Steve Ellcey writes:
> I was wondering if someone could help me find the right GCC hooks to
> implement some changes in the prologue and epilogue code for the MIPS
> target. What I am trying to do is to have a flag (call it
> -mfp64-compat) that will allow me to generate code in a routine that
>
(gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org would have been a better list)
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Dennis Luehring wrote:
gcc 4.8.1, -O3 -march=native -std=c++11
small example program to check what does the gcc 4.8.1 optimizer do with
const std::vector/std::arrays + simple operations
---
#include
#include
#includ
gcc 4.8.1, -O3 -march=native -std=c++11
small example program to check what does the gcc 4.8.1 optimizer do with
const std::vector/std::arrays + simple operations
---
#include
#include
#include
#define USE_ARRAY
#if defined(USE_ARRAY)
static int calc(const std::array p_ints, const int& p_
On 09/19/2013 04:06 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
I was wondering if someone could help me find the right GCC hooks to
implement some changes in the prologue and epilogue code for the MIPS
target. What I am trying to do is to have a flag (call it
-mfp64-compat) that will allow me to generate code in a
I was wondering if someone could help me find the right GCC hooks to
implement some changes in the prologue and epilogue code for the MIPS
target. What I am trying to do is to have a flag (call it
-mfp64-compat) that will allow me to generate code in a routine that
will use the MIPS floating point
Hi,
I have a GCC regression test failing for our backend for -O3. I am
posting its code below. This might be more of a C-standard question,
but is the optimization case guaranteed not to fail from a C
perspective? When compiling it with our backend, the 'here' labels
actually match.
/* As a qual
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20130919 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20130919/
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
Thanks!
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:38 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Hendrik Greving
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a GCC regression test failing for our backend for -O3. I am
>> posting its code below. This might be more of a C-standard question,
>> but is the optimization c
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Hendrik Greving
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a GCC regression test failing for our backend for -O3. I am
> posting its code below. This might be more of a C-standard question,
> but is the optimization case guaranteed not to fail from a C
> perspective? When compiling i
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:44:30PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> Do I understand correctly that GIMPLE IL is target dependent, but we will emit
> the same IL for all targets?
Yes. Some of the target dependencies are required to be inherited from the
host, some can be tolerated (optimization decisio
On 17 Sep 14:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 01:56:39PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Are you sure we have the same IL for all targets and the same targets
> > for all functions? That would certainly simplify things, but you still need
> > a way to tell the target compil
On 09/05/13 16:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I think there is no point in renaming the existing stuff, we use it for some
Cilk+ stuff too these days, renaming could only complicate maintainance,
making it harder to backport OpenMP bugfixes to older release branches etc.
IMHO just use from the OpenMP
Gerald Pfeifer a écrit:
> I am happy to announce Dodji Seketeli as diagnostics framework
> maintainer.
>
> Thanks for your contributions and agreeing to fill this role, Dodji!
Thank you!
> And thanks to Gaby for his contributions in this area over the years
> and the professional manner he has
13 matches
Mail list logo
