#x27;-'.
$ curl
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-asm-with-goto.html\#Extended-asm-with-goto
Locally I have:
Is the version of texinfo buggy to generate online documentation?
Thanks,
--
Patrick Marlier
Hi Peter,
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> I'm currently implementing support for hardware transactional memory in
> the rs6000 backend for POWER8. Things seem to be mostly working, but I
> have run into a few issues I'm wondering whether other people are seeing.
It sound
Hi,
Here the links about that:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CopyrightAssignment
--
Patrick
On 08/02/2012 09:14 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hello,
Could someone please send me the copyright assignment forms for single
contributions and for all future contributions?
Cheers,
On 02/23/2012 09:34 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 02:14:17PM -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On 02/23/2012 02:04 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
Hello,
As I see in my x86_64/linux gcc build and for example recently in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-02/msg02269.html
On 02/23/2012 02:04 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
Hello,
As I see in my x86_64/linux gcc build and for example recently in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-02/msg02269.html
=== boehm-gc tests ===
Running target unix/-m32
FAIL: boehm-gc.c/thread_leak_test.c -O2 (test for excess errors
Hello,
As I see in my x86_64/linux gcc build and for example recently in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-02/msg02269.html
=== boehm-gc tests ===
Running target unix/-m32
FAIL: boehm-gc.c/thread_leak_test.c -O2 (test for excess errors)
=== boehm-gc Summ
renamed to simply itm.h?
Thanks!
--
Patrick Marlier.
On 01/10/2012 05:39 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
Also outstanding is that the return value setup for beginTransaction
needs to be adjusted into the new block. I.e. we current generate
(set (reg eax) (call _ITM_beginTransaction))
(set (reg psuedo) (reg eax))
.Lrestart:
// rest of tm
On 01/09/2012 04:19 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On 01/09/2012 04:04 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 15:55 -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On my side, I was able to fix the problem with genome but the patch is
not clean at all and I need to find exactly where and why the problem
On 01/09/2012 04:19 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On 01/09/2012 04:04 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 15:55 -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On my side, I was able to fix the problem with genome but the patch is
not clean at all and I need to find exactly where and why the problem
9.html
-> Solaris: ?.
--
Patrick Marlier
On 01/09/2012 04:04 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 15:55 -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On my side, I was able to fix the problem with genome but the patch is
not clean at all and I need to find exactly where and why the problem
was fixed.
What do you mean? Do you still see
ppens?
On my side, I was able to fix the problem with genome but the patch is
not clean at all and I need to find exactly where and why the problem
was fixed.
Thanks!
--
Patrick Marlier.
Index: trans-mem.c
===
--- trans-mem.c (rev
Wonderful! Thanks Aldy.
On 12/21/2011 09:11 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
* ICE when lto1 does not have -fgnu-tm and object file uses TM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51280
I believe I wasn't able to reproduce this.
Arg really! For the openmp testcase, I was wrong but the tm testca
On 12/15/2011 03:07 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
on x86_64-apple-darwin11. While Linux/ia32 and Linux/x86-64 don't
seem to be exhibiting those failures any more, I don't see any
analysis of the cause of the previous failures or fixes proposed to
address these. Did the problem just go latent on those t
sage could help. Do not hesitate to complete the list (I
can try to have a look at it) or close bugs (I cannot do it).
I take the opportunity of this message to thank Richard, Aldy and
Torvald for the work done on trans-mem.
Patrick Marlier.
Dear Ismail,
On Fri, 6 May 2011, ismail wrote:
TinySTM 1.0 uses implicit transaction descriptor by default (same as
0.9.9) but you can compile it with EXPLICIT_TX_PARAMETER (Makefile) and
then the transaction descriptor is explicit.
But functions are the same from 0.9.9 to 1.0.0 so I don't reall
nstrumentedCode,&txn_start_loc);
>> ++ .
>> ++_ITM_transactionId cur_id = _ITM_getTransactionId();
I do not understand that...
>> ++ Of course , It would be great to share the study and results with
>> you when I organize my study and all other things.
I guess we will meet together at the EuroTM meeting in Paris.
Patrick Marlier.
and feel free to ask questions.
Patrick Marlier.
On 02/15/2011 05:33 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/15/2011 12:35 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
When I was looking at this problem of tail call optimization, I have
found that _ITM_abortTransaction was not considered as a 'noreturn'
function. Do you have any reason not doing this?
st want to point out that BUILT_IN_TM_START is missing in this
switch/case but I think I figure out why it is ok to not have it (except
in the case of nested transactions).
Thanks in advance for your time,
Patrick Marlier.
Inde
anks for any help.
Patrick Marlier.#include
namespace bench
{
class LLNode
{
LLNode* next;
int data;
public:
__attribute__((transaction_safe))
LLNode(int val, LLNode* m_next)
{
data = val;
next = m_next;
}
__attribute__((transact
22 matches
Mail list logo
