On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 20:10 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 11:49 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel
> >
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 11:49 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> > I'd like to know, based on the GCC experience, how impo
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 07:17:55PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > But we do already have something very similar with signed integer
> > overflow. If the compiler can see a way to generate faster code that
> > does not handle the overflow c
On 02/29/2016 10:13 AM, Michael Matz via cfe-commits wrote:
Also this insistence that all of "trivially copyable" is
already quite nicely specified in the C++ ABI is still not really relevant
because C++ _is not the only language out there_. I'm not sure how often
I have to repeat this until peo
Hi, we are facing the same issue. This bugzilla was opened:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
We were thinking on making a function attribute that ensures that non necessary
registers, or stack frames used by the function will be correctly cleared
before returning.
We think in i
No, you really don't need undefined behavior in the standard in order
to enable bug-finding.
The standard could've (and still could...) make signed integer
overflow "implementation-defined" rather than "undefined". Compilers
would thus be required to have *some documented meaning* for it (e.g.
wra
On 02/28/2016 05:13 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Yeah, let's just say that the original C designers were
better at their job than a gaggle of standards people who were making
bad crap up to make some Fortran-style programs go faster.
The original C designers were defining a language that would ma
On 2/28/16, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The fact is, undefined compiler behavior is never a good idea. Not for
> serious projects.
Actually, undefined behavior is essential for serious projects, but
not for the reasons mentioned.
If the language has no undefined behavior, then from the compiler's vi
Hi,
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But we do already have something very similar with signed integer
> overflow. If the compiler can see a way to generate faster code that
> does not handle the overflow case, then the semantics suddenly change
> from twos-complement arithmetic to
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
>The important part is with induction variables controlling
> loops:
>
> short i; for (i = start; i < end; i++)
> vs.
> unsigned short u; for (u = start; u < end; u++)
>
> For the former you're allowed to assume that the loop will termina
Hi,
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So the kernel obviously is already using its own C dialect, that is
> > pretty far from standard C. All these options also have a negative
> > impact on the performance of the generated code.
>
> They really don't.
They do.
> Have you ever s
On 2/29/2016 5:37 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 28/02/16 21:34, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On February 28, 2016 3:20:24 PM CST, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
I propose to commit this patch later this week.
+ Support for revisions of the ARM arc
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> It is clear to me now. Let's go with
> >>
> >> ---
> >> 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
On 28/02/16 21:34, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On February 28, 2016 3:20:24 PM CST, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
I propose to commit this patch later this week.
+ Support for revisions of the ARM architecture prior to ARMv4t
has
+ been depr
Hello,
Can anyone quickly confirm whether "whining" feature in the GCC Bugzilla is
supposed to be functioning at the moment?
The lastest thread I could find indicates that it is actually supposed to be
working: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00569.html .
However I've tried to setup a whin
Hi Jeff,
On 26/02/16 21:24, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/26/2016 06:40 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking at a case where some RTL passes create an RTL expression of
the form:
(subreg:QI (and:SI (reg:SI x1)
(const_int 31)) 0)
which I'd like to simplify to:
(and:QI (subreg:QI
16 matches
Mail list logo
