On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:59 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > My goal for unit-testing passes is to be able to dump/reload the GIMPLE
> > IR in a form that's:
> > (A) readable by both humans and programs, and
> > (B) editable by hu
On 03/08/2016 02:59 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 21:00 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 8 March 2016 at 16:47, David Malcolm wrote:
Isn't this what -fopt-info does?
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Developer-Options.html
Yes.
One difference is that in this proposal,
Snapshot gcc-5-20160308 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20160308/
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
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:59 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> My goal for unit-testing passes is to be able to dump/reload the GIMPLE
> IR in a form that's:
> (A) readable by both humans and programs, and
> (B) editable by humans
> (C) roundtrippable for some subset of the IR
> (D) can support t
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 21:00 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 8 March 2016 at 16:47, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > Isn't this what -fopt-info does?
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Developer-Options.html
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > One difference is that in this proposal, the output i
On 8 March 2016 at 21:00, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Since the goal seems to be to be able to dump/reload some kind of IR
> rather than a textual representation of GIMPLE tuples, why not
> dump/load LLVM IR? The GIMPLE=>LLVM is already implemented as a GPL
> plugin in dragonegg.
> http://llvm.or
On 8 March 2016 at 16:47, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > Isn't this what -fopt-info does?
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Developer-Options.html
>>
>> Yes.
>
> One difference is that in this proposal, the output is emitted as a
> diagnostic, rather than to a file.
-fopt-info prints to stderr b
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:47:48AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 16:56 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On March 8, 2016 4:42:41 PM GMT+01:00, "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <
> > lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 08/03/16 00:24, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > > > > ...which suggests
On 03/08/2016 11:49 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 03/07/2016 02:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/07/2016 03:44 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
The RTL documentation for ASHIFT and friends says that the shift amount
must be:
"a fixed-point mode or be a constant with mode @code{VOIDmode}; which
mode i
On 03/07/2016 02:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/07/2016 03:44 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
The RTL documentation for ASHIFT and friends says that the shift amount
must be:
"a fixed-point mode or be a constant with mode @code{VOIDmode}; which
mode is determined by the mode called for in the machine
On 03/08/2016 06:56 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> The dumps contain a lot of (sometimes optional) unstructured
>> information. For
>> example, they show both the result of the pass and (arbitrarily
>> unstructured)
>> messages about what the pass is doing.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to get the d
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 16:56 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On March 8, 2016 4:42:41 PM GMT+01:00, "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <
> lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 08/03/16 00:24, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > > > ...which suggests that we'd want to use gimple dumps as the
> > > > input
> > > > format to
On March 8, 2016 4:42:41 PM GMT+01:00, "Manuel López-Ibáñez"
wrote:
>On 08/03/16 00:24, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>> ...which suggests that we'd want to use gimple dumps as the input
>>> format to a test framework - which leads naturally to the idea of a
>>> gimple frontend.
>>
>> Assuming you mean
On 08/03/16 00:24, Trevor Saunders wrote:
...which suggests that we'd want to use gimple dumps as the input
format to a test framework - which leads naturally to the idea of a
gimple frontend.
Assuming you mean the format from -fdump-tree-* that's a kind of C like
language so argues against usi
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Michael Matz via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Jason Merrill 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
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 03:41:37PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 03:18:34PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Dominik Vogt
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 03:00:03PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM,
16 matches
Mail list logo
