gcc-11-20231026 is now available

2023-10-26 Thread GCC Administrator via Gcc
Snapshot gcc-11-20231026 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20231026/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch

Re: Install page misses Bison prerequisite

2023-10-26 Thread Andrew Pinski via Gcc
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:01 AM Simon Sobisch via Gcc wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html has a bunch of tools > under "Tools/packages necessary for modifying GCC", but GNU Bison is > missing. > > I found it interesting to see that some files like under intl say > 1 /* A

Re: Install page misses Bison prerequisite

2023-10-26 Thread Andrew Pinski via Gcc
Looks like it was removed on accident here: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blobdiff;f=gcc/doc/install.texi;h=3bf2305c8d14181bfb61d112ab3e1c0c2f605322;hp=5735f054317e08b2c5b629adfe72a308459b8bd9;hb=e8645a4001a8d117dd336ea75942aac49101af49;hpb=3825be8c96775cf8e6fcb5eef04455f07717a5ea But it is

Install page misses Bison prerequisite

2023-10-26 Thread Simon Sobisch via Gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html has a bunch of tools under "Tools/packages necessary for modifying GCC", but GNU Bison is missing. I found it interesting to see that some files like under intl say 1 /* A Bison parser, made from plural.y 2by GNU bison 1.35. */ Not sure

Re: the elimination of if blocks in GCC during if-conversion and vectorization

2023-10-26 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 2:56 PM Hanke Zhang wrote: > > Richard Biener 于2023年10月23日周一 20:32写道: > > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:50 PM Hanke Zhang wrote: > > > > > > Hi Richard: > > > > > > Thanks for your advice. But when I try a simpler example like the one > > > below before looking at the co

Re: Riscv code generation

2023-10-26 Thread Benny Lyne Amorsen
Jacob Navia via Gcc writes: > We have 2 loads, and 1 operation + a store. 4 instructions compared to > 46 operations for the « gcc way » (16 loads of a byte, 14 x 2 OR > operations and 8 shifts to split the result and 8 stores of a byte > each. The sample code seems to have a couple of errors; I