> The effect on runtime is not correlated to
> either (which means the vectorizer cost model is rather bad), but integer
> code usually does not benefit at all.
The cost model does need some tuning. For instance, GCC vectorizer
does peeling aggressively, but peeling in many cases can be avoided
w
9 ОСНОВНЫХ СОСТАВЛЯЮЩИХ УСПЕШНОЙ PAСCЫЛКИ
1. ПРАВИЛЬНО СДЕЛАННЫЙ МАКЕТ:
- Maкeт не должен быть слишком маленьким или очень большим.
- Maкeт не должен содержать картинки (они не проходят фильры).
2. НИЗКАЯ СТОИМОСТЬ РЕКЛАМЫ:
- Приобретя две рассылки - Вы получите третью в подарок!
3. ОБЪЕМ ОТПР
9 ГЛАВНЫХ КОМПОНЕНТОВ РЕЗУЛЬТАТИВНОЙ PAСCЫЛКИ
1. ГРАМОТНО СОСТАВЛЕННЫЙ МАКЕТ:
- Maкeт не должен быть очень маленьким или слишком большим.
- Он не должен включать в себя картинки (они плохо проходят фильры).
2. НИЗКАЯ СТОИМОСТЬ РЕКЛАМЫ:
- Зaкaзав две рассылки - Вы получаете 3-ю в бесплатно!
3.
Hi!
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:43:13PM +0200, Stephen Röttger wrote:
> Approach:
> The basic idea of the thesis is to record all addresses that are
> assigned to a function pointer variable at some place in the program (or
> in one of the shared libraries) and if a function pointer is called,
> ve
Hi,
Now that we have transitioned to C++, do we still need to use
placebo like XNEW and XNEWVEC in GCC source code proper?
(I am not talking about uses in liberty.)
Note that XNEW in particular does not work for types with
non-default constructors.
We introduced these macros so that they take ca
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Terry Guo wrote:
> them to linker. When there is only one compatible library, the linker can
> find it by searching all paths, the whole thing can work. But when there are
> more than one compatible libraries spread in different paths, I am not sure
> it works. You can try it
> Martin Jambor :
> Well, IIRC mostly worries about history. SVN claims to be able to
> track history of renamed files but I use the git mirror now and I
> wonder what the history would show there. I would consider it very
> unfortunate if 'git blame' did not show the .c era history of the
>
> What is performance impact for program that just qsorts big array? It
> looks like worst case scenario for me.
I just put together a quick test program that sorts an array of 10^6
integers and stopped the execution time using "time". The results are as
follows (+- 0,01s):
protection disabled,
One problem I have with the vectorizer on by default is that it
enables tree loop unrolling, which sometimes generates quite
bloated/weird code and it's unclear if it helps.
Would it be possible to only do the unrolling when vectorizing?
Also I suspect the trade off on vectorizing is different
b
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:43:13PM +0200, Stephen Röttger wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to present you my master's thesis "Malicious Code Execution
> Prevention through Function Pointer Protection" [0] and its
> proof-of-concept implementation [1] for the gcc+glibc and would
> appreciate some
I'm terrible sorry, I've just seen the first couple of pages and I was
wrong...thanks.
The pdf is in english, just parts of the cover and the affirmation are
in german.
On 21.08.2013 17:28, Alessandro Cresto Miseroglio wrote:
> in English?
> (http://zero-entropy.de/fpp.pdf is in Deutsch)
>
in English?
(http://zero-entropy.de/fpp.pdf is in Deutsch)
2013/8/21 Paolo Carlini :
> On 08/21/2013 05:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> ... I went through the recent gcc-testresults posted by HJ, and the only
>> possible "culprit" seems this commit:
>>
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-08/msg00492.html
>>
>> Teresa, can you have a look?
>
> I
On 08/21/2013 05:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... I went through the recent gcc-testresults posted by HJ, and the
only possible "culprit" seems this commit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-08/msg00492.html
Teresa, can you have a look?
I think it's just matter of removing the offending li
.. I went through the recent gcc-testresults posted by HJ, and the only
possible "culprit" seems this commit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-08/msg00492.html
Teresa, can you have a look?
Thanks,
Paolo.
On 08/21/2013 04:49 PM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
Looking into profopt.exp, 'dg-do' is not an expected dg- command. Is
there something wrong with your environment that some other testcases
with 'dg-do' inside are accidentally included in your tree-prof.exp
testing? :p
Maybe I'm simply not getting the
2013/8/21 Paolo Carlini :
> Hi,
>
> and sorry for nitpicking, but lately when we run
> g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp we are all seeing a:
>
> WARNING: profopt.exp does not support dg-do
>
> (lots of examples in gcc-testresults). Any idea what's going wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> Paolo.
I did `make ch
Hi everyone,
I'd like to present you my master's thesis "Malicious Code Execution
Prevention through Function Pointer Protection" [0] and its
proof-of-concept implementation [1] for the gcc+glibc and would
appreciate some feedback.
In my thesis, I tried to find a way to prevent the exploitation o
On Tue, 2013-08-20 11:24:31 +0400, Alexander Ivchenko
wrote:
> Hi, thanks for cathing this.
>
> I certainly missed that OPTION_BIONIC is not defined for linux targets
> that do not include config/linux.h in their tm.h.
Slightly different, but tic6x-uclinux
(http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/
Hi,
and sorry for nitpicking, but lately when we run
g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp we are all seeing a:
WARNING: profopt.exp does not support dg-do
(lots of examples in gcc-testresults). Any idea what's going wrong?
Thanks,
Paolo.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>>On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
Xinliang David Li wrote:
>+cc auto-vectorizer maintainers.
>
>David
>>
22 matches
Mail list logo
