On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 08:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:30 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/10/2016 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> On March 10, 2016 6:0
On 03/10/2016 08:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:30 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/10/2016 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On March 10, 2016 6:02:58 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu"
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:30 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 03/10/2016 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On March 10, 2016 6:02:58 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu"
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Thu,
to:Dr.Dominique d'Humières and Dr.Tobias Burnus
from:Mr.Michio Sudo
Thankyou for your prompt responses.
My research was not enough.
I will use the p edit scriptor as it is.
Best regards.
- Original Message -
>> From: Dominique d'Humières
>> To: sudo.mic...@jaea.go.jp
>> Cc: GCC Developm
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On March 10, 2016 6:02:58 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek
>>>
>>> wrote:
On 03/10/2016 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On March 10, 2016 6:02:58 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:43:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
free_dominance_info (CDI_DO
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On March 10, 2016 6:02:58 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek
>>wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:43:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 11:50 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> > wrote:
> > > On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, D
On March 10, 2016 6:02:58 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek
>wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:43:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
Since convert_sc
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:43:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> > free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>>>
>>> Since convert_scalars_to_vector may add instructions, dominance
>>> info is no lo
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:43:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>>
>> Since convert_scalars_to_vector may add instructions, dominance
>> info is no longer up to date.
>
> Adding instructions doesn't change
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:43:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>
> Since convert_scalars_to_vector may add instructions, dominance
> info is no longer up to date.
Adding instructions doesn't change anything on the dominance info, just
cfg manipulations that don
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:41 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:16 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Richard Biener
> >>> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:41 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:16 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> convert_scalar
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:16 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
convert_scalars_to_vector in i386.c calls
calculate_dominance_
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:16 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> convert_scalars_to_vector in i386.c calls
>>>
>>> calculate_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>>>
>>> Shouldn't it call
>>>
>>> free_do
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> convert_scalars_to_vector in i386.c calls
>>
>> calculate_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>>
>> Shouldn't it call
>>
>> free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>>
>> after it is done like ot
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> convert_scalars_to_vector in i386.c calls
>
> calculate_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>
> Shouldn't it call
>
> free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>
> after it is done like other places where calculate_dominance_info is used?
Only if it inva
convert_scalars_to_vector in i386.c calls
calculate_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
Shouldn't it call
free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
after it is done like other places where calculate_dominance_info is used?
When I extend the STV pass to 64-bit and put the 64-bit STV pass before
the CSE
Status
==
GCC trunk is still in regression and documentation fixes stage.
We're now half-way through our usual period of shaking out regressions
before a new release which would be released mid April if we can trust
past years experience.
The number of serious regressions has decreased sign
Hi all,
I'm hoping to get the opinions from users/devs in general and hope you
can forgive my post.
---
To start I'm really annoyed over the past couple of years for what
claim to be open standards, but in fact are only pay-to-play or just a
facade for corporate agenda.
Things which i
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
This way, implementing a library that supports dealin
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> This way, implementing a library that supports dealing with GIMPLE
>>> becomes much simpler. This provides a nice fo
I think gfortran's result *is* *correct* according to the
Fortran standard.
(I concur that the result is not what one would expect but
it is now decades to late to change that.)
sudo.michio wrote:
> I have an trouble in E edit descriptor of gfortran.
> This is a example.
...
> write(*,'(e
> I have an trouble in E edit descriptor of gfortran.
> This is a example.
> (source file: test.f95)
>program test
>implicit none
>real a,b
>a=135.0
>b=1737.5
>write(*,*)a,b
>write(*,'(e9.3,a,f7.1)')a,' ',b
>write(*,'(1pe9.3,a,f7.1)')a
I would like to clear some doubts regarding project.
Basic goals in the project will be (please correct me if I am wrong):
1. Developing FE for C like gimple IR - basically by extending or
modifying C FE (I can see most are in favour of not including gimple-C
into c-family languages)
2. And ad
to:gcc@gcc.gnu.org
from:Mr.Michio Sudo
I have an trouble in E edit descriptor of gfortran.
This is a example.
(source file: test.f95)
program test
implicit none
real a,b
a=135.0
b=1737.5
write(*,*)a,b
write(*,'(e9.3,a,f7.1)')a,' ',b
write(*,'
27 matches
Mail list logo
