The release of GNU MPFR 3.1.4 ("canard à l'orange", patch level 4)
is imminent. Please help to make this release as good as possible
by downloading and testing this release candidate:
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.1.4/mpfr-3.1.4-rc1.tar.xz
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.1.4/mpfr-3.1.4-rc1.tar.bz2
http://
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:28 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> I thought
>>>
>>> ---
>>> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
>>> are of class, structure, union, or
Snapshot gcc-5-20160223 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20160223/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5
I'd like to know, based on the GCC experience, how important we consider
optimizations that may turn data dependencies of pointers into control
dependencies. I'm thinking about all optimizations or transformations
that guess that a pointer might have a specific value, and then create
(specialized)
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:49:37PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vectorizer.c b/gcc/tree-vectorizer.c
> index 2b25b45..a6af535 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vectorizer.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vectorizer.c
> @@ -794,6 +794,75 @@ make_pass_slp_vectorize (gcc::context *ctxt)
>
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> I thought
>>
>> ---
>> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
>> are of class, structure, union, or array type.
>> ---
>>
>> excluded
>>
>> struct empty
>> {
>>
On 23 February 2016 at 17:31, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 22 February 2016 at 17:36, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Richard,
>> >> As discussed in private mail, this version of patch atte
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I thought
>
> ---
> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
> are of class, structure, union, or array type.
> ---
>
> excluded
>
> struct empty
> {
> empty () = default;
> };
Why would that be excluded? There are no
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> > ---
>> > An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
>> > are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor
>> > register should be used to pass o
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > ---
> > An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
> > are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor
> > register should be used to pass or return an object of empty type that's
> > trivially copyable.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Richard Smith wrote:
>
>> > An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects
>> > (recursively) are of class, structure, union, or array type.
>> >
>> > doesn't cover "trivially-copyable".
>>
>> That's co
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 22 February 2016 at 17:36, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Richard,
> >> As discussed in private mail, this version of patch attempts to
> >> increase alignment
> >> of global struct decl if
On 22 February 2016 at 17:36, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>> As discussed in private mail, this version of patch attempts to
>> increase alignment
>> of global struct decl if it contains an an array field(s) and array's
>> offset is a mu
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Dmytro Sheyko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am compiling code like this:
>
> int test(int x, int eq, int lt, int gt) {
> return x < 2000 ? lt : x > 2000 ? gt : eq;
> }
>
> and expect that compiler would generate one CMP instruction for both
> comparisons:
Hello,
I am compiling code like this:
int test(int x, int eq, int lt, int gt) {
return x < 2000 ? lt : x > 2000 ? gt : eq;
}
and expect that compiler would generate one CMP instruction for both
comparisons:
cmpl$2000, %edi
jl .L37
jne .L38
15 matches
Mail list logo
