I'm going to reuse LTO approach in a prototype, that will produce 2 > binaries - for host and target architectures. Target binary will contain > functions outlined

Questions about LTO infrastructure and pragma omp target

Hi All, I'm trying to figure out how LTO infrastructure works on a high level. I want to make sure that I understand this correctly. Could you please help me with that? 1. Execution flow. As far as I understood, there are 2 modes of operation - with/without LTO plugin. Below are the execution

Re: converting rtx object to the assembly instruction.

David Malcolm wrote: [...] > Out of interest, how portable is open_memstream (and if not, is there a > good portable way of doing this)? I have to do similar things in my > python plugin for GCC, and currently I'm using fmemopen. IIRC that > latter one is not available on OS X, and was one of the

ssa-pre-21.c / PRE for truncated indices

I see that gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-21.c fails for avr. The computation of k + 1L is done as unsigned int (16 bit), but later ++k is performed as unsigned long (32 bit), and thus array[k+1] is not re-used. Is this to be considered a big in the optimizers for not optimizing this, or in the testsuit

assign_parm_find_data_types question

Hi, In GCC 4.7.2 in function.c, inside assign_parm_find_data_types there is distinction between passed and nominal mode. nominal_type = TREE_TYPE (parm); passed_type = DECL_ARG_TYPE (parm); Next data->passed_pointer is set to true if passed_type should pass by reference. Consider synthetic code