On 13 February 2014 20:47, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On a related note, would a patch to officially enable
> -Wmissing-declarations in the build process be well regarded?
What would be the advantage?
> Since
> -Wmissing-prototypes is currently enabled, I assume it is the
> intention of the GCC devs
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> The control dependency should order subsequent stores, at least assuming
> that "a" and "b" don't start off with identical stores that the compiler
> could pull out of the "if" and merge. The same might also be true for ?:
> for all I k
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:53:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 09:44 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you point to it? Because I can find a draft standard, and it sure
> >> as hell does *not* contain any
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 09:44 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> Can you point to it? Because I can find a draft standard, and it sure
>> as hell does *not* contain any clarity of the model. It has a *lot* of
>> verbiage, but it's pretty much
On 19 February 2014 23:19, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> With the unified assembly format, you should not need those
> .arm/.thumb and in fact emitting them can make things even worse.
If only we could get rid or all pre-UAL inline assembly on the planet... :)
The has been the only reason why we added
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 11:58, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> I agree that having an unrecognised asm shouldn't be a hard error until
>> assembly time though. Saleem, is the problem that this is being rejected
>> earlier?
>
> Hi Andrew, Richard,
On 19 February 2014 11:58, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> I agree that having an unrecognised asm shouldn't be a hard error until
> assembly time though. Saleem, is the problem that this is being rejected
> earlier?
Hi Andrew, Richard,
Thanks for your reviews! We agree that we should actually just
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 06:55:51PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 07:14 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:59:08AM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > > On both sides, the compiler will see that mmap() (or similar) is called,
> > > so that m
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is the proposal to update x86-64 PLT for MPX. The linker change
>>> is implemented on hjl/mpx/pltext8 branch. Any comments/f
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> If all those other threads written in whichever way use the same memory
> model and ABI for synchronization (e.g., choice of HW barriers for a
> certain memory_order), it doesn't matter whether it's a hardware thread,
> microcode, whatever
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > > Non-ODR types born from other frontends will then need to be made to
> > > > alias all the ODR variants that can be done by storing them into the
> > > > current canonical type hash.
> > > > (I wonder if we want to support cross language aliasi
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 07:23 -0800, David Lang wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 22:40 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:21:56PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >>> Well, that's how atomics that aren't volatile are defined in t
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 07:14 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:59:08AM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 14:58 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:40:15PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > > xagsmtp4.20140218214207.8...@vmsd
On 2/19/2014, 6:54 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
Vlad,
When fixing PR60169, I found that reload fail to assert
verify_initial_elim_offsets ()
if (insns_need_reload != 0 || something_needs_elimination
|| something_needs_operands_changed)
{
HOST_WIDE_INT old_frame_size = get_frame_size
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:59:08AM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 14:58 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:40:15PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > xagsmtp4.20140218214207.8...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
> > > X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com (XAGS
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 22:40 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:21:56PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
Well, that's how atomics that aren't volatile are defined in the
standard. I can see that you want something else too, but that d
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 14:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >>
> >> So imagine that you have some clever global optimizer that sees that
> >> the program never ever actually sets the dirty bit at all in any
> >> thread, and then uses that kin
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > Non-ODR types born from other frontends will then need to be made to
> > > alias all the ODR variants that can be done by storing them into the
> > > current canonical type hash.
> > > (I wonder if we want to support cross language aliasing for non-P
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool
> wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> I am sending this at the behest of Renato. I have been working on the ARM
>> integrated assembler in LLVM and came across an interesting item in the Linux
>> kernel.
>>
>> I am wondering if this
Vlad,
When fixing PR60169, I found that reload fail to assert
verify_initial_elim_offsets ()
if (insns_need_reload != 0 || something_needs_elimination
|| something_needs_operands_changed)
{
HOST_WIDE_INT old_frame_size = get_frame_size ();
reload_as_needed (global);
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:07:02PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > Its not only hardware; also the kernel/user boundary has this same
> > problem. We cannot a-priory say what userspace will do; in fact, because
> > we're a general purpose OS, we must assume it will willfully try its
> > bestest to
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 22:47 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:21:56PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > Yes, I do. But that seems to be "volatile" territory. It crosses the
> > boundaries of the abstract machine, and thus is input/output. Which
> > fraction of your atomic
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 14:58 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:40:15PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp4.20140218214207.8...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
> > X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP4 at VMSDVM9)
> >
> > On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 09:16 -0800, Paul E. McK
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 22:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 4.Some drivers allow user-mode code to mmap() some of their
> > > state. Any changes undertaken by the user-mode code would
> > > be invisible to the compiler.
> >
> > A good point, but a compiler that doesn't try to (inco
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 23:48 +, Peter Sewell wrote:
> On 18 February 2014 20:43, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 12:12 +, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> Several of you have said that the standard and compiler should not
> >> permit speculative writes of atomics, or (effectively) t
25 matches
Mail list logo
