Re: [RFC] Check licenses of GCC libraries

2013-09-18 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > Interestingly, the attached script pointed out potential license > problems in C6x libgcc files: > > File libgcc/config/c6x/eqd.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/eqf.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/ged.c

Re: Dodji Seketeli appointed diagnostics framework maintainer

2013-09-18 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Gerald Pfeifer writes: | I am happy to announce Dodji Seketeli as diagnostics framework | maintainer. | | Thanks for your contributions and agreeing to fill this role, Dodji! | | And thanks to Gaby for his contributions in this area over the years | and the professional manner he has been init

Re: [RFC] GCC vectorizer misses an opportunity to hoist loop invariant load after loop versioning.

2013-09-18 Thread Xinliang David Li
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Cong Hou wrote: > First, look as the code below. > > > void foo(int* a, int* b, int n) { > int i; > for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) > a[i] = *b; > } > > > This loop contains possible aliasing between a[i] and *b, and in order > to vectorize this loop, GCC p

[RFC] GCC vectorizer misses an opportunity to hoist loop invariant load after loop versioning.

2013-09-18 Thread Cong Hou
First, look as the code below. void foo(int* a, int* b, int n) { int i; for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) a[i] = *b; } This loop contains possible aliasing between a[i] and *b, and in order to vectorize this loop, GCC produces two versions of the loop, and only vectorizes the one in which

Dodji Seketeli appointed diagnostics framework maintainer

2013-09-18 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
I am happy to announce Dodji Seketeli as diagnostics framework maintainer. Thanks for your contributions and agreeing to fill this role, Dodji! And thanks to Gaby for his contributions in this area over the years and the professional manner he has been initiating this transition (including some

Re: Reload with jump_insn that have a 'set' side effect.

2013-09-18 Thread Hendrik Greving
Yes thanks it worked out exactly like you said. I first made the mistake to constrain the match_scratch 'rX' and then wondering why I am still seeing a scratch after reload. I realized you were talking about a real alternative 'r,X'. Regards, Hendrik Greving On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Ric

RE: mips16 LRA vs reload - Excess reload registers

2013-09-18 Thread Matthew Fortune
> > My original post was trying to point out an instance where LRA is not > performing as well as reload. Although I can avoid this for mips16 it may well > occur in other circumstances but not be as noticeable. Is this something > worth pursuing? > > > Yes, it is worth pursuing. Whatever reload d

Re: [gomp4] GOMP_target fall back execution

2013-09-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 02:52:17PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > On 18 Sep 10:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > ICC prints: > > inp 1 > 3 0 2 1 0 > 3 0 2 1 1 That doesn't look correct, because for levels above omp_get_level () it should return -1. Either the host fallback inside of target construct shoul

Re: [gomp4] GOMP_target fall back execution

2013-09-18 Thread Ilya Verbin
On 18 Sep 10:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > and what test5.c should print I have no idea (does ICC already support this > and can you see what it prints?). > > test5.c: > #include > #include > > int > main () > { > omp_set_dynamic (0); > omp_set_nested (1); > #pragma omp parallel num_threads

Re: [gomp4] GOMP_target fall back execution

2013-09-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:54:35AM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > >> Hello, > >> It seems that currently GOMP_target perform call to host variant of the > >> routine: > >> >

Re: [gomp4] GOMP_target fall back execution

2013-09-18 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:54:35AM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote: >> Hello, >> It seems that currently GOMP_target perform call to host variant of the >> routine: >> >> void >> GOMP_target (int device, void (*fn) (void *), const char *fnname,

Re: [gomp4] GOMP_target fall back execution

2013-09-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:54:35AM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > Hello, > It seems that currently GOMP_target perform call to host variant of the > routine: > > void > GOMP_target (int device, void (*fn) (void *), const char *fnname, > size_t mapnum, void **hostaddrs, size_t *sizes,

[gomp4] GOMP_target fall back execution

2013-09-18 Thread Kirill Yukhin
Hello, It seems that currently GOMP_target perform call to host variant of the routine: void GOMP_target (int device, void (*fn) (void *), const char *fnname, size_t mapnum, void **hostaddrs, size_t *sizes, unsigned char *kinds) { device = resolve_device (device); if

Re: Reload with jump_insn that have a 'set' side effect.

2013-09-18 Thread Richard Sandiford
Hendrik Greving writes: > One follow-up question here. Is it of any disadvantage to always > generate a clobber (scratch) during expansion? Meaning that in the > case we don't need one (we won't split, which I am checking with > memory_operand(myoutput_operand), that register won't get allocated >