Snapshot gcc-9-20190622 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20190622/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-9
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:27 AM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 12:25, Akshat Garg wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:10 PM Andreas Schwab
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 22 2019, Akshat Garg wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe I should be getting a warning like:
> > > > warning:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 12:25, Akshat Garg wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:10 PM Andreas Schwab
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22 2019, Akshat Garg wrote:
> >
> > > I believe I should be getting a warning like:
> > > warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> > > [-Wincompatible-pointer
On 6/22/19 12:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 09:46:52AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 6/22/19 7:55 AM, Jason Duerstock wrote:
>>> More generally, we can rewrite
>>>
>>> if ( x > ((1 << z) -1)) { ...}
>>>
>>> as
>>>
>>> if ( x >> z ) { ... }
>>>
>>> This does not appear to
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 09:46:52AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 6/22/19 7:55 AM, Jason Duerstock wrote:
> > More generally, we can rewrite
> >
> > if ( x > ((1 << z) -1)) { ...}
> >
> > as
> >
> > if ( x >> z ) { ... }
> >
> > This does not appear to currently be a gcc optimization. What is
> >
> Hello.
> I have already sent a patch for expanding roundeven for i386 with
> relevant doubts. I also was regression testing with
> make -k check
> after successful bootstrap build with reverting my patches. Turns out
> do-check fails without any patches applied, Is it ok to do anyways for
> appli
Hello.
I have already sent a patch for expanding roundeven for i386 with
relevant doubts. I also was regression testing with
make -k check
after successful bootstrap build with reverting my patches. Turns out
do-check fails without any patches applied, Is it ok to do anyways for
applied patch? Also
On 6/22/19 7:55 AM, Jason Duerstock wrote:
> I was starting at the assembly from some of the Python source, and
> came across this (simplified) comparison:
>
> if (x > 2305843009213693951) {...}
>
> This is the same as:
>
> if (x > 0x1fff) {...}
>
> This is equivalent to:
>
> if (x
I was starting at the assembly from some of the Python source, and
came across this (simplified) comparison:
if (x > 2305843009213693951) {...}
This is the same as:
if (x > 0x1fff) {...}
This is equivalent to:
if (x >> 61) {...}
More generally, we can rewrite
if ( x > ((1 << z) -
On 18/06/2019 at 00:05, Jeff Law wrote:
If you're going to insist on doing this with an ASM you're likely going
to need to only use registers and constants for constraints since
otherwise you run the risk of getting a stack address.
Thanks for all your clarifications and suggestions.
To optim
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:10 PM Andreas Schwab
wrote:
> On Jun 22 2019, Akshat Garg wrote:
>
> > I believe I should be getting a warning like:
> > warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> > [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> > but in the gcc.log file, I found this:
> > error: initi
On Jun 22 2019, Akshat Garg wrote:
> I believe I should be getting a warning like:
> warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> but in the gcc.log file, I found this:
> error: initialization of '_Atomic struct rcutest *' from incompatible
> pointer t
12 matches
Mail list logo
